+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 46

Thread: Arming teachers?

  1. #33
    im a ninja-u cant c me bloodhawk may be famous one day bloodhawk may be famous one day bloodhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    some where
    Posts
    1,174
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Arming teachers?

    well i know that at my school teachers are alowed to have tasers becuse of all the treats and what has been happing in other schools. so i think that tasers are ok but nothing more

    IM BACK

  2. #34
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: Arming teachers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    But you're now bringing in 21st century ideaology into the statement itself, you have to look at this from when this was written. This wasn't written for deputization, and I doubt that any officials would actually deputize Joe average during the period in which it was written.
    Actually the deputization laws have existed from the beginning. They are not new nor a 21 century ideaololgy. And yes, those deputizations law apply to the military as well. Just what do you think the well regulated militia it was talking about was?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    As for the apostraphe, it's an apostraphe and not a period. Yes, it describes what types of "arms" they are allowed to bear, but back then, your options were limited to pretty much a musket.
    (comma actually) Not really. Arms meant just that. Any arm that could be used to defend the security of a free State. That's it. Once again you are trying to claim that it wasn't intended to be more then a temporary condition for it time but the wording does not bear you out. Neither does the times. Unless you are going to claim that no one is ever killed by military or militant actions anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    I said in my last post that it was placed under personal onus for owning guns. I'm not debating that. The country had just been created, but there was no real ability yet for the government to enforce anything. Everything was split into: Federal, State, and Personal rights. Gun ownership fell under personal rights, because the state couldn't personally arm each civilian.
    You are still missing the point. First the Bill of Rights was created solely for the purpose of reining in the power of the government and establishing the rights of the people that could not be infringed on, period. If the Government had so little power what were they worried about? Secondly these were people that had had their rights taken from them by their own country and had been persecuted for their beliefs. The first thing a government does when it becomes a tyrany is control it's populace by refusing the right of it's populace to defend itself and the second is to regulate it's religion. They had lived through both and they were determined that it would not happen now. Now are you going to tell me with all the claims of corruption in governments and attempts to regulate religion and "acceptable" beliefs that somehow that has changed?


    You can believe that it's outdated all you want and I will consider that foolish but neither of our beliefs change the fact that the right to bear arms is garenteed in the US Constitution.

    Now, to get back on subject. That does not mean they cannot be regulated and it is illegal to carry certain concelead weapons without a permit. To get a permit requires that the person pass certain strict requiremnets, pass saftey classes, a background check, show capability with the weapon, etc. It's not easy. Why would you object to someone who has been proven a reliable member of society and capable with a weapon doing their part to defend your children/friends?

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  3. #35
    Anti syndicate spike spiegel may be famous one day spike spiegel may be famous one day spike spiegel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Las vegas
    Posts
    860
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Arming teachers?

    hehe A good Idea for me but a bad idea for society. If you are, keep it a secret until it actually happens.

    "I let all that kind of blood away" Thanks Viper

  4. #36
    Otaku Chubz may be famous one day Chubz may be famous one day Chubz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver Island, British Columbia
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Arming teachers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna View Post
    (comma actually)
    hehe whoops, yes...my apostraphe=comma

    Being conscripted into the military isn't deputization

    deputy:
    1. a person appointed or authorized to act as a substitute for another or others.
    2. deputy sheriff.
    3. a person appointed or elected as assistant to a public official, serving as successor in the event of a vacancy.
    4. a person representing a constituency in certain legislative bodies.
    –adjective 5. appointed, elected, or serving as an assistant or second-in-command.

    The militia at the time was a form of conscription as I have already said. If there was a call to arms, and you didn't show, you would be tried for treason. Calling a militia together is not deputization.

    Officers within the military can pass on rank if another officer is killed in battle, or a position is required. The phrase "a well regulated militia" has nothing to do with deputization. The well regulated militia refers to able bodied men being proficient to fight for the country. There is a difference between militia and military.

    I'm not claiming that it was written as a temporary means, you're trying to find arguments that I'm not making. I am saying that the period in which it was written no longer applies to whats needed now, which makes it dated.

    You are still missing the point. First the Bill of Rights was created solely for the purpose of reining in the power of the government and establishing the rights of the people that could not be infringed on, period.
    I've been saying that in the last several posts. I have acknowledged that it was split into Federal, State, and personal rights, and have not missed that point. Certain rights were given to each division, which they can't infringe upon.

    If the Government had so little power what were they worried about?
    The British coming back

    Secondly these were people that had had their rights taken from them by their own country and had been persecuted for their beliefs.
    'These' people that led the revolution were social elites, not down-trodden civilians (though civilians composed the fighting force), and the revolution should not be confused with the Pilgrims/Puritans who were the ones persecuted for the beliefs. The American Revolution and the Puritan Pilgrimage = two different things. The American revolution was that A) they were angry about taxation without representation and B) the american colonies wanted to move farther west into the continent, and Britain wasn't having any of that.

