The NRA finally comes out from under it's rock

DS1119 wrote:

More guns equals more problems right? That's people's logic correct? Well then more drugs must equal more problems. SO why the push to legalize pot? It's a drug that comes with problems. Makes perfect sense.

Not everyone who supports gun control supports drug legalization, and so what if they did? It's like saying conservatives are wrong in their position on abortion because of their views on immigration. There may or may not be similar aspects in each issue, but its irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Debate gun control. Drugs have nothing to do with this. Stop looking for other issues to prove your point about gun control. You want to win this debate? Drugs and alcohol aren't the answer ( I can't believe I worked that in). Win your gun control argument with facts, logic, numbers, rhetoric and common sense. You're digging pretty deep these days...

kenny olav wrote:

Seriously. Comparing guns to drugs makes less sense than comparing apples to oranges.

100% i agree..

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?

DS1119 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

More guns equals more problems right? That's people's logic correct? Well then more drugs must equal more problems. SO why the push to legalize pot? It's a drug that comes with problems. Makes perfect sense.

Not everyone who supports gun control supports drug legalization, and so what if they did? It's like saying conservatives are wrong in their position on abortion because of their views on immigration. There may or may not be similar aspects in each issue, but its irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Debate gun control. Drugs have nothing to do with this. Stop looking for other issues to prove your point about gun control. You want to win this debate? Drugs and alcohol aren't the answer ( I can't believe I worked that in). Win your gun control argument with facts, logic, numbers, rhetoric and common sense. You're digging pretty deep these days...

Drugs and guns should very well be compared.

Even if they should be, they aren't here.

dimitrispearljam 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?

I love your logic...

just thinking out loud dimitri... its a bad habit i have.

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?

Apparently, the only right that matters is the one that says I can tote a six shooter on my hip so when the gun fight breaks out at the OK Corral I can protect everyone...

I haven't really seen anyone here say they want to outlaw guns (well in an ideal world but in our current reality no one is advocating for that). Instead, most everyone is talking about gun control. Why is controlling the clips and magazines off limits? And someone mentioned the police earlier and I looked to see what many street cops carry and they carry handguns with 10 round clips for the most part. So let's be real, this is about the 2nd amendment being more important than other protections promised under the Constitution.

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?

You don't have to take a drug test to be a teacher. I've been working with kids and in schools for 17 years and have never been drug tested. I did have to submit to a background check for my professional license and have to attest every 2 years that I haven't been convicted of any crime (including drug convictions). Ironically the only job I ever had that required a drug test was when I worked at Blockbuster video in high school.

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl 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?

You don't have to take a drug test to be a teacher. I've been working with kids and in schools for 17 years and have never been drug tested. I did have to submit to a background check for my professional license and have to attest every 2 years that I haven't been convicted of any crime (including drug convictions). Ironically the only job I ever had that required a drug test was when I worked at Blockbuster video in high school.

Maybe not where you are but I know my buddies wife here had to...and has to whenever the school feels they may want another one. And she can't sipute it either. Its a drug test or walking papers.

Does she work for a private school? The unions in public schools and colleges don't allow it.

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

]Does she work for a private school? The unions in public schools and colleges don't allow it.

Yet another reason to ban unions. They don't protect the rights of the general population or as far as the students they teach in regards to your union, they protect the members rights. Think about it in your own case. You can work teaching students without a drug test but you can't hand out a video at Blockbuster?

Unions are a whole other issue. The Blockbuster drug test was ridiculous. They did the hair strand test too :? Yeah I always thought it odd that I could be alone with a kid and drive them in my car and not be drug tested. I always thought it should be required. And that background checks should be done on an ongoing basis - not just when you first get your license. But the reason drug testing's not allowed is for the very reason you posted regarding violation of rights.

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Yet another reason to ban unions. They don't protect the rights of the general population or as far as the students they teach in regards to your union, they protect the members rights. Think about it in your own case. You can work teaching students without a drug test but you can't hand out a video at Blockbuster?

Unions are a whole other issue. The Blockbuster drug test was ridiculous. They did the hair strand test too :? Yeah I always thought it odd that I could be alone with a kid and drive them in my car and not be drug tested. I always thought it should be required. And that background checks should be done on an ongoing basis - not just when you first get your license. But the reason drug testing's not allowed is for the very reason you posted regarding violation of rights.

So in this case it's ok to protect people's rights who are dealing with the public...the public's children...hundreds a day if not more...but somehow it's not ok to allow someone a right to protect their family, household, and possessions? I guess people should stop thinking about the NRA as this big bad evil entity and just start thinking of it as a union...a union that protect's those citizens individual constitutional rights.

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.