Texas town allows Teacher to carry guns in school.

[misterveritis]

Don't regulate guns?! Even the NRA doesn't argue for that.

Do you believe I represent the NRA?

If the people are okay the gun they have will not matter. Of all the studies done to date most have so many errors they are essentially worthless. But they did show a few things I found interesting. By permitting people to purchase weapons (without identifying whether or not they actually purchased one) the number of accidents declined.

 

[misterveritis]

natural Law -- Natural Rights (except for teachers)

Until it is decided someone has the "Right" to bring a deadly weapon into a classroom full of kids...the right cannot be suspended.

Does your right to defend yourself magically disappear when one becomes a teacher?

Rights do not come from governments. Governments can protect one's rights, be neutral to them or act against one's rights.

It is not a deadly weapon. It is a defensive, protective weapon. The teacher has a right to defend himself or herself and in the process provide some measure of protection to the children who are present.

 

[tecoyah]

Does your right to defend yourself magically disappear when one becomes a teacher?

Rights do not come from governments. Governments can protect one's rights, be neutral to them or act against one's rights.

It is not a deadly weapon. It is a defensive, protective weapon. The teacher has a right to defend himself or herself and in the process provide some measure of protection to the children who are present.

If, guns are forbidden on school grounds, then yes your right to carry one does not apply within the school. You can defend yourself in another way, but not with a gun.

Rights within society do indeed come from the courts, the legislature, and the government. They can be given and taken away based on these entities. As an example...Attempt to bring a weapon into a federal building, your right to do so has been removed by law. Try to use your right to go unclothed in a kindergarten classroom...see what happens.

Rights do not come from governments. Governments can protect one's rights, be neutral to them or act against one's rights.

Your statement above makes no sense to me, as it states rights do not come from the Government, but the Government allows you to have them.

Look up the definition of the word "Deadly"...then try to claim a gun does not meet the criteria.

 

[misterveritis]

If, guns are forbidden on school grounds, then yes your right to carry one does not apply within the school. You can defend yourself in another way, but not with a gun.

Rights within society do indeed come from the courts, the legislature, and the government. They can be given and taken away based on these entities. As an example...Attempt to bring a weapon into a federal building, your right to do so has been removed by law. Try to use your right to go unclothed in a kindergarten classroom...see what happens.


Your statement above makes no sense to me, as it states rights do not come from the Government, but the Government allows you to have them.

Look up the definition of the word "Deadly"...then try to claim a gun does not meet the criteria.

We have an unbridgeable disagreement on where one's rights come from.

 

[tecoyah]

agreed.....

 

[David]

Do you believe I represent the NRA?

You're missing the point. The NRA is the largest most liberal on gun control of all the pro-gun organizations in America and they'd call you and anyone else opposed to any gun control an idiot. Do you expect convicts and the insane to submit to background checks out of the kindness of their hearts?

 

[misterveritis]

You're missing the point. The NRA is the largest most liberal on gun control of all the pro-gun organizations in America and they'd call you and anyone else opposed to any gun control an idiot. Do you expect convicts and the insane to submit to background checks out of the kindness of their hearts?

I have never viewed the NRA as anything other than a conservative civil rights organization.
Interestingly the example you used above is precisely the measure I would accept. One does not regulate the guns. One evaluates the potential owners. The assumption must be that everyone has a right to be armed. I support restricting high risk groups from unsupervised gun ownership. So felons, illegal aliens, the mentally ill, those on certain medicines, democratic politicians, those under 25 years of age...should not have unsupervised access to guns.

 

[clax]

I have never viewed the NRA as anything other than a conservative civil rights organization.
Interestingly the example you used above is precisely the measure I would accept. One does not regulate the guns. One evaluates the potential owners. The assumption must be that everyone has a right to be armed. I support restricting high risk groups from unsupervised gun ownership. So felons, illegal aliens, the mentally ill, those on certain medicines, democratic politicians, those under 25 years of age...should not have unsupervised access to guns.

