Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signs into law bill allowing armed teachers

That's the lamest, most knee-jerk anti-gun argument ever; one that you and your ilk can deploy against any gun owner anywhere, and under any circumstance.

Reading comprehension - or lack thereof - rears its adorable head. My daughter has not been asked to do anything. She volunteered.

Via dictionary.com, so you can appear more informed than you really are at your next GED reunion:

volunteer
noun

1. a person who voluntarily offers to perform a service or other undertaking.
2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.

verb

1. to offer oneself for some service or undertaking.
2. to enter service or enlist voluntarily.

 

More so than the the scenario you are advocating for....that the active live shooter be the only one with the gun.

 

When and where did I advocate any such thing? Please either quote me, or man up and apologize for making **** up about another participant.

 

Are you not advocating, or arguing, that teachers shouldn't be armed? Is that not your position?

If so, then that's precisely the scenario you're advocating for.

You just don't like that I've pointed it out in the way that I did. I don't care.

Either way I stand by my statement and my answer to your question. I trust my kid in a situation where there's an active shooter with armed teachers as opposed to no chance at all. You clearly couldn't respond to my actual answer so you went to attacking me....bravo.

 

uh why?

 

some anti gun lefties don't want any chance of a good guy with a gun stopping what can be a feeding frenzy event for the anti gun left.

 

I love when anti gun posters engaged in such a ridiculous fantasy.

 

wishful thinking on your part.

 

is this based on your expertise in defensive firearms issues, or is this leftwing talking points masquerading at a reasoned prediction

 

Just think - arming teachers is unnecessary in the following countries

Australia
UK
Canada
NZ
Most of Europe

in fact the list of countries where teachers are armed is much smaller and included Israel, Kenya, Pakistan (well until a teacher shot a child) and South Africa where a teacher was suspended for threatening kids who were misbehaving.

 

I think it's pretty sick that you would say it is "wishful thinking" on my part that an untrained teacher accidentally shoots someone.

What if I were to say that it's wishful thinking on your part that another school shooting takes place and there is no armed teacher there to stop it? Would you call that an accurate assessment of your thoughts on the subject?

 

Some pro gun righties don't want to try and keep these dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to kill innocent people because of their "free dumbs"

 

so you are claiming teachers are likely to kill innocent people because you hate this constitutional right-most likely because you despise the way gun rights advocates oppose the creeping crud of leftwing authoritarianism that you crave?

 

Your next post suggests it. I think that the ONLY PEOPLE WHO are happy over the news of felonious and pernicious gun use are those who want to ban guns-and that is not my side but yours. If there were almost no cases of murder or armed robbery, the pretext your side uses for trying to harass law abiding gun owners would be even more tenuous than it is now.

 

We are NOT happy over the news. Exactly the opposite. We are SICK of hearing these stories. The way to reduce the gun violence done with these totally unnecessary weapons is to ban the weapons. The idea that you are relying on a "good guy with a gun" to stop "a bad guy with a gun" has been proven absolutely useless time and time and time again.

 

And as far as your signature goes (No movement in American Politics is based on more dishonesty than the Gun Control Movement)

A (conservative) member of the Supreme Court disagrees with you

Warren Burger, PBS Interview 1991, "The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime"

Also from Justice Burger for an article written for the Associated Press, also 1991 - "the real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies, the militia, would be maintained for the defense of the state" — and the third part — "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires"

 

just stop, you all are not demonstrating that alleged disgust because most -if not all-of your ire is directed at gun rights advocates, the NRA and GOP politicians, not the felons who cause 80% of the murders nor the liberal judges and Soros supported DAs (like that oozing POS Bragg) who are soft on street criminals, gang bangers and sociopathic thugs.

You have neither the understanding of firearms or of firearms laws to claim the weapons you want to ban are "unnecessary". And you prove my point. You want to harass lawful gun owners not felons

 

Warren Burger was one of the most intellectually deficient and academically wanting justices this country has seen in 60 years. He never ever wrote or was part of a second amendment opinion and never wrote a scholarly article on it. His claims have been eviscerated by actual scholars.

Here is an example
https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/2...e-is-ahistorical-not-to-mention-sort-of-fake/

The first problem with the popular online iteration of the quote is that it’s actually cobbled together from three separate sources to give it more impact. Don’t get me wrong: Burger is mistaken in all instances, but he is mistaken in different contexts.

The second problem is that the quote often reads as if Burger—the “conservative” who voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade—offered this argument as a member of the Supreme Court. No high-court decision has ever defined the Second Amendment as anything but an individual right. And Burger never uttered a word about the Second Amendment while sitting on the court. For that matter, he never rendered a gun decision on any court, nor ever wrote a legal paper on the issue. And it shows.

https://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/crburger.htm

Chief Justice Burger contrasts "recreational hunting" guns with "Saturday Night Specials" and "machine guns," implying that the latter two are beyond the pale of the Constitution. Yet the Chief Justice has it exactly backward. The Constitution is not a sporting-goods charter for the protection of hunting and fishing. Guns owned solely for hunting, if at all covered by the Second Amendment, are at the outer periphery. (Hunting guns might be protected under the theory that the hunting experience provides a type of militia training in outdoorsmanship.) Arguably, a right to hunt might be found in the Ninth Amendment (which protects unenumerated rights), tracing its source to documents such as the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, which did guarantee a right to hunt.

The historical basis of the Second Amendment is self-defense, both national and personal. "Machine guns" are weapons carried by an individual soldier, which makes them precisely the firearms most suitable for a well-regulated militia.

Chief Justice Burger's "machine gun" comment was particularly inept in light of what he was pictured holding on the front cover of Parade: an assault weapon. The Chief Justice displayed his grandfather's rifled musket, with which the grandfather had killed people during the Civil War. While the musket seems quaint and non-threatening today, it was a state of the art assault weapon in its time. Its individual ownership was protected by the Constitution precisely because it was the type of weapon that a citizen soldier would carry, as an M16 is today.

 

It is nice to know that when you are backed into a corner the insults start flying.
Thank you for you immature remarks!
Now, you are laughable.
When you can construct some real argument about why educators need not to bring firearms into their workplace let us know

 

Sorry if you cannot see the humor but that is what is wrong with gun"nuts" they think about why they need to try to extent their
scariness.
Laughable.!

 

What a total delusional statement.

 

@Nwolfe35, @Boilermaker55

Don't you wish trained & armed staff like my daughter had been onsite at Uvalde, Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Parkland, etc? If not, why?

This is the 3rd or 4th time in this thread, & the umpteenth time on this board I've asked those questions. To date, not a single PF anti-gunner has had the balls to answer. What are y'all afraid of?

 

Why?

 

You made a statement about my daughter that was untrue. You lied, in other words, and got called on it. Boo hoo.

 

You have had multiple answers you seem to not have the integrity to listen or understand what has been said.
]IF you try to think someone having a minimal amount of training to give some sort of resolution to the situation of complete chaos during an active shooter, you are very sadly delusional of any and all problems that arise.
ONE more time, even "highly" trained, for years and maybe decades, when asked to respond did not know what to do except make sure they were safe.
Tell us about the communication efforts that are involved and who knows who is where during the entire situation.
This is only 2 small problems.
But if you want to believe "dirty"harry exists in your daughters school and she is this expert. Keep dreaming.
There is your answer.
Your insults are annoying when you think you are so totally right. ad hominem is the last resort when losing a discussion.
Smile!