The NRA finally comes out from under it's rock

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

well the unions aren't created to protect the public, we have the police/military/etc. to serve that purpose. I don't think you want the teacher's union taking that on. Especially considering your view on unions...don't give them even more power DS I think people absolutely have the right to protect their family, household, etc. I don't think that's what's up for debate, although that seems to be the turn the discussion has taken. I think the question is more along the lines of whether or not current gun laws are adding or detracting from that very goal of protection.

No. :nono: What gets lost in all of this is people think increased gun legislation on legal gun owners will somehow stop the crime committed by illegal gun owners. It's such a mental and political mind jerk off it's ridiculous.

I think we all want this kind of violence to stop and have different ideas about what's gonna stop it. As I've said many times, the issue is much larger than guns or mental illness. Those are 2 parts of much bigger problem. Sometimes the shooter has a mental illness...many times not (I know we disagree about this and don't think we need to rehash). In 100% of the shootings guns are involved (obviously), but they certainly don't cause people to become violent nor are they necessary for there to be violence. There is a much larger issue of culture at play here that is a bit overwhelming to address. I think everyone just wants to try to "fix" this in the quickest way possible.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

will it be a requirement of my employment as a school teacher that i be armed??? if so does that not breach my constitutional right to choose NOT to bear arms? or does the 2nd amendment only cover the right to BEAR arms, not the right NOT to?

Why not? You have to be drug free to be a teacher and pass a drug test. This violates some people's ideas of their own individual rights. As long as criminals are out there running around with illegal weapons and the US public doesn't want to address the real problems of the criminals....why not do everything to protect the children?

Are you kidding? If public school teachers had to take drug tests we'd suddenly have a teacher shortage. So many of them smoke weed. Where'd you get the idea that they have to do drug testing?? And how does not doing it endanger kids exactly? Last time I. Checked, drinking was way more dangerous than smoking weed, yet I don't think you'd suggest that teachers be forbidden from drinking (obviously drinking or doing drugs at school is another matter). That's ridiculous. And let's please not turn this into a union debate. :roll: But yeah, how come you think the teachers union shpuld be protecting the public?? Wtf? In any case, forcing someone to be armed outside of corrections and security is so much different from making them do mandatory drug testing I can't even bring myself to go on about. It makes no sense to compare that.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

will it be a requirement of my employment as a school teacher that i be armed??? if so does that not breach my constitutional right to choose NOT to bear arms? or does the 2nd amendment only cover the right to BEAR arms, not the right NOT to?

Why not? You have to be drug free to be a teacher and pass a drug test. This violates some people's ideas of their own individual rights. As long as criminals are out there running around with illegal weapons and the US public doesn't want to address the real problems of the criminals....why not do everything to protect the children?

Are you kidding? If public school teachers had to take drug tests we'd suddenly have a teacher shortage. So many of them smoke weed. Where'd you get the idea that they have to do drug testing?? And how does not doing it endanger kids exactly? Last time I. Checked, drinking was way more dangerous than smoking weed, yet I don't think you'd suggest that teachers be forbidden from drinking (obviously drinking or doing drugs at school is another matter). That's ridiculous. And let's please not turn this into a union debate. :roll: But yeah, how come you think the teachers union shpuld be protecting the public?? Wtf? In any case, forcing someone to be armed outside of corrections and security is so much different from making them do mandatory drug testing I can't even bring myself to go on about. It makes no sense to compare that.

If you read the rest of my posts I explained that my friend's wife is a teacher and subjected to drug tests. She worked here in Albany and the Shenhendowa district and now they are divorced and she works at another school now.

I'm actually stunned to here that teachers aren't subjected to drug tests. Blows my mind actually. We let people who work with children go untested but a person stocking shelves at WalMArt has to take a pee test. Mindblowing. No wonder why teachers are underpaid. They're too busy getting high.

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Why not? You have to be drug free to be a teacher and pass a drug test. This violates some people's ideas of their own individual rights. As long as criminals are out there running around with illegal weapons and the US public doesn't want to address the real problems of the criminals....why not do everything to protect the children?

Are you kidding? If public school teachers had to take drug tests we'd suddenly have a teacher shortage. So many of them smoke weed. Where'd you get the idea that they have to do drug testing?? And how does not doing it endanger kids exactly? Last time I. Checked, drinking was way more dangerous than smoking weed, yet I don't think you'd suggest that teachers be forbidden from drinking (obviously drinking or doing drugs at school is another matter). That's ridiculous. And let's please not turn this into a union debate. :roll: But yeah, how come you think the teachers union shpuld be protecting the public?? Wtf? In any case, forcing someone to be armed outside of corrections and security is so much different from making them do mandatory drug testing I can't even bring myself to go on about. It makes no sense to compare that.

