Bob Barr Praises Texas School District that Allows Teachers to Carry Guns »
Posted By Stringcheese 1 year, 2 months ago in News
Atlanta, GA - “The best defense against crime is law-abiding citizens ready and able to defend themselves,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “The police can’t be everywhere at once, so the rest of us have to be prepared to act to stop crime. That’s why the school district in Harrold, Texas deserves praise for changing its policy to allow teachers and staff to carry concealed handguns. That school will be one of the safest in the country when classes restart next week,” says Barr.
Read Full Story at bobbarr2008.com »
2883 Views Share Story 38 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Stringcheese
Love reading about tech news, and politics. Something interesting about me is I sleep on a polyphasic schedule (4.5 hrs at night, and two ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 80 of 90 Comments (view all)
-
-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, why stop with teachers. We could have americans defending themselves against corrupt bushie foreign policy, corrupt bushie politicians, .... After all Thomas Jefferson told us that the tree of liberty would need to be watered from time to time with the blood of those willing to defend their liberty against government corruption.
Reply
Suppose Texans are smart enough to join in? Or have they all become sheeple?
-
-
-
60%
ednachman1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicrats and Demicans (they are both the same) don't want to lose a competitive edge against those of differing opinions. They want to foster the idea that two political opinions are enough to make a decision for electing a President.
Reply-
0%
lizard891 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans and Democrats are not the same. Different opinions are what make our country so unique and sucessful. If you want a country where no one gets an opinion (which is basically what you are saying) go to Cuba, there will be plenty of fellow communist to greet you when you arrive.
Reply
-
-
-
43%
ekul2561 year, 2 months ago
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive10 Replies
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
ranchhandComment removed: Retracted by user
-
50%
albionperfides1 year, 2 months ago
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
50%
vor1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They never bother to read the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment or take into account that the Founding Fathers were talking about a single shot powder musket that took some substantial time to reload. I know people who love Barr. But they also are the types that get excited by watching an M-16 make a melon explode. Not the sharpest tacks on the board.
Reply -
100%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, you might want to do some research of your own. The Second Amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms will not be infringed. Arguing that it only applies to weaponry of the day is akin to arguing that, because telephones did not exist in the era, that the government has the right to tap a phone.
Reply
Also, the Second doesn't guarantee the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms. It guarantees the right of the people, which in the era was synonymous with the Militia. Therefore they didn't mean only the Militia... they quite clearly meant the people. -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
56%
greenmac1 year, 2 months ago
-
100%
Will13131 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
come down for a visit.. ... i'll walk a few blocks from my house which is in an "upscale" neighborhood.. but the area drastically changes in just a few blocks...
Reply
and you will see why people here carry guns.....
i don't even go out for the morning paper without one.. -
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
67%
Grancher1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Teachers can be crazy people too, we had a teacher shoot the principal in Chelsea Michigan about ten years ago, and he had to think about it before he did that, because he didn't have any other reason to be carrying a gun. Teachers get angry like everyone else, and if you haven't noticed not everyone is very stable. Besides that if the teachers have guns it will not be too hard for the students to get them. Such a policy would end up encouraging, rather than discouraging gun violence in schools on the part of both students and teachers.
Reply
I tell you this guy is a plant, a hack out to discredit small parties in general and the Libertarians in particular by spouting ridiculous half-baked ideas in their name. The article even references his NRA rating. I though it was obvious that groups like the NRA, NARAL and all those other lobbies are just out to control people by blinding them to all other issues, which are potentially much more important. -
80%
thaw1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you know, when i think back..... i'm glad my teachers weren't packin' heat.
Reply
we made a few just "knots" enough to go postal on our "A"s.
and, in this district or not, i'm with phycohosebeast.. this will make teachers a
bigger threat to the shooter. hence, a bigger target. -
medical_suppliesComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
75%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The logistics of this are mind-boggling. Where does a teacher keep said gun they're packing? If the teacher doesn't get enough respect from her students, does she use the gun to get it? I wouldn't be too surprised to have one shoot a shot off in the air to get the attention of the class (and accidentally kill a student in the classroom above).
Reply
How would that gun be kept from students, lock the teacher in a booth? On her person, and a crazed student could easily grab it as she walks by. In her desk it could be taken if she turns her back or leaves the room. In a safe, it's not accessible when it's needed.
Add that to the post above about teachers snapping, and if the teacher's packing heat at the time, what happens? Do you let all the students carry guns so they can take the teacher down? I've heard enough stories of teachers snapping and slamming kids into walls or upturning their desks -- that if they thought about these things rationally, they would know it would result in their dismissal -- that it seems more a matter of 'when' and not 'if'.-
100%
markmawn21 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Schools perhaps should be retroffitted with bullet proof glass, and the teacher would be behind a bulletproof booth, locked from the outside, but of course with oxygen pumped in for breathing. He/she can shoot away.
Reply
I think if you live in Michigan, there is a class on Hunter Safety that everyone has to take. Is there an equivalent for Urban Jungles? Perhaps there should be.
