What do humans do when they discover – albeit subconsciously – that everything they've believed in is wrong – is, in fact, evil? Are folks likely to do a face-palm; shake their heads; and say, "Can't believe I bought into such stupidity!"? Sometimes the truly honest among us will do that, but it doesn't happen often. When the ground shakes under us, we are more likely to just mindlessly grab for the nearest support.
A law requires all guns sold meet military specifications was paused in the 1800's. Wanna bet it's still the law? It's purpose was to make guns more expensive so poor ( black) people couldn't afford them, but the law says it's for safety and quality.
Around 1968 another law was passed, still on the books & ENFORCED, called the Saturday night special act. It banned importation of cheap pistols and mandated several features, such as Target grips to make them easier to use. The rationalization was that cheap, dangerous and ineffective guns were used by poor people and muggers. Poor people must be protected from dangerous poorly made guns. ( presumably the muggers must be protected too ) The actual purpose being to make guns too expensive for poor ( black ) people.
Today New York, California and other states passed laws, often in the middle of the night, banning guns with the features mandated for imported weapons. Features defined as making guns easier & safer to shoot & appearing to meet military specifications.
Thus the SAFE Act in New York & other "assault weapons " bans are in violation of Federal law.
Good luck using that truth to get out of trouble.
The avowed purpose of all these laws are to protect the people and reduce crime. They fail at that purpose.
The real purpose is in every case to make it harder for poor ( black ) people to protect themselves. & infringe on our Constitutionally protected rights. Period.
I know some point to the teacher in GA that fired a gun in school as evidence that teachers should not be allowed to carry guns in school. I would agree that this is not the sort of teacher who should be carrying a gun in school. It also seems pretty damned clear that he should not be a teacher either. Why do schools allow this sort of stuff?
Once again, the media (and our President, and myself - earlier here on badweb) have the phrasing wrong. Bad grammar.
"Arm teachers" is the misnomer. Reading the comments in the upper article above, people are hearing "arm teachers" and taking it the wrong way. One comment asked "who's going to pay for the training, and the equipment, etc?" - as if the school system is going to, literally, arm the teachers.
That is NOT the intent, from my understanding.
I believe the intent is to ALLOW teachers who are already certified and qualified, the opportunity to carry their own weapons while working on school grounds. If a teacher who was blocking / protecting their students with their own body is able and certified to carry? LET THEM. Allow them to actively fight back and PROTECT the students, instead of simply cowering in a corner and hoping for the best.
Why do schools allow this sort of stuff? I dont know about other states, but Georgia, for some unknown reason, will hire anyone with an education degree. I know one instance where a teacher, that couldnt finish working a whole school year, was hired as a special ed over and over. She ultimately went insane and got her exhusband (for four years theyd been divorced) locked up for two years without bond until the trail for a rape that didnt happen. Thankfully the jury wasnt swayed by the DA and his emotional episode, and they went more by the evidence that simply wasnt there. The kicker is, that this woman can still "teach" in the state of Georgia. The victim is the BadWeBer "Smokescreen" one of my best friends.
So I had read this about the teacher who shot a gun in a class room, but it took a while to come across it in a news report. I guess it's not the news that fits the agenda. Turns out he was organizing students to keep teachers from having guns in school. Skip to about the 2 minute mark if you don'w want to watch the whole 2:13 minutes.
Cold hard truth. The "Latino" population is next to be condemned to the plantation. The rich want their cheap nannies and house keepers. In what they think is private they will complain they are afraid Rosalita is stealing the single malt. They don't think they're overheard, but they are.
Pretty simple. Rich guy protests noisy jets that aren't near him yet, & doesn't care about the impact on the working class folk who would lose big if the base closes or cuts back.
Or maybe he does care but he thinks his desire is more important.
I'd put this in the snowflake thread but the rich guy has a right to protest & spend more money than I make in a year on his protest hobby.
I would like to borrow his noise trailer & play Sabaton or even Bing Crosby and David Bowie with it.
And I can't argue that F-35 jets aren't really loud.
But mocking the rich who put their luxury ahead of others, like Ted Kennedy blocking off shore wind turbines that would ruin his view, & screw the peasants, is a moral imperative.
These well coached kids from Parkland are blowing huge opportunities, assuming they really want the change they claim. They complain they have no vote, but demand laws be written. Then they brag about hanging up the phone when the White House calls. Talk about blowing an opportunity! Imagine getting a chance to speak with the POTUS, him calling you, to speak about your pet ideas. No, they are more into their instant 15 minutes of fame, rather than any lasting effect on the world. I'm pretty sure about 14 minutes have passed for them.