If you read the rest of my posts I explained that my friend's wife is a teacher and subjected to drug tests. She worked here in Albany and the Shenhendowa district and now they are divorced and she works at another school now.

I'm actually stunned to here that teachers aren't subjected to drug tests. Blows my mind actually. We let people who work with children go untested but a person stocking shelves at WalMArt has to take a pee test. Mindblowing. No wonder why teachers are underpaid. They're too busy getting high.

That would be a different thread topic. Private schools may drug test, but public schools do not.

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

That would be a different thread topic. Private schools may drug test, but public schools do not.

Even more shocking that it's not in public schools. No testing for teachers in public schools dealing with children but someone needs to take a pee test to sort mail. :fp:

Moonpig

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

That would be a different thread topic. Private schools may drug test, but public schools do not.

Even more shocking that it's not in public schools. No testing for teachers in public schools dealing with children but someone needs to take a pee test to sort mail. :fp:

Not wanting to regulate gun control after the slaying of innocent children because of perceived infringements of rights while at the same time stopping and requesting papers from brown skinned people who's rights you care not an ounce about. :fp:

Seems like some of you cherry pick what you believe are attacks on your rights, but hey that's not new.

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

That would be a different thread topic. Private schools may drug test, but public schools do not.

Even more shocking that it's not in public schools. No testing for teachers in public schools dealing with children but someone needs to take a pee test to sort mail. :fp:

Start a thread on it

Who Princess

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

That would be a different thread topic. Private schools may drug test, but public schools do not.

Even more shocking that it's not in public schools. No testing for teachers in public schools dealing with children but someone needs to take a pee test to sort mail. :fp:

It's related to something called "funding." While there are a few wealthy school districts in my area, most of them have experienced serious budget cuts in the last few years. Also, the public by and large doesn't put a lot of value on the teaching profession and probably thinks drug testing would be a waste of money.

chadwick

any words out of camp ted nugent since the school shootings in newtown?

usamamasan1

Looks like Los Angeles (of all places) is on board with the NRA recomendations.


http://news.yahoo.com/armed-guards-sent ... ories.html

redrock

Armed volunteers??? :shock: Wow.... aren't these supposed to be highly trained, specialist police officers? Armed volunteers?!? Now, that is scary.

Moonpig

:fp:

The place is gone to the dogs

usamamasan1

come get your free classes...teach


Teachers in Ohio, Texas flock to free gun training classes
CLEVELAND/SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - School teachers in Texas and Ohio are flocking to free firearms classes in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, some vowing to protect their students with guns even at the risk of losing their jobs.

In Ohio, more than 900 teachers, administrators and school employees asked to take part in the Buckeye Firearms Association's newly created, three-day gun training program, the association said.

In Texas, an $85 Concealed Handgun License (CHL) course offered at no cost to teachers filled 400 spots immediately, forcing the school to offer another class, one instructor said.

"Any teacher who is licensed and chooses to be armed should be able to be armed," said Gerald Valentino, co-founder of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "It should be every teacher's choice."

The December 14 tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, sparked a national debate about whether to arm teachers, prompting passionate arguments on both sides.

The deaths of 6- and 7-year-old school children led President Barack Obama to promise "meaningful action" to curtail gun violence, while the National Rifle Association has advocated arming teachers and placing trained guards in each of the country's 100,000 schools.

Ohio and Texas are not the first to offer no-cost arms training to teachers. Just days after the Connecticut mass murder, some 200 teachers in Utah underwent free instruction from gun activists.

Critics ridicule arming teachers as a foolhardy idea promoted by overzealous gun enthusiasts, saying it would only add danger to the classroom while distracting teachers from their job of educating children.

Supporters say an armed teacher could have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook, where a 20-year-old man armed with a military-style assault rifle killed 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

"What we know is that these spree killers are looking for the highest death toll possible. They look for no-gun zones like schools," Valentino said. "It doesn't make sense that we guard our gold with guns and we guard our kids with hope."
The Buckeye Firearms Association, which successfully lobbied for 2004 legislation allowing people to carry concealed handguns, is offering all eligible state educators free admission to what it calls "an intensive three-day class where you will learn many of the same skills and tactics used by first responders."

Of the more than 900 applicants so far, 73 percent were teachers and 10 percent were kindergarten teachers, Valentino said. Sixty percent were male and 51 percent worked in high schools, he said.