NRA is liberal in the strictest sense of the word. It is liberal to protect the rights of the people, to expand the rights of the people. To liberate them. I prefer to be liberated from unjust laws.

People don't really understand the NRA or choose not to because they want to take your rights. They don't call people that wasn't to take your rights away idiots, they call them people who wasn't to take your rights away, or enemies.

 

[misterveritis]

Classical Liberalism

NRA is liberal in the strictest sense of the word. It is liberal to protect the rights of the people, to expand the rights of the people. To liberate them. I prefer to be liberated from unjust laws.

People don't really understand the NRA or choose not to because they want to take your rights. They don't call people that wasn't to take your rights away idiots, they call them people who wasn't to take your rights away, or enemies.

I agree they are classical liberals. Today we call those people conservatives.

 

[clax]

I agree they are classical liberals. Today we call those people conservatives.

I don't really understand why they call the left wing liberal, it is triumph but. Liberation and liberty are the root words. I an for less control over our lives thus in favor of liberty, I am liberal.

The conservative politicians are just as guilty of the stamping out of liberty. They are anti liberal also or anti liberty. They use religion to support their brand of (for lack of a better word) facisum. The democrat party is almost the same they manipulate emotion to support their anti liberty.

I don't really see a difference between the parties, slightly better fiscal positions on the conservative side, but aside from that and the constant bickering about our social liberties, frankly I think all should be granted and the government stay out of our social lives

 

[myp]

It is important to remember that government coercion is hardly the only threat to liberty.

 

[misterveritis]

It is important to remember that government coercion is hardly the only threat to liberty.

But governments are more likely to put you in prison or kill you.

 

[myp]

But governments are more likely to put you in prison or kill you.

Prison and death are not the only threats to liberty though. Furthermore, all government action does not increase prison numbers and as for death- more people die of murders than capital punishment (in the US).

 

[misterveritis]

Prison and death are not the only threats to liberty though. Furthermore, all government action does not increase prison numbers and as for death- more people die of murders than capital punishment (in the US).

From my perspective the greatest threat to my liberty is government action. Your mileage may vary.

 

[myp]

From my perspective the greatest threat to my liberty is government action. Your mileage may vary.

Believe what you want, but remember that it wasn't the government who quite literally enslaved an entire race once upon a time in American history

 

[David]

Believe what you want, but remember that it wasn't the government who quite literally enslaved an entire race once upon a time in American history

So what, people just kidnapped people and put them to work illegally?

 

[clax]

Believe what you want, but remember that it wasn't the government who quite literally enslaved an entire race once upon a time in American history

This is true, the government is quite toothless in the enforcement of law. back then it would have been very difficult to force the people to conform. But now it seems like folks are so dependent on the government that like a daddy they will obey any whim.

 

[clax]

So what, people just kidnapped people and put them to work illegally?

The law isn't the supreme ruler of the people in this nation. Any law in say 1790 against slavery would have been disobeyed, that kind of thing occurs repeatedly in or history.

Myp is right there was no government sectioned slavery, it was never an institution of the government, it just was not illegal.

It took a war to end it, obviously it was people wanting slavery that kept it alive, in complete defiance of the government.

Post emancipation former slaves had still not attained full person hood. It want until the mid 1900s that black people were counted equally to write people. The government didn't really have much to do with that. Making laws is useless if they are not enforced. The people had to enforce them. Or culture had to want to change, in some places out is still in that process.

 

[chris7375]

This is true, the government is quite toothless in the enforcement of law. back then it would have been very difficult to force the people to conform. But now it seems like folks are so dependent on the government that like a daddy they will obey any whim.

The Problem with the law is they have to many complex laws that many don't understand. They pass laws on top of laws that already exist. If they went back and saw all the regulations and laws they have passed, then looked at the regulation and laws they added on top of the original regulation or law it makes it difficult to enforce.

 

[David]

The law isn't the supreme ruler of the people in this nation. Any law in say 1790 against slavery would have been disobeyed, that kind of thing occurs repeatedly in or history./QUOTE]

History? 900k slaves in America today... Not history, just ignored.