Quercus wrote: Tyndmyr wrote: Quercus wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If teachers are armed, what will happen is the gunmen will shoot the teachers first. What you need is to arm the students too, which would have the bonus of eliminating school bullying, bullies, students that might be bullies, jocks, nerds, drama geeks, Wendy who didn't want to go to Junior Prom with me, homework, principals, and so forth.
AKA, the Battle Royale model.
Again, we have teachers carrying in eight states, and they have killed or injured precisely zero students.
I was (jokingly) referring to arming students, not arming teachers.
I wonder what proportion of teachers in those states actually carry on the job. If that figure is close enough to zero that may not provide much evidence of anything other than that most teachers don't want to be armed.
This also used to be a thing. I'm a millenial, and I took my firearms safety training in the range in a school basement, as did quite a few other people in the midwest. Granted, a bit different from carrying everywhere, was more of a sport shooting area, but it was entirely normal until fairly recently.
The exact proportion is hard to tease out. It probably varies a lot from state to state, and even from district to district. No doubt some proportion do not wish to carry and...that's good. Making everyone do it would mean making those who are not interested in training, etc do it. Better to let people self select what they're comfortable with.
cphite wrote:Last month a teacher in Seaside California - who is also a police reservist - injured three students when he accidentally fired his weapon in class, ironically enough in a demonstration about how to make sure it wasn't loaded. Fortunately, the bullet hit the ceiling and not a student - but one student was injured by a bullet fragment, and two others apparently by pieces of the ceiling.
Wow, that's out there. Oddly enough, you can easily find a fair amount of police fail videos with guns on youtube. Some in classes. It's...unsettling how frequently police violate safety rules. Worst I could find by a teacher who wasn't a cop was one teacher shot a toilet by mistake.
That one counts as both, I suppose, but overall, teachers appear to be safer carriers of guns than police. There's probably a moral there or something.
CorruptUser wrote:Or for that matter, anyone the military wouldn't take even if the filthy Canucks were invading. Quite sure those aren't "the people" the second amendment was written for, given that we've redefined the second amendment from "the federal government can't prevent the states from forming militias" to "since we need militias, the people [who would join those militias] can be armed".
Well, actual military standards may not correlate to safety habits. Plenty of teachers who maybe can't meet physical standards for enlistment, but are otherwise fine people.
Yakk wrote:Yes, that is the opinion that the NRA spread around starting in the 1970s and convinced the supreme court and Republican party of.
It doesn't have much to do with the original intent and meaning of the consitution.
Nah, it long predates that. United States v Cruikshank(1875) holds that both the first and second amendment served only to prevent the federal government from restricting the people. Furthermore, they held that these rights were innate rights of man, and the constitution only recognized them, not brought them about.
They then twisted this into "it's okay for the state to violate your rights", because Reconstruction, and holy shit, so much racism......but you do have a pretty hard and fast recognition of the rights protected by law then. It's just a shame they didn't respect the logical result of that a bit more.
The right to bear arms would be become collective, and laws that make the rules so strict that the majority of the citizens do not qualify would be illegal.
The "collective rights" theory was definitively struck down in Heller, and only really was supported in US v Miller. Looking at the body of case law(which isn't actually immense for gun rights), you only really have this one case in which this interpretation is supported. It was certainly not the interpretation at the time of writing, but a later invention, and a similar interpretation for say, the first amendment, would be very odd indeed.
Can you imagine advocating that sure, "the people" can freely talk, but certain individuals can have that right removed? Even if you never banned the majority from doing so, this can be horribly concerning. Shit, look back at the history of Cruikshank, or literally any anti-minority limitations on freedom of speech. When tried, it WAS awful. We need not even imagine it.
cphite wrote:However, it's important to note that they do not define any actual militia; and while they do use the phrase "well regulated" to describe it, they decline to specify any political body as having the power to regulate it; not the Congress, or the federal government, not even the States.
Not sure i buy that. "Regulated" has a fairly straightforward meaning. They didn't say, "well-regulated without a regulatory body," which would have been oxymoronic anyway. Therefore a regulator was intended, even if not planned.
At the time of the constitution, "regulated" often meant "effective" or "orderly". You might see it in reference to a watch, in which context, it invariably refers to the quality of function. So, basically, they are saying that yeah, this law exists because they need an effective defense of the country. Not really surprising, much of the constitution is straight up a reaction to revolutionary problems, and the difficulty of the conflict with England was no doubt in their minds.
The nature of militias at the time was that their organization varied. States formed militias, towns formed militias, groups of interested parties formed militias. As no one organizational structure is specified, it seems unlikely they were trying to standardize this. Or, frankly, that they cared. Any port in a storm, right? They weren't about to turn up their noses at anyone willing to help. At the time, legislation mostly centered around mandating that folks had enough guns, or actually funded defense. They wanted more armed folks, not less, for pretty obvious military reasons.