GUNS AND THE LAW

Ohio law does not expressly prohibit guns in schools and leaves it to each individual school board to set policy. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine referred to teachers as "first responders" after the Connecticut shootings and announced his office would expand safety training for Ohio school employees.

Texas state law allows teachers who have concealed handgun permits to carry weapons into public school classrooms as long as they have permission from the district superintendent.

Measures introduced in the Texas legislature since the Sandy Hook shooting would make it easier to carry firearms onto college campuses and into schools and other public places where weapons are now banned.

Josh Felker, who teaches the firearms classes in suburban San Antonio, said many of the teachers have told him they plan to carry weapons into their classrooms, even at risk of losing their jobs.

"They are upset at what happened, and no one is going to hurt their kids," said Felker, who offered the class to teachers for free over the holiday break. "One teacher said flat out, 'I don't care if the law changes or not, I'm going to take it to school.' Most of them just want to protect their kids."

On Thursday, the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy will offer its first "Active Shooter Training Response for Educators Course," which up to now has been reserved for police officers.

One Texas superintendent who since 2008 has given permission to teachers with handgun licenses to carry a gun in school is David Thweatt, who heads the rural Harrold Independent School District, about 175 miles northwest of Dallas.

"First they have to have a concealed handgun license, they have to be approved to carry on our campus, they have to undergo additional training, and they are limited to ammunition which breaks apart when it hits a hard object," Thweatt said.

He said he decided to allow teachers to carry weapons in class because in his rural district "law enforcement would never make it here on time" in case of an emergency.

Although the names of teachers who carry weapons were meant to remain confidential, their identities were widely known in town, Thweatt said.

Valentino was adamant that Ohio's armed teachers remain anonymous, citing concerns that local media might reveal who was taking the course.

"The idea is for no one to know what teachers might be carrying. It would be very dangerous to identify these teachers. We don't want to put a target on them," Valentino said.

Texas Republican State Representative Debbie Riddle has introduced a measure to require school boards and superintendents to give permission to teachers who have completed the concealed handgun licensing course to carry weapons into the classroom.

"It would have a chilling effect on any copycats who wanted to replicate what was done at Sandy Hook," Riddle said.

PJ_Soul

Teachers are allowed to have guns in the classroom?? Do these teachers with 2 days of firearm training plan on packing heat in their classrooms? How will this affect their teachers union contract? :think:

DS1119

[quote="Who Princess". Also, the public by and large doesn't put a lot of value on the teaching profession and probably thinks drug testing would be a waste of money.[/quote]


Might just be a major problem right there. If the public is truly worried about the youth of this country...might want to look at it's educators first.

JimmyV

DS1119 wrote:

[quote="Who Princess". Also, the public by and large doesn't put a lot of value on the teaching profession and probably thinks drug testing would be a waste of money.

Might just be a major problem right there. If the public is truly worried about the youth of this country...might want to look at it's educators first.[/quote]

Parents need to look at themselves first. Teachers are an easy target to blame for many problems that begin in the home.

riotgrl

JimmyV wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

Also, the public by and large doesn't put a lot of value on the teaching profession and probably thinks drug testing would be a waste of money.

Might just be a major problem right there. If the public is truly worried about the youth of this country...might want to look at it's educators first.

Parents need to look at themselves first. Teachers are an easy target to blame for many problems that begin in the home.

Thank you for saying that! I think we just saw the lengths many teachers are willing to go to protect their students. Perhaps we should examine this misguided disrespect so many have for teachers.

JimmyV

redrock wrote:

Armed volunteers??? :shock: Wow.... aren't these supposed to be highly trained, specialist police officers? Armed volunteers?!? Now, that is scary.

Isn't it? But lets keep pretending that our children will be "protected" by specially trained police officers.

JonnyPistachio

JimmyV wrote:

redrock wrote:

Armed volunteers??? :shock: Wow.... aren't these supposed to be highly trained, specialist police officers? Armed volunteers?!? Now, that is scary.

Isn't it? But lets keep pretending that our children will be "protected" by specially trained police officers.

:fp: When do we start talking about letting the kids pack heat? :?

JimmyV

JonnyPistachio wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

redrock wrote:

Armed volunteers??? :shock: Wow.... aren't these supposed to be highly trained, specialist police officers? Armed volunteers?!? Now, that is scary.

Isn't it? But lets keep pretending that our children will be "protected" by specially trained police officers.

:fp: When do we start talking about letting the kids pack heat? :?

After the next massacre.