    Now are you going to tell me with all the claims of corruption in governments and attempts to regulate religion and "acceptable" beliefs that somehow that has changed?
    Yes, because if someone said "get your guns, we're going to overthrow the american government," they'd be labelled terrorists, and shot. Look at the crackpots involved in the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas, and those turned out sour. Governments will always have someone who is corrupt, where someone is laundering or stealing money or something, etc, but America is not a third world country where different leaders seize power every four months. While the government will scrape against certain beliefs, it is generally done for the interests of the majority of the population.

    You can believe that it's outdated all you want and I will consider that foolish but neither of our beliefs change the fact that the right to bear arms is garenteed in the US Constitution.
    You have hit it absolutely on the mark, and this was the reason why I didn't want to bring up gun ownership when I originally started posting in this thread. Because when it comes down to it, it is a moot argument since it lies solely in personal opinion. I believe it's outdated, you believe it's not. That you consider my opinion foolish is your own view of the matter, and no matter what facts we put on here, we are neither right nor wrong, as this debate lies only in individual beliefs.

    Why would you object to someone who has been proven a reliable member of society and capable with a weapon doing their part to defend your children/friends?
    Because I put my faith in the police force to do their job. But I think that if classrooms have to be treated as potential warzones, we need to step back and say "how do we fix this problem before it happens?" The logic behind allowing the guns in the classroom is understandable (decrease reaction time=less casualties), but my opinion is that better methods could be reached.
    Last edited by Chubz; Oct 18, 2006 at 11:11 PM.

    Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

  5. #37
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: Arming teachers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    Being conscripted into the military isn't deputization
    No it isn't and yes it is. The deputization laws we have now are based upon the conscription laws we had then and work the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    I'm not claiming that it was written as a temporary means, you're trying to find arguments that I'm not making. I am saying that the period in which it was written no longer applies to whats needed now, which makes it dated.
    ..and I am saying it doesn't matter whether you think it is dated until there is a constitutional amendment made that changes it it is the law of the land. Your pointing at the militia part of the sentance is an attempt to put quantifiers on it. You are trying to say it was intended for militias and since they don't exists we shouldn't have the right but as I pointed out that is not what it says and unless you can garentee that our government is perfect and no one will ever try to invade or infiltarate the country the reason hasn't changed. I find an attitude of removing guns from citizens disturbing since it basically means you don't trust your citizens to defend themselves. As I pointed out earlier that is an attitude I have in common with the author of the Bill of Rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    'These' people that led the revolution were social elites, not down-trodden civilians (though civilians composed the fighting force), and the revolution should not be confused with the Pilgrims/Puritans who were the ones persecuted for the beliefs. The American Revolution and the Puritan Pilgrimage = two different things. The American revolution was that A) they were angry about taxation without representation and B) the american colonies wanted to move farther west into the continent, and Britain wasn't having any of that.
    and C) they were not being accorded the rights of Englishmen but being treated like a conquered country up to and including being taken to England for trial with no representation.

    You are also forgetting that Elite they may be but they were also non-anglican prodestants. The laws against certain prodestant sects from owning guns or defending themselves in England had been revoked less then 10 years before the Constitution was written. The persecution for non-government beliefs was not something that ended in England once the Puritans left. I should know, I have an ancestress thrown out of her home, disowned, and persecuted for her religion till she left England... in the early 1800's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    Because I put my faith in the police force to do their job. But I think that if classrooms have to be treated as potential warzones, we need to step back and say "how do we fix this problem before it happens?" The logic behind allowing the guns in the classroom is understandable (decrease reaction time=less casualties), but my opinion is that better methods could be reached.
    Go for it. Until they find a way to prevent it I'll still be comfortable with trained, responsible, adults having the means to defend themselves and others.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  6. #38
    Otaku Chubz may be famous one day Chubz may be famous one day Chubz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver Island, British Columbia
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Arming teachers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna View Post
    No it isn't and yes it is. The deputization laws we have now are based upon the conscription laws we had then and work the same way
    In so much that if called, you must answer, but there is still a difference between the two.

    and I am saying it doesn't matter whether you think it is dated until there is a constitutional amendment made that changes it it is the law of the land.
    Exactly...this comes entirely down to personal opinion on the matter for both sides of the argument. It's not so much "are we allowed guns," as it is "do we need guns." My opinion is no, with my argument being that the purpose is dated.

