Saturday April 30, 2016
Jump to content
Softball team rallies to avoid upset in playoff opener April 30, 2016
Here's something for you to think about.
A rural school district in Ohio is drawing attention with its plans to arm a handful of its non-teaching employees with handguns this year.
Four custodians in the Montpelier School District have agreed to take a weapons training course and carry their own guns inside the district's one building, which houses 1,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, school officials said.
School officials began reviewing security plans after Newtown and decided teachers should not be armed because their first priority in an emergency should be locking doors and protecting students. The school already has security cameras and locked doors, and requires visitors to be buzzed into the front entrance.
Superintendent Jamie Grime said "Putting a firearm in a school is a huge step. We're going to do it properly. These people [will have] the proper training."
Think about that.
Good idea? Bad idea?
To be honest with you, I would be for it.
This is a no brainer. Does anyone want to look at a gun or an axe handler looking straight at them, while they call 911? Of course not.
Do they want to rely on it not happening? If so, that's dumb, for it happens.
Do they think that one officer, roaming a fairly large campus can stop it? Again dumb. Chances are, he'll be on the opposite end of the campus, if the school even employs one. Or, they are taking a break, somewhere.
Only someone with a gun can stop someone else with a gun.
This whole issue is very perplexing. I initially find the thought of guns on campus, even those in the hands of "trained" people to be repugnant. Yes, I am aware as Mr. Sims alluded to, that the realities of this world are as they are, and that may simply be the "best option" short of the futility of totally making all firearms dissappear from the face of the planet. How about this? Say they publically announce that every teacher, administrator, and custodian are going to be trained in the use of firearms and will possess them on campus, but do not follow through on those steps. Simply replace the "Gun Free Zone" signs with signs that say "Personnel on Campus are Trained and Armed!!" If the "bad guys with guns" even think that there might be an armed group on any given campus, that knowledge in and of itself could inhibit their even attempting such acts as we have seen over the last 10 years. I concur that only another person with a gun can stop another person with a gun intent upon evil acts. But I believe we should explore ways of dissuading a "bad guy" from ever even thinking about using a gun illegally in the first place. Utopian? Perhaps, but there have to be approaches that we simply have not explored yet. The bottom line is we owe it to kids to protect them and their learning environment.
I don't think the sign about personnel being armed would stop anyone intent on shooting students or teachers as they are usually killed or commit suicide anyway.
I disagree on the possible impact on a sign change. The people who do these things may be crazy, but they're not stupid. They have enough thought to plan thier acts and the "Gun Free Zone" signs actually tell them they have little to no risk of being stopped by another person that is armed. If they believed or even sensed their acts would be stopped immediately in trying to assault a school then they might think twice about even attempting it. We've been told all sorts of things about how these people's minds work and many it seems want the notoriety that comes with an "horrendous" act, the bigger the better. Or they really do not appreciate the final outcome of their acts since they are delusional. Either way, their brains are functioning and the overwhelming human desire to stay alive is still in there somewhere. It just needs to be stimulated.
I agree with Ron. You don't often hear about shootings in Police Departments, or even Fire Departments. These shootings tend to be in places where the potential victims are vulnerable and not likely to be armed or even able to protect themselves. Schools, colleges, movie theatres, the people are distracted.
As Ron pointed out, even if the shooter plans on committing suicide, that human desire to do it on their own terms, precludes the likelihood of an attack taking place where they are likely to be stopped in one way or another before they have done some damage.
I think Kim makes the best clarifying comment when she says, "I agree with Ron. You don't often hear about shootings in Police Departments, or even Fire Departments. These shootings tend to be in places where the potential victims are vulnerable and not likely to be armed or even able to protect themselves." Good point. Well made. A large part of prevention is letting a potential offender know that he does not have an easy victim.
This is a difficult problem, but it's also a multi-faceted one, and I suspect that single-faceted solutions cannot resolve it.
So just as everyone seems to be saying, anything that makes a school less vulnerable is a step in the right direction. An armed, off-duty police officer? Good! Custodians who own weapons, routinely carry them, and have had training? Good! Others on campus who know how to handle a weapon and volunteer to do it? Good! Fences and cameras? Good! An alert faculty? Good! Kids who have been trained about what to do and how to do it? Good! A stringently enforced policy intended to uncover and root out bullying? Good! Greater screening of coaches and others who have a traditional role in ignoring the signs of bullying? Good! A reasonably applied program to detect people who are about to go ballistic, combined with methods of lessening the likelihood?Good! Anything else that targets the actual causes of violence? Good!
What isn't good is using what has happened in our schools, churches, post offices, theaters, arenas, parking lots, stores, and elsewhere as an excuse to write bad laws. All that does is leave us worse off than we were.
