Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The founding fathers couldn't envision so much of the stuff that has come to change America since that we can't really blame them for a lack of foresight. They couldn't have imagined the internal combustion engine, rifling, radar, electronics, telecommunications, or a whole shitload of other stuff.
This is why constitutions need to change, btw. Technologies change society, and successful societies adapt in turn.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.tl;dr, we're not saying "give everyone guns and everyone will be safer!", we're saying "gun-free zones are more harmful than helpful in terms of preventing mass shootings".
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Questions then. Are the teachers all going to have to start wearing different sorts of clothing so as to conceal their gun? How are kids going to be prevented from knowing that the teacher has a gun (and then trying to nick it)? If the teacher can't keep the gun on their person (as kids will try and steal it) how are they going to be securely stored in a place where children can't just pick the lock? If teachers are going to have to store their guns away from them then how much use will they actually be in an emergency? The basic principle of “Let the people who are already trusted with firearms carry them” sounds good but there are some details that I am having trouble with.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWe have to note the difference between "Teachers should be allowed to retain weapons for personal reasons" and "Teachers should be allowed to arm themselves during school sessions to protect everyone and deter against incidents". The latter isn't as strong of a reasoning, even if not mandated.
However, I still don't agree with teachers directly carrying concealed weapons in school. If a student finds out, he or she could snatch it and shoot people.
The questions of "what happens if someone picks a lock" or "what if someone snatches it" seem overly paranoid to me. Yes, they're possibilities, but we're not talking about setting up armories on school grounds, we're talking about letting people keep their personal weapons with them on school grounds if they want to. Someone who isn't confident in their ability to keep their weapon under their control is free to — and should — leave it home instead. Are there risks to allowing weapons at schools? Of course. There is no perfect, risk-free solution to any problem. I'm simply in favor of the solution that gives people the benefit of the doubt, rather than a toothless precaution that the bad guys are free to ignore while the responsible gun owners are harmed by.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I suspect a large outcry from teachers themselves if anyone tries to seriously suggest and put that idea into law. It's a stupid idea that I doubt will gain any traction. Libertarian teachers might like it, but most of the people in this profession are sane enough to know what a bad idea this is. Especially the ones that teach high schoolers.
There is literally no way that something horrible wouldn't happen somewhere because of this.
Also, a single police officer can't be everywhere and can easily be targeted. Private security suffers from similar problems plus less accountability. And what happens when they shoot some kid who innocently brings a water pistol to school?
As for the militia thing, again, it is entirely possible to envision a system whereby the militia, when called to service, goes to an armory to draw their materiel. The second amendment allows them to have a private weapon that they can immediately equip themselves with, reducing the need for centralized storage and distribution.
Some of the things in the Bill of Rights were clarifications of stuff that the Constitution implied but did not outright state.
edited 20th Dec '12 11:30:44 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Been a while since I've been here. And I'm FURIOUS with Obama's chained CPI proposal!
I don't know if Serocco is right and that Obama isn't being weak, but doing what he intends, but I cannot rely on a term-limited president who is no longer accountable to the people.
There are 2 silver linings, the latter being better than the former. Republicans are, so far, crazy enough to oppose this deal. As for the latter, Senate Democrats are furious. Reid repeated his opposition, and Durbin (who happens to be running in 2014) is also against chained CPI.
Still furious. But the mail I'm getting agrees with me: pressure the Senate and House Democrats, NOT Obama, because we no longer have leverage over Obama.
Hasn't this always been about Congress? I think we're proving here that Obama is more of an interested bystander to the process. What we need is for Democrats to get their collective act together and put forth a coherent proposal.
Edit: Krugman's blog today
notes the irony of House Republicans scuttling Boehner's attempt to compromise with Obama. He also makes the observation that, given the party dynamics in the House, any Republican compromise position requires Democratic support because the Tea Party bloc will never vote for tax increases on the wealthy, ever, no matter what.
This removes some of the responsibility from Obama's shoulders and makes any attempts at concessions from the White House less likely to get adopted as the final proposal, thank all the Gods.
edited 20th Dec '12 12:47:49 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"lol @ the pot calling the kettle black:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/john-boehner-obama_n_2339940.html
I think that Boehner had his sense of irony surgically removed before he joined Congress.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They screen you for that shit before you become a Republican Congressman. It's like drug testing. Some employers insist on a sense-of-irony-free workplace.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Don't they realize that approving spending cuts to elderly benefits is tantamount to political suicide? Seniors are one of the most consistent voting blocs out there. It's why candidates at every level have to suck up to granny and her bridge club: because they're the most active voters.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Not necessarily; the question of whether said Militia is allowed to privately own weaponry or have it issued in a controlled manner as is done in the regular military would have come up in that era.
Also remember that in the time period, when transportation was very slow, a centralized store of weapons would be useless if the need came to mount a defense rapidly.
edited 20th Dec '12 10:14:22 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"