God damned crazy motherfuckers.

[RACER X]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Putting an armed police officer in schools will simply result in the psycho's intent on shooting the place to incorporate "Shoot Officer first" into their plan

fine by me vs walk right on in unopposed

Most school dist I know off has a police force, now granted not all campuses haveolice there all the time.

[Papa_Complex]

One, at most two officers on-site. Multiple points of ingress. A large area to cover.

Useless.

[Turbo Ghost]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

One, at most two officers on-site. Multiple points of ingress. A large area to cover.

Useless.

Every obstacle you can place in front of the bad guy is one more reason they might pass you by. Ideal? No. Useless? Not even close.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

Every obstacle you can place in front of the bad guy is one more reason they might pass you by. Ideal? No. Useless? Not even close.

Ask the people of Columbine.

[Turbo Ghost]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Ask the people of Columbine.

You can't stop everyone all the time in every situation. Columbine had one officer. Who knows what his presence DID deter over the years. I don't necessarily condone armed guards at every entrance of every school but, when looking at targets, an unprotected target will be the main choice of most. I stand by my earlier statement.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Ask the people of Columbine.

So your suggestion is maintain the status quo, because actually doing anything is essentially useless?

[Twobanger]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

One, at most two officers on-site. Multiple points of ingress. A large area to cover.

Useless.

This is why teachers/admin who are willing and able should be allowed to carry. The alternative is to huddle in a corner and wait to die, while hoping the killer is stopped before he gets to you. Active shooter events last only a few minutes and by the time police get there its over. These guys typically commit suicide at the first sign of meaningful resistance. The Oregon mall shooting is a good example of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzKXrqdpbd4&sns=em

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

So your suggestion is maintain the status quo, because actually doing anything is essentially useless?

A single police officer in a school might deter a little drug or gang activity, but not a shooter who is willing to trade his life for fame. The Secret Service is afraid that they couldn't stop such a person.

To do anything meaningful you would have to essentially consolidate police substations with schools. Can anyone envision that? Schools as armed camps? I really don't see teachers taking the place of trained law enforcement personnel who, when the chips are down and the bullets are flying, still make enough mistakes of their own.

Escalation is not the answer. It's dealing with the wrong side of the equation. What is really needed, is a quantum shift in how Americans look at firearm ownership. I constantly hear people screaming about their "right" to bear arms. Frequently I find that the people who most loudly proclaim such are precisely the people I really wouldn't want to be carrying a gun, when the shit hits the fan. The whole thing has to start with an understanding of the DUTY to keep and bear arms. The duty to be able to act as a member of a "well regulated militia." The duty to give proper reverence to such a weapon and to properly use, and NOT use it.

And, as I said before, issues like mental health care need to be addressed in order to curtail this sort of thing. By the time some nutbar decides that he wants to shoot up a school or shopping mall, it's already too late.

[Turbo Ghost]

So, how do you define the intent of the 2nd amendment?

[pauldun170]

I think the wiki on it does a fairly decent job even though "advocates" from both sides go in and fuck it up from time to time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...Rights_of_1689

back ground

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[13]

Ratification debates

The debate surrounding the Constitution's ratification is of practical import, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[67]

The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[68] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[69] though Whitehill's language was never debated.[70] Rather, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment[71] and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty,[72] quell insurrection,[73][74] and protect against tyranny.[75]

There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[76][77]

In contrast, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[78]

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[79][80] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[81][80]

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][80]

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[83][80]

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[84]

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[85][80]

By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[86]

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[87]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[88] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[89] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[90]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[91]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[92] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[93]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.[94] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[95]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.