Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Oh ya... the Constitution to you is only the 2nd Amendment and it only protects rich people's rights to bear arms. Silly me!

Oh yeah constitutional rights only matter to groups the left favors.

Silly ME.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Dunno why some people are so quick to poop on the Constitution.

LOL.

Don't even get me started on that hypocrisy.

Gun owners, and rich folks.

Two groups of people whose constitutional rights that are CLEARLY IGNORED.

But they sure don't fit the false narrative of this thread.

Speaking of false narratives and superfluous BS ...

No one is talking about taking away gun rights. A public school classroom with children in it is not the venue for a Second Amendment demonstration. I suppose you'd be in favor of the kids packing as well? Since they too are American citizens who should not be "infringed" upon in ANY way, right?

No reason to even address the silly red-herring tossed in about the super-rich being abused ... that's just absurd, but also, off-topic.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: neo96

Don't you love the way they pull that bs.

Yep Mencken called that snip 90 years ago.

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.

en.wikiquote.org...

Police your kids before we police them for you. Simple as hell. Society needs to man up on their parenting skills. If not we have places for you. I don't feel at all bad about it. It's better than going to your own son's funeral. Sometimes tough love is the answer.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Some kids are packing at schools a quick google search should help you.

a reply to: Kali74
So sorry to see this. I understand the anxiety over "shooters", even students who are shooters. But arming teachers is not the answer. Good lord, fund them adequately so they can hire more security guards, or make expelling troublesome youths easier, to lessen the possibility of having them in the school population.

We have "alternative schools" for youths who have behaviors that are potentially violent. Lots of Security Guards, and people trained in how to properly restrain violent children. I've been to some, and they are like regular schools, for the most part, except maybe louder. They are teenagers, I would say.
I don't like the idea of arming teachers. My suggestions might be unrealistic, but there has to be other solutions.
Additionally, teachers shouldn't have to be put through this either. Will they start offering "Firearms 101" In Education at Universities?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Dunno why some people are so quick to poop on the Constitution.

LOL.

Don't even get me started on that hypocrisy.

Gun owners, and rich folks.

Two groups of people whose constitutional rights that are CLEARLY IGNORED.

But they sure don't fit the false narrative of this thread.

Speaking of false narratives and superfluous BS ...

No one is talking about taking away gun rights. A public school classroom with children in it is not the venue for a Second Amendment demonstration. I suppose you'd be in favor of the kids packing as well? Since they too are American citizens who should not be "infringed" upon in ANY way, right?

No reason to even address the silly red-herring tossed in about the super-rich being abused ... that's just absurd, but also, off-topic.

Yo someone brought up the constitution.

That covers a GREAT MANY topics.

No one is talking about taking away gun rights.

That's a LIE!

. I suppose you'd be in favor of the kids packing as well?

That was some 'superfluous bs' .

No reason to even address the silly red-herring tossed in about the super-rich being abused ... that's just absurd, but also, off-topic.

Miss this red herring ?

. I suppose you'd be in favor of the kids packing as well?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

Some kids are packing at schools a quick google search should help you.

So, "some kids" are carrying guns to school. How many, where and under what circumstances?

See, alluding to some vague information that is available doesn't cut it. Why are you trying so hard to side-track this conversation?

This isn't about the kids who occasionally take guns to school.

It IS about a state law in the 2nd largest US state providing a means for kids who AREN'T sneaking in guns and who AREN'T violent "thugs" and who AREN'T doing anything that, for some reason, deserves the real possibility of a terminal response on the part of the State ... and most are so far gone you don't see how stupid the idea is.

Guns are the only important thing here, right?

EDIT: Removed a "t."

a reply to: Kali74

I am.

I packed. Not because I wanted to shoot someone. For defense. Those days are over. They won't see that in the same light as I rationalized within my own mind. I'm glad I never had to use it. I wasn't the only one. I just thought I'd let you know that kids do carry and it's not fiction like some make it out to be. I'm not saying I was right. I'm saying I did it.

a reply to: neo96

As usual, your post says nothing via extensive pasting and quoting and achieves nothing except screen-scroll.

Point out where any comment made here is an attempt to take away your guns.

The rest of your post is nothing more than childish "I know you are but what am I?" Nyah-nyah.

Come up with some thing of adult substance or feel free not to waste my time in responding to me. You're doing nothing here but rebleating the same old political agenda.

We're not talking about appropriate response to violence and you know it. We're talking about teachers being given a license to kill.

The kids in those classrooms have Constitutional rights, too, or did you forget that?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Answer

And property.

Which, like I pointed out, is a sensationalist angle to focus on but clearly that's not going to stop you.

a reply to: Kali74

Here in Memphis-we have murderers that are 10,12 years old.

They should drop the minimum age for the death penalty to the age of 10-and enforce the hell out of it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Zzzzzzz.

This is about people having the right to protect themselves from all threats, but continue on with the fake outrage fad that seems to be in lately.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

Zzzzzzz.

This is about people having the right to protect themselves from all threats, but continue on with the fake outrage fad that seems to be in lately.

And again, you don't address the topic, but merely cast in more BS, implying that this is about defense and gun rights. No one here is talking about outrage, and again, you're merely trying to diffuse the topic.

Why don't you address some of the actual issues with actual quotes from actual people in the thread, or is no one saying anything that suits your claims, requiring you to simply make stuff up?

Seems to be the latter ... and I'm wondering why you want to shut down discussion so badly.

The issue at hand is whether teachers in Texas (not across the nation) should be given carte-blanche to use deadly force on students for anything from actual physical attacks to the uselessly vague "destruction of school property."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Whatever you say gryphy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

As usual, your post says nothing via extensive pasting and quoting and achieves nothing except screen-scroll.

Point out where any comment made here is an attempt to take away your guns.

The rest of your post is nothing more than childish "I know you are but what am I?" Nyah-nyah.

Come up with some thing of adult substance or feel free not to waste my time in responding to me. You're doing nothing here but rebleating the same old political agenda.

We're not talking about appropriate response to violence and you know it. We're talking about teachers being given a license to kill.

The kids in those classrooms have Constitutional rights, too, or did you forget that?

Well I guess this is true:

When IQ isn't sufficient to form an argument, pull out the personal insults.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

Whatever you say gryphy.

One line pointless snide response.

I guess you didn't want anyone to know you're snapping on blanks in your argument, eh?

I'm selling chill pills five for a dollar.

a reply to: neo96

And now it's to be the faux-victim card? Because I didn't shy off from your cutting and pasting? LOL

What insults? The ones you're tossing around? I don't mind them, I'm fairly used to your style.

So, what about the facts of the matter, here ... I'll quote me:

We're not talking about appropriate response to violence and you know it. We're talking about teachers being given a license to kill.

The kids in those classrooms have Constitutional rights, too, or did you forget that?

There you go, there's the topic. I'd be glad to hear anything reasonable or relevant you have to say about it.