-
-
33%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“We need a president who will uphold and aggressively protect the right of Americans to own firearms for any lawful purpose, including, most importantly, defense of one’s self and family"
Reply
I agree with the first part, but not the second. According to the constitution, the 'most importantly' should be for the purpose of defending one's freedom from the tyranny of a corrupt government. Law enforcement officials are there for the purpose of protecting you and your family, and you should NOT "most importantly" have to do this job for them.
In some respects, I think the Wild West was the right approach. If someone wronged you, you killed them. It made it much more likely they'd think twice before shafting you your due. Law enforcers should primarily be around to break up gangs who would use the power of the gun TO wrong others. An individual who shot the guy who stole from him shouldn't suffer legal action. An individual who repeatedly shot guys who "stole" from him would, because after the first one or two, it's quite unlikely that guys would keep on stealing.-
100%
markmawn21 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This coming from the same people that want government out of your family business. They don't want government, but they do want government.
Reply
I would say, you are on your own if you have a gun. License it, register it, live with the consequences of it. DON'T legislate it, or expect support for it. When you get in a gunfight, it is ALL up to you. May the best shooter win.
Gene pool rules.
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" If someone wronged you, you killed them. It made it much more likely they'd think twice before shafting you your due."
Reply
YES!
When someone wrongs ME, I want to hunt them down and show them a little Texas education! People who change lanes in front of me without signaling, or who don't curb their dogs, and who talk loud on cell phones in restaurants, or vote against my brilliant comments...
Uhm, but don't let that STOP you from neg'ing this comment.
You aren't ...AFRAID, are you?
Huh? -
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The great experiment has begun. THis will either be a deterrent, or an attractant.
Reply
Better hope those gun toter are receiving tactical training and visiting hte shooting range once a week.
If little Johnny takes one for the class when teacher misses, Johnny's dad will be coming for teach with both barrels. -
-
100%
tchef1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This may be effective in a rural setting but I really don't think it's a good idea in the cities. That's the problem with with the whole "gun argument". The situations are completely different. There is no "one size fits all" solution.
Reply
I think one of the best things that we could do is to make anyone who KNOWINGLY sells a gun illegally to some one who uses it to commit a crime should be charged as an accessory to that crime. The key to this is the word "knowingly". If you are a registered gun dealer and your not following the legal methods of selling guns you know that those guns are not going to be used for legal purposes. -
100%
markmawn21 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok, I just figured this out. This a a propaganda peice put out by the Home Schooling Association of America, Right?
Reply
Their new slogan is, "Keep the heat at home where it belongs....Homeschool".
Or, "Lunch ain't all they're packing these days....Homeschool".
Or "Get the Lead Out....Stay Home to Study"
I could go on. -
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Texas deserves praise for changing its policy to allow teachers and staff to carry concealed handguns. That school will be one of the safest in the country when classes restart next week,” says Barr."
Reply
That is if none of the teachers or staff went on a rampage themselves. Granted they may not be able to get far in a killing spree but they'd still be able to inflict some damage.
I have mixed feeling about this concept of allowing certain people the right to carry weapons where no others are allowed. But don't get me wrong, I believe in the right for legal-abiding citizens to own and carry fire arms. Just not everywhere they'd like.
Hopefully the law also requires gun training on safety and responsibility.-
100%
markmawn21 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That sentence RIGHT THERE bugs me. "Texas deserves praise". So we should be proud that nothing else is worling and we have to stoops so low. This is a tragedy of epic proportions. That's like praising yourself for adding new Missile silo's. "We are a safer worls because of them". Who cannot see the absurdity. This is a day of mourning, especially for all those future fallen kids and teachers.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
albionperfides1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Charlson
Reply
It all comes back to what the Constitution says. ........................a well ordered militia........
This is always ignored by the pro gun lobby. However if you still wish to carry guns and kill someone,say, in Florida because you "think" they are going to hurt you then go ahead but it is not the setting for a civilised society. For example would you try to carry guns in Europe? If not then why in the USA?-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, here is the Second Amendment in its entirety for you:
Reply
"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."
1. The well ordered Militia and the people were one and the same at the time of its writing.
2. A standing army was considered detrimental to freedom at the time of the writing of it, thus this area of the Constitution:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
3. Being that a Militia that is well ordered is necessary for the security of a free state, why is this right guaranteed to the people and not a Militia, when the term Militia was used earlier in the sentence? I'll tell you why, because what is a "well ordered Militia"? Does it have to have government approval? Does it have to have a uniform? What definition will be used with this? Well, the framers of the Constitution used a very simple definition- an American citizen. Therefore, yes, the teachers are members of a well ordered Militia. This was to provide a counter-balance if Congress ever ignored the part about standing armies and, at the same time, to be an aid in defense of the country during times of invasion.
Does that satisfy you?
-
-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alright folks, lets see how this plan goes. I'm not really for it or against it... being a believer in the Second Amendment, I also believe in the right of the school district in question (despite being an outcropping of the government) to ban weaponry on certain individuals. I consider it akin to a person saying "Don't smoke in my house" or "Don't bring a gun into my home"... all of which a person can enforce. I don't believe the government can make the call on this, but I do believe a school principal can make it for a single school.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.