No, the real problem is that it is unconstitutional.

You know this. Even Dan repeatedly acknowledges this. The purpose then, as in now, is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Looks like up-gunning schools is being contemplated in other states as well:

Kentucky Moves To Add Guns To Schools After School Shooting.

The flippant side (okay, once again; the A-HOLE side) of me would say that it's good to see folks taking a common sense approach to gun violence.

Edited to add:

Man, I hate being right all the time. (Okay, not all the time. Maybe not 99.99% of the time. But I really nail it .01% of the time.)

The Hill: Calls for new gun laws are falling on deaf ears.

But I wonder if it's because those "calls" are mostly based in dumb emotional bullying?

"Renewed calls for stricter gun controls following a school shooting in Florida that left 17 dead are falling on deaf ears.

Legislators in states across the country have delayed, defeated or refused to take up new measures to prevent more gun violence — despite the impassioned calls of victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

In Florida’s legislature, House Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to revive debate on a measure to ban assault weapons with student survivors from Parkland watching in the gallery. . . .’ (ed. That measure was defeated by something like a 31-76 for/against ratio, indicating that it wasn't even close)

Students from Parkland who have blanketed the media to call for gun reforms have expressed incredulity at the lack of action."


Honestly, I think it's more that the media has blanketed them, in yet another effort to generate the political results that the media wants.

Yes, that was my point. There are restrictions to the amendments so adding an AR-15 to the list does not create a constitutional crisis. I'm with you, I believe many people want to set limits but disagree with where they are to be set. That is where the discussion breaks down.

It's a tough nut to crack, for sure. The old law school graduate (and I loved CON LAW studies) in me would observe that the Second Amendment has taken on much more significance these days, where once it was basically the stepchild of the Bill of Rights for much of the 20th century. Today, a ban on AR-15 style firearms might well be held unconstitutional, given the precedential history of gun rights decisions issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century. This would be both under 2A as well as the due process rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts could conceivably find that a ban on AR-15s irrationally distinguishes between that style of rifle -- and it's America's most-popular firearm today, being known more commonly as the "modern sporting rifle" -- and the many other semi-automatic rifles available on the market. The differences between the AR-15 (from any manufacturer, with "AR" standing for "Armalite") and other such rifles are largely cosmetic and mainly designed to give the AR-style weapon a really fearsome appearance that belies its essential .22 caliber (.223) nature.

As others here who own and handle guns regularly have observed: a firearms user who's intent on firing the maximum amount of rounds can just as easily put that much lead in the air from a rapid cycle rate (i.e. dropping a magazine and inserting a fresh one and continuing firing) as from having a so-called "high-capacity" magazine. The Virginia Tech shooter had two semi-automatic pistols and managed to kill 33, for a good reason: he overwhelmed his victims with extreme violence and they, in turn, reacted as many people would do: they went into some sort of shock or momentary paralysis that allowed the shooter to herd them and then take them in detail.

The above can be overcome, though, by training of subject populations. Training in how to respond to an active shooter, for instance. We need that in some schools (or all schools, sadly) for sure, and for starters. Simply trying to ban some sort of specific firearm will be completely insufficient to the task, in my opinion.

Well, I think you are wrong.

Both parents are teachers and so is wife. 2/3 would carry if allowed. 2/3 have taken classes and trained regularly. Have 2 little girls in elementary school and even the worst of their teachers would take a bullet for them. How about giving them a chance to fight back, or at the very least create the element of doubt. I would trust every teacher I've come into contact with (keep in mind I grew up around a ton of teachers) to carry a gun, in school. Can't think of one whom I wouldn't trust with such a responsibility.

You know fuck all about the situation yet feel entitled to call others out. My family works in the most obvious soft target(s) in the nation and aren't allowed to do anything except throw soup cans or lacrosse balls if some fucktard decides to become famous.

Perhaps you think this teacher knows "fuck all," too?

Despite your snark, I'll bet cash dollars that my 9th grade daughter knows more about teachers than do you.

LOL, no. Just, no.

Great idea for teachers to be walking in student-crowded halls while carrying. Should my wife have her gun in her purse, or in her computer bag, or in a holster for all to see? When she puts her purse down in the classroom, is that "on their person"?

Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea, the definitions of "concealed carry" and "on their person" shouldn't be out of reach for you.

So I'm wondering why no one complains of the pernicious effect on our democracy that such a staggeringly large sum of money from liberal-type groups is bound to have?

The power of the NRA doesn't lie in any money it gives to Republicans, because even the Vox website has noted that the gun rights organization isn't anywhere close to being the largest donor to any Republican serving in Congress, and that the really important votes in Congress aren't affect by any monetary activity. Rather, the NRA speaks for millions of gun owners, all of whom are increasingly motivated to get out and vote, especially when talk about banning their firearms gets going whenever one of these completely preventable mass shootings occurs.

You've argued with everyone here, and you've dismissed the arguments of a teacher.

Now you can argue against this Afghan veteran, who raises the same issues as all the others. I'm sure he knows "fuck all," too.

You've argued with everyone here, and you've dismissed the arguments of a teacher.

Now you can argue against this Afghan veteran, who raises the same issues as all the others. I'm sure he knows "fuck all," too.

cholla wrote:

-------------------



The NRA is a gun manufacturers' lobbyist. It espouses positions with which the majority of Americans disagree. That's not the case with the other groups you mention.

No, she doesn't know fuck all, because she's talking like teachers will be forced to carry a weapon and no one has ever suggested such a thing.

Both parents are teachers and so is wife. 2/3 would carry if allowed. 2/3 have taken classes and trained regularly.

BK. I wonder if instead of banning a specific rifle or specific type of rifle, which bogs down in the semantics quagmire, what if they limited the speed of fire?

This is an excellent point and one I had never even considered. Since a lot of the discussion is about "killing a lot of people quickly," banning specific speed of fire could make very good sense.

Thank you for bringing something new to the discussion.

If someone else had brought it up, I have not seen it.

BK. I wonder if instead of banning a specific rifle or specific type of rifle, which bogs down in the semantics quagmire, what if they limited the speed of fire?