Which side is more guilty for the slaughter of our school children ... those who are resisting the dilution of our Second Amendment rights ... or those who are resisting placing armed sevurity guards in our schools?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The conundrum I have with this issue is -- like so many things these days -- heavily polarized.
The Second Amendment IMHO should stand as-is yet should constrain the types of weapons that can be purchased by pretty much anyone 18 or older. There are already many weapons that are prohibited (hand grenades, flame throwers, machine guns, etc.). High capacity, high velocity weapons should require strict control. Many are already limited that way. Consider that having weapons on a military base is very tightly monitored.
As to weaponizing safe zones, there are weapons that can disable attackers without deadly force. Pepper spray. Simple .22 pistol. Dart gun with fast acting drug. Pellet gun. Rocks!
So. Not NO GUNS. Not deadly force in the classroom.
Much of what you say I agree with ... 2nd Amendment does say "well regulated" ... We can argue about specifics ... however, security guards are not in the classrooms. And I am not too concerned about saving Cruz"s (and the like's) life.
Answer: those who are resisting any form of gun control have figurative blood on their tiny hands.
Ditto for those who don't want armed guards in schools.
BTW, we already have many gun control restrictions ... most of which most Americans approve of. I'll go for bump stocks ban and 10 bullet limit in clips. Oh yes, I think you, the open minded one, want to deep six the 2nd Amendment.
Pepper spray, pellet guns, rocks? I hope you are joking ...
Not joking. Want to try getting pepper spray, pellets, or rocks when you enter a room? I do not. As for the deadly force, let the professionals handle that (hopefully gracefully). Just take the perp down...
To paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, "Never bring pepper spray to a gun fight."
All we are asking... is the same rules that apply to military personnel having personal weapons in on-base housing. Guns must be reistered and in most cases held in the base's armory. The provost can approve inspected gun safes although guns and ammo cannot be colocated. Anyone on disciplinary suspension or taking strong meds cannot access their guns. Generally, no concealed carry. Look it up!
Some rules make sense, but blanket ban is being rethought ...
The 2nd amendment did not anticipate the modern class of weapons. A literal reading of the words would allow for the citizens to keep and bear single-shot muskets and bayonets. I'd go along with that.
I think they ought to have blankets. :-) Seriously though, the base provost has discretionary powers. Likely more freedom to carry/hold registered guns in hostile locations. I'll bet a nickel that you cannot have unregistered arsenals at Hanscom AFB. Although your 18 year old living off base could have an arsenal of unregistered loaded guns, loaded clips, and colocated and ammo. I prefer that well-regulated militia on base...
Post a Comment