Now you are back-tracking. You went from "solving" the problem to proposals that will "help".
We all understand that we have a problem. The debate needs to be about what is causing the problem & what can help stop or reduce the effects of the problem. School security can happen over the summer months pretty easily & our rights will not be affected at all. In order to fix the problem we must identify the problem & I don't believe politics in this country will allow that to happen.
Yep. Guess that is accurate. Then next will be the malls, shopping centers, churches, athletic events.........
Federalist #46
Federalist #46
Founders Online: The Federalist Number 46, [29 January] 1788
The Federalist Number 46, [29 January] 1788founders.archives.gov
The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the state governments, is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the states should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the states should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it.
Why are you getting fired up on this poster? Maybe I've missed it, but has he said that we should confiscate all guns (let me know if he did)?
So because a few mayors hired the wrong kind of people we should drop security at all schools?
If they can pass a gun control amendment to the constitution I won't complain. Acting like an amendment is some little tweak is a little absurd.
If security doesn't do shit to help they didn't really have security.
England has very strict gun laws. So nutjobs attack with knives and acid. Gun control mitigates problem but it doesn't solve it.
My point is don't support any constitutional change that doesn't give our citizens more rights. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. They have proven that a million times.
Again, you are going off the deep end here by adding in things that were not said. Please show me where I said we should "drop security at schools". (answer: I didn't). I simply showed that at a school that had security, it still didn't prevent a mass shooting.
A constitutional change is much different than any other law. The threshold to pass an amendment is large. If a law has that sort of wide ranging support I won't complain if it is passed.
Fix that????? Some people appear to be the best people for a job, until that job requires them to show their talents (or lack of talents). Where will schools get the funding that will be needed to heavily arm and "secure" the campus (some of them are VERY LARGE by the way)? Schools are already seeing cuts in education.
Apparently not good security.
So you are saying that you would become a criminal and do something illegally?????? Kind of like the illegal votes that you guys claim took place in 2020?
At the NRA convention, NO FIREARM was permitted during the time that Trump delivered his speech and was present. So it seems like there are tighter security measures dealing with firearms when certain people of "importance" are visible.
Elect people who put American kids first . We have a government (both sides) who give to every country for any social reason possible.
I'm not in charge to fix anything. And you were the one that said "fix that". How many schools are there? Do you personally know that many good candidates that would 100% solve the problem of mass shootings at schools? If so, great! Please, write your local representative and tell them that you can end it. I'd support you 1000%.
Look up what former president cut billions from the education budget. Money that could be used for security.
Show me a man who trust our government at this point & I'll show you a man that needs his gun taken away. Government is a necessary evil. If our elected federal government would just do the job they are tasked with more problems would disappear. They cant , doing there jobs is not profitable for them .Federalist #46
Founders Online: The Federalist Number 46, [29 January] 1788
The Federalist Number 46, [29 January] 1788
The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the state governments, is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the states should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the states should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it.
also you're not gonna get anywhere trying to put me in a group of "you guys"
Bingo. It is the all-or-none approach that people argue that results in nothing ever being done to reduce the problem. The US will never reach a point where there are no mass shootings or homicides involving firearms. Using the rationale "criminals will still break the law" is just a foolish position. The goal should be to reduce the number of incidents because eliminating them entirely isn't going to happen.
If it's a morally incorrect law, I will not adhere to it.