As you well know, no amount of care and attention can, or ever will, make this world perfectly safe. We can only try. The trick is to keep elitists from using the foibles of the human condition to harness our emotions in an attempt to enslave us.
Well said. One of the aspects of this debate that gets little attention or traction is the reality that there is a cost to freedom. I won't state all the sage sayings regarding that reality. Most know them. But when one chooses to live in a free society, they also have to be realistic about the existence of others in that society that would and do, abuse those freedoms. Not that we shouldn't take every step we can to minimize/marginalize those folks, but at some point we bump up against the quandry, just how much freedom are we willing to give up in order to expunge those miscreants from within our "free" society"? As I've stated before, I view our rights/freedoms like an onion. You begin by peeling it away one layer at a time. Eventually you end up with no onion at all. That possibility is what concerns me the most. And if I hear another person use the statement that we must accept "common sense" restrictions to fix a given problem, I may go postal. Just who's "common sense" can we ALL agree really makes sense? In my case, the last place I would turn to for any "sense" at all would be Washington DC.
You wouldn't believe what some "respected" law professor back east said not long ago. He referred to the Constitution as an "outdated" document.
Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University says, “As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."
Want to know the name of the enemy?
You just read it.
Why? He says, "I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution."
Right! Then we'll have one like the British have, one that's not written down anywhere. Which means, "Go for it, Congress. Do whatever the hell you want."
The people of this nation would not have ratified the Constitution if it were not for the addition of the Bill of Rights. He tries to make it sound like he is thinking about other things, like which house of Congress can originate certian spendig laws, but his actual target is the Bill of Rights.
Listen to what else he said, "Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way."
Right. And the Supreme Court slapped them down for it. Maybe our "respected" law professor forgot that! Or maybe he'd like us to forget it.
You really need to put Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" on your 'to read' list. I know you will probably not like it as well as ones that provide you with insight into those things that are of interest to you, but it fairly gives us the ideology that has been at work in this nation for some time and is currently at work as we speak. The Professor you mentioned above, is simply from that group. So when I hear of these sorts of declarations from those who instruct in our institutions of higher learning, I am not surprised. It is straight from their "bible". This is not some "conspiracy theory" by those of us who are traditionalists such as the "truthers" ,"birthers" et al. When you read that book, you will probably have a similar reaction as I did........."so that's what this is all about!!" I'm not a big reader, but I am interested in trying to determine, for my own edification, just what is it that has so inraptured over half of my fellow citizens in this nation. Why they choose to follow those who are clearly an antithesis to what truly made this a great nation. The purveyors of the "KoolAid" so to speak. I know whose principles I choose to respect and adhere to because they have worked for over 230 years. If Americans allow the "cornerstone" which this nation was built upon be trashed or so mis-interpreted as to be unrecognizable, then all I can do is hang my head in shame for ever having served " to protect and defend", those very people.
The principles on which this nation was founded need no changing! They were then, and are now, what men and women all over the globe have believed in since time immemorial.
What the professor and his ilk try to do is to pick at parts of the Constitution which do not, in fact, involve principles at all. He, for example, asks why some funding bills must priginate in the House. Well, the simple fact is that they do not have to. Powers were apportioned out among the two houses of Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court to effect a balance. An adjustment in those powers--if called for--would in no way affect the principles on which the Constitution rests, and he knows full well that is so. What he really wants to do is throw it out entirely, getting the roadblocks out of the way of his kind, so they can force us to knuckle under as they have in other once free lands.
We are NOT going to do it!
We were smart enough 226 years ago to get it in writing. The English, the Australians, the Canadians, failed to do that; they relied on an unwritten Constitution. They are now paying the price for it. At a time when they were reeling from the effects of a devastating war, out of food, out of money, and out of patince to resume their normal lives, the English traded free medical care, cheap, subsidized housing, and cheap rail tickets for their basic rights. Many of them bitterly regret it now, but it is too late; a whole generation of social legislation has created a people so defendent on the dole that any attempt to right the ship of state founders on the rocks.
We can't let that happen here.
If there are things wrong with our government--and there are--we have the means to correct them, one by one and like rational, thinking human beings. If the House rules allow a temporary majority to interfere with the flow of government then we might perhaps want to change those rules.
But I'll tell you what, since many of the bad things we see today are the result of trying to fix what was wrong yesterday, we better think long and hard before we do it.
The truth? I don't see anyone starving. I don't see anyone who can't get medical care when he needs it. I don't see what I saw when I was a kid--a nation on its knees in a worldwide depression. This place may not be perfect, but it's th best there is.
Professor? Take your ideas and shove them!
Posting comments requires a free account