    You are trying to say it was intended for militias and since they don't exists we shouldn't have the right but as I pointed out that is not what it says and unless you can garentee that our government is perfect and no one will ever try to invade or infiltarate the country the reason hasn't changed
    The purpose was so that militias can be formed. If the government was out to say "you can own a gun for the hell of it," they would have written that, but they didn't. They wrote it with a purpose in mind, which is to protect the freedom of the state. You're focusing solely on the latter half of the statement, when it must be looked at as a whole. I'm not saying guns aren't allowed, I'm saying they're not needed anymore.

    And no one WILL ever try to invade, because we're past the point where modern countries invade each other for land. Because of nuclear weapons, warfare is simply for destruction for now. Enemy combatants would have their country pulvarized within half an hour if they tried to seize ground.

    C) they were not being accorded the rights of Englishmen but being treated like a conquered country up to and including being taken to England for trial with no representation.
    America was a transportation colony, where Britain sent its convicts, which is why it was not regarded in the same manner as a full fledged Englishmen. And as for rights within Britain itself, those rights were mainly guaranteed for the Elites, because Britain was a supreme class system. If you weren't pedigree, you were worthless, whether or not you were from America or England. All laws within Britain catered to the upper class, as they were written by the upper class. In the British trial system, the poor of britain did not have representation, because the judge was considered to be the representing figure who was "looking out for them." Lawyers were pretty much non-existant to the poor class (who composed the majority), and they could be captured and held without being told for what crime. The treatment handed to Americans was no different than how Britain handled any civilians who were not upper class.

    The difference being that British control came from England, who was trying to enact its laws on a seperate continent while not fully vesting in governance on the continent. America was britain's backyard operation.

    The laws against certain prodestant sects from owning guns or defending themselves in England had been revoked less then 10 years before the Constitution was written. The persecution for non-government beliefs was not something that ended in England once the Puritans left. I should know, I have an ancestress thrown out of her home, disowned, and persecuted for her religion till she left England... in the early 1800's.
    The majority of British history is made up of religious conflict and oppression. It went back and forth between Catholic and Protestant, and when one religion was in power, the other was being killed off. The Puritans and several other protestant sects were considered fanatics, and the government figured they weren't going to allow anymore religious turmoil, as Britain had suffered through enough upheavals and its own revolution, which is why they stopped certain people from owning guns. This was done for the good of the British people. The British government decided to stay with protestantism as its true religion, so they weren't just anti-protestant when they didn't allow guns. They didn't allow guns to groups they felt theatened the religion and government. It was a majority rules thing. And you're right, it didn't end once the Puritans left.

    Waco would be an example of what happened with the puritans. You had a religious sect who were not in compliance with common ideology, and they had guns. The government was like "nuh-uh" to that, and went in and tried to stop them. For the Puritans, they were shunned and left England....for Waco, the group had a standoff resulting in deaths.

    There has to be an acceptance that the government runs the country, and will infringe upon certain beliefs. They need to if they want a stabilized country. England was one of the most militaristic countries during the colonial period, but the citizens realized they don't need guns because the government is generally looking out for them.

    Arukih mentioned that they are not allowed guns over in Portugal, which was also a militaristic colonial power, which has a violent history close to Britain.

    All the old colonial powers have pretty much come to grips that guns are not needed, except for America which was created during the colonial period, and is vehemently opposed to having that right taken away.

    I personally am not 100% against gun ownership. In fact, I wouldn't mind getting my license. However, I do not see a need for civilian owned pistols, machine guns, and sub machine guns.


    We honestly could go back and forth on this forever, because this matter is purely opinional. But as for my preference, I prefer the police to do their job.
    Last edited by Chubz; Oct 19, 2006 at 03:27 PM.

    Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

  7. #39
    Mercenary SousukeSagara may be famous one day SousukeSagara may be famous one day SousukeSagara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    War zones around the globe...
    Posts
    527
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Arming teachers?

    This question is very tough... I guess I can't picture out teacher's being armed... Maybe protection like bullet proof vest and some light knives are good for protection... But knives are no matched for guns... They're more superior...

  8. #40
    Newbie like2play may be famous one day like2play may be famous one day
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Arming teachers?

    I dont think teachers should have guns. even though there are some kids that do bring a gun to school it is not allowed, what would it say to kids if teachers are allowed to bring guns, it kind of defeats the purpose in telling a kid they cant.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. teachers on strike
    By tupacs_wifey in forum Cyber Lounge
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Sep 15, 2006, 11:02 AM
  2. Salary For Teachers
    By Heartless_mage in forum Debate and Discuss
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Jul 26, 2006, 03:49 PM
  3. Should teachers get paid more money?
    By bloodymoonreaper in forum Debate and Discuss
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Jul 18, 2006, 07:28 AM
  4. hentai (teachers pet)
    By daltwilliams in forum Trading Post
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 25, 2006, 06:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts