DescentBB

Some people have been saved simply because the shooter found the door locked or was unable to get in to kill his victims.

This is probably the BEST and most plausible way to prevent monsters from killing innocent children.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video ... .wsyx.html

They should be just as ubiquitous as a fire extinguisher. The inventor may have just saved hundreds of people in the future.

Or it could simply be required that schools install deadbolts in all their doors.

I thought of a variation on existing tech that could help. In Iraq when trying to control the violence the troops were coming under fire from snipers while patrolling so they deployed sensors that could recognize a gun shot from the sound and pressures it creates. Triangulation within the sensor network gave approximate location of the shooter.

I figure if you make the school a sensor rich network you could have alarms go off, doors lock throughout, cameras activate, as soon as a single shot is fired.
In the zone/space where the shot was fired you could have the system trigger some additional hardware to help the teacher get control.
And teachers/administration should have latest taser tech and training.

You could easily set up a similar system in bloody neighborhoods that triggered good cameras that zoomed in on the shot location so the rate of identifying shooters would be much better.

Of course once some trouble maker finds out how it works they will be setting off firecrackers trying to fool it but that shouldn't be a major problem. You get them as well by the system they triggered...

first off, Will, your idea would be MONSTROUSLY expensive. Do you have any idea of how many schools would be involved, at the cost per school? Hell, we can't find the money to pay teachers and staff adequately, so we both know that isn't going to happen. Second, is it only myself who is saddened that just because some folks cling to an erroneous view of what the 2nd amendment entails, we have to look at such 'fixes'?

I never said it was a fix.
There is no fix for crazy. Not even adopting your ever morphing interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
What is it today by the way? I think two days ago you were not proposing any interpretation that would have stopped most if any shootings. So now you imply there is an interpretation that would fix things. Please share....

It's easy to pretend to have the answer but at some point you have to give it up or people start to think you are just full of yourself

As for the budget. I think I could find a few spending items to cut that would pay for it. Like Congressional perks.
Hey! Just find the money in the same place you will find it for ACA and all the refugees you have invited to come to school here? You rich guys have no problem finding other peoples money in your hands...I'm sure you can figure it out. After all, 'even if it saves only on child...'

Will Robinson wrote:I never said it was a fix.
There is no fix for crazy. Not even adopting your ever morphing interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
What is it today by the way? I think two days ago you were not proposing any interpretation that would have stopped most if any shootings. So now you imply there is an interpretation that would fix things. Please share....

actually, my position has remained unchanged for years:
1.common sense and common-between states regulation and registration
2. Universal background check for ALL transactions. ALL of them. That would include far more specific, stringent wording preventing gun possession by those with emotional issues deemed sufficient to have had prior intervention.
3.Stiff penalties for any gun owner failing to report a lost or stolen weapon, and still stiffer penalties if said weapon is used for a violent crime.
4. Common sense restrictions barring semi-automatic weapons(hand or long guns) with magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
that's it, that's always been it for me. Trying to lie about me changing position is a laughable dodge, but hardly your first.

As for the budget. I think I could find a few spending items to cut that would pay for it. Like Congressional perks.
Hey! Just find the money in the same place you will find it for ACA and all the refugees you have invited to come to school here? You rich guys have no problem finding other peoples money in your hands...I'm sure you can figure it out. After all, 'even if it saves only on child...'

or you could start forcing people to disclose offshore accounts and collect tax on them if they wish to remain US citizens.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I never said it was a fix.
There is no fix for crazy. Not even adopting your ever morphing interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
What is it today by the way? I think two days ago you were not proposing any interpretation that would have stopped most if any shootings. So now you imply there is an interpretation that would fix things. Please share....

actually, my position has remained unchanged for years:
1.common sense and common-between states regulation and registration
2. Universal background check for ALL transactions. ALL of them. That would include far more specific, stringent wording preventing gun possession by those with emotional issues deemed sufficient to have had prior intervention.
3.Stiff penalties for any gun owner failing to report a lost or stolen weapon, and still stiffer penalties if said weapon is used for a violent crime.
4. Common sense restrictions barring semi-automatic weapons(hand or long guns) with magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
that's it, that's always been it for me. Trying to lie about me changing position is a laughable dodge, but hardly your first.

No, I'm not lying about your solid-as-smoke position. I'm pointing out how you imply it would stop things that it wouldn't whenever the topic calls for you to be right and others wrong. Like how you implied the "erroneous view of what the 2nd amendment entails" is why school shootings need to be addressed.
None of your supposedly superior position on gun laws would have stopped most, if any, massacres.
Yet you pop in these conversations with your self righteous arrogance and posture as the one sensible person in the discussion based on your proclaimed/implied 'correct interpretation'.

You missed your calling to be national level politician because that is the one place where such a character flaw is counted as a positive attribute.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:As for the budget. I think I could find a few spending items to cut that would pay for it. Like Congressional perks.
Hey! Just find the money in the same place you will find it for ACA and all the refugees you have invited to come to school here? You rich guys have no problem finding other peoples money in your hands...I'm sure you can figure it out. After all, 'even if it saves only on child...'

or you could start forcing people to disclose offshore accounts and collect tax on them if they wish to remain US citizens.

By all means lets add that to the list. Scratch one rich guy loophole and cash it in for a safer school. I'm registered, where do I go to vote for it?

Will Robinson wrote:No, I'm not lying about your solid-as-smoke position. I'm pointing out how you imply it would stop things that it wouldn't whenever the topic calls for you to be right and others wrong. Like how you implied the "erroneous view of what the 2nd amendment entails" is why school shootings need to be addressed.

first off, I never claimed stoppage of ALL incidents. If my rules stop but a handful, isn't that preferable? My statement about the 2nd is that the amendment was proposed for the purpose of self-defense and assembling a militia against external threats. We don't need the latter since we have a professional standing military, and no one needs ridiculous weaponry to accomplish the first.

Keep on pretending that the 2nd protects you in the right to carry in a public place, any public place. Or, that it was intended to allow guns in school settings, or that it means no one should be vetted before buying a weapon. That little fairy-tale has cost a lot of good people their lives.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:No, I'm not lying about your solid-as-smoke position. I'm pointing out how you imply it would stop things that it wouldn't whenever the topic calls for you to be right and others wrong. Like how you implied the "erroneous view of what the 2nd amendment entails" is why school shootings need to be addressed.

first off, I never claimed stoppage of ALL incidents. If my rules stop but a handful, isn't that preferable? My statement about the 2nd is that the amendment was proposed for the purpose of self-defense and assembling a militia against external threats. We don't need the latter since we have a professional standing military, and no one needs ridiculous weaponry to accomplish the first.

That 'interpretation' makes liberals warm and fuzzy but it isn't supported by the evidence..as I have shown you at least two or three separate times. Reams of documents talking about tyranny from within are in the contemporaneous supporting works from the authors of the Bill of Rights etc.
Where as there is no talk about basic self defense being the reason for the 2nd.
save that for the dumbmasses who vote your way. And is this another example of your 'reasonable' approach to gun legislation you claimed to champion the other day...out of the closet on display today for what you are? Lol! You just can't help yourself can you?

callmeslick wrote:Keep on pretending that the 2nd protects you in the right to carry in a public place, any public place. Or, that it was intended to allow guns in school settings, or that it means no one should be vetted before buying a weapon. That little fairy-tale has cost a lot of good people their lives.

That is a fairy tale. One that I never repeated. Why do you continue to attribute to me that which is false?
Oh, yea...because that's all you have...

then you agree with my position on the 2nd, and on common sense gun laws?

callmeslick wrote:then you agree with my position on the 2nd, and on common sense gun laws?

I disagree that the 2nd was authored to provide a protection that the standing army now makes it unnecessary. The tyranny they spoke of citizens needing to repel was from within. There is plenty of evidence to be found that supports that interpretation and none that supports your assertion to the contrary.

I would support common sense regulation if it was sincerely offered without attaching destructive precedent to the future of the 2nd...

Will Robinson wrote: The tyranny they spoke of citizens needing to repel was from within. There is plenty of evidence to be found that supports that interpretation and none that supports your assertion to the contrary.

you better go back and re-read. The only support for your position came in asides and conjecture, largely from Madison. The rest of the founders felt as I did, and supported that with a lot of documentation. They were very afraid of the new government creating a standing army, having been just victimized by their previous government's standing army.

I would support common sense regulation if it was sincerely offered without attaching destructive precedent to the future of the 2nd...

do you see anything in my proposals that would eliminate or 'provide destructive precedent'? If so, how and why?

callmeslick wrote:then you agree with my position on the 2nd, and on common sense gun laws?

One persons "common sense" is another persons oppression.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:then you agree with my position on the 2nd, and on common sense gun laws?

One persons "common sense" is another persons oppression.

point out the supposed 'oppression', and feel free to start the discussion around societal tradeoffs in the interest of the Common Good.

Krom wrote:Or it could simply be required that schools install deadbolts in all their doors.

Would probably break the fire codes, you never want the possibility of losing control of the key and being locked in, if there is a fire.

Also any lock with a “cylinder” can easily be defeated with the different tools available to do just that. One is so fast, it’s almost faster than a key, but I won’t describe it here in an open forum, you will just have to trust me.

No a simple slide bolt would suffice, as long as the youngest person in the room can operate it, and defeating a slide bolt from outside is not easy, but not impossible either.

But with all of that, and the rest of this talk about “locking doors” when someone hears gunfire, I wouldn’t want to go to a school like that. And I would have to wonder about the possible psychological damage from being constantly on guard.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:then you agree with my position on the 2nd, and on common sense gun laws?

One persons "common sense" is another persons oppression.

Good sense is better than common sense any day.

right you are, Spidey.....I'll change my descriptive.

slick, Madison wrote the bill of rights all those "asides" as you try to diminish them, are the support for his ideas from those other founders. And they form a rich resource of what any court would call important, contemporary evidence to those founders intent.

Sure you will find some were against a standing army that Madison didn't strike down in any way. His answer to their concerns toward that irrefutably cites the individual right to keep and bear arms as the COUNTER to the threat of a tyrant taking control of the army.

No where will you find the supporting evidence, or the BoR itself, to support that which you just implied.

If there was any hope for your desire to make your interpretation into the law of the land it would be in action right now and yet Holder and Obzna don't dare go that far from the reservation because they know there is no way to take such a weak argument to court and win.

my interpretation was the standard SCOTUS interpretation for the first 208 years of the nation. The current one was brought to us by the Brennan court.

Once again I think you are hoping people will infer something that you don't have any evidence to support.

Can you cite anything from those first 208 years that shows the court ruled the 2nd was irrelevant due to the fact we had a standing army?

Can you prove your assertion that the fear of a standing army among the other founders was remedied in their mind by anything that resembles your interpretation?!?

I don't think so. In fact those that were more afraid of the standing army were LESS inclined to see things your way than Madison was!

You just make declarations pulled fresh from your ass and expect us to ignore the smell because we are supposed to be awed by you and recognize you as some kind of sage. Friends with important people etc.

All anyone has to do is read what you and I disagree on and go look for themselves. Fortunately the documents from that era and records of our courts throughout the centuries have been protected from revisionist partisans. So far anyway.

Will Robinson wrote:Once again I think you are hoping people will infer something that you don't have any evidence to support.

Can you cite anything from those first 208 years that shows the court ruled the 2nd was irrelevant due to the fact we had a standing army?

it repeatedly upheld restrictions on ownership, type of weapons permitted, allowed ordinances banning guns altogether, etc. The consistent body of writing from the court held that personal protection was the only currently valid reason.

Can you prove your assertion that the fear of a standing army among the other founders was remedied in their mind by anything that resembles your interpretation?!?

well, I can go assemble it all again(I posted a long synopsis here last year sometime), but the gist was this: They had just suffered a war with the mercenary standing army of England. They saw inherent in a standing army the chance that an oppressive government would use that army on its own citizens, unless such was never permitted. They, not seeing perfectly into the future, put in place(beyond the mere amendment) a set of processes by which citizens militias were to be formed and MAINTAINED at all times. My interpretation,as you deem it, became the functional one by 1815 or so, by which time we had a standing army and navy, which have expanded in size ever since.

like I say, I'd prefer you go back to the links I provided last year, but if I find the time in the next few days, I'll be glad to post them again.

I recall you trying to make that point, relying heavily on your own opinion, and I took it apart with the works of people much more qualified than you or I so if you go repost something I replied to don't leave the rebuttal out....

By the way, you tossed out a few red herrings there, much of what you say they did back then (implying it is different now) is the same as now. We have restrictions on " ownership, type of weapons permitted, allowed ordinances banning guns altogether, etc." now. so really the only thing you claim is different is the older court supposedly held that "personal protection was the only currently valid reason."

One, I'd like to see you cite a few of those numerous papers the court produced. Not some left leaning scholar from today or yesteryear. Since you claim the court consistently wrote that I'd like to see it. It might exist to some degree but I would enjoy reading it.
And secondly, as I recall the court at one time held all sorts of things that were counter to constitutional, the first 100 years held that slavery was approved by the government! So the fact that the court during one period held to some belief doesn't mean it was a good thing.

I don't recall reading any good arguments for slavery from the founding of america. I do recall reading lots of stuff about the tyranny of government, what will be done to protect us from a central government in the hands of a few despots. And it wasn't the army that THEY would control that was pointed to as a solution. The way you portray the militia as being a replacement for the army and thus a militia is now moot is very weak juju. There are tons of writings on that issue and your interpretation has to ignore all of it to try and prop up that crap. I don't think any court would ever let you run with that line for more than the time it took you to offer it up to be shot down.

So if you intend to make an argument, make one based on substance. Don't just show me that at one time people in power had it a different way and that way happens to suit your current agenda so you will selectively hold up that portion of our history as gospel while simultaneously trampling under your feet the very core principles that you arent even honest enough to acknowledge!

The federal government has established public radio and libraries. Does that mean the freedom of the press is now useless?
The federal government has the ability and does call town meetings. Does that mean we no longer need the freedom of assembly?
The list can go on and on. The Bill of Rights was intended for individuals to protect us...by prohibiting the government from infringing on our liberties without extreme need and in some cases ever.

You can't convince me, and I think likewise not any reasonably intelligent court, that all those individual rights were written for the individual except the 2nd one was written quite contrary in both style and content to the others. That is a ridiculous departure from what is known to try to present an account of history that, fortunately, has enough accompanying documentation to expose such an attempt as more devious than simply ridiculous.

Like I said before, if your case was solid the deed would have been done recently. You have never had a President, Congress and Attorney General more sympathetic to that cause in power to try their luck than today. it hasn't been challenged because it wont work. Go stack the court before Obama gets out of office. that's your best bet...probably forever too because the way he is pushing the pendulum so far left it is going to make a mighty swing to the other side in relief starting in a few years.

Will Robinson wrote:The federal government has established public radio and libraries. Does that mean the freedom of the press is now useless?
The federal government has the ability and does call town meetings. Does that mean we no longer need the freedom of assembly?
The list can go on and on. The Bill of Rights was intended for individuals to protect us...by prohibiting the government from infringing on our liberties without extreme need and in some cases ever.

That’s a pretty good argument…

And the idea that self defense is some paltry last stand reason for the individual right is like saying breathing is the last vestiges of having the right to have lungs.

Self defense is everything, and can include anything from protecting your property if some foreign invaders were marching down your block, to keeping safe during a gang war, and everything in between. (and yes, even the whole tyranny thing, can be related to self defense, futile or otherwise)

And the idea that you have the right to own something, but must keep in your home is…well…I don’t know what the hell that is. As I have said before, the right to conceal and transport is the only thing that keeps me from having to own 2 guns.