School Shootings

[I-5]

Just learned some more disturbing details about the Usvalde shooting:

- a high school classmate of the shooter knew him well, and said that he was not bullied at school but was always picking fights, and that he was known for hurting/killing small animals...a major red flag
- there WAS a school resource officer who was armed and engaged with the shooter before entering, but no details on why he wasn't able to stop him
- parents who converged at the school were yelling at police to go into the school during the shooting, then tried to go into the school themselves but were not allowed. They claim the police stood outside and waited until the shooter stopped (he was barricaded in the room up to an hour)

The last detail is the most disturbing, if true. Can you even imagine standing outside your kids school while someone is inside shooting, and the police won't go in or allow you to go in? I understand being a cop is one of the hardest jobs in the world, but that's why it takes special people to do it. If they delayed going in because of fearing for their life, are they in the right job?

[mykc14]

If I were positing a theory, I think it has something to do with the very open culture we have. We don't really have a formal, controlling culture like almost every other nation in the world. Even places like the United Kingdom and Germany have certain formal and restrictive cultural elements we lack. We're kind of a free for all culture with no expectations of manners, address, or much of anything since the 60s really when the counterculture movement threw everything out.

We're gonna have to do something at some point.

For me I want the 2nd Amendment properly addressed:

1. It's purpose as a right to violent revolution and ensuring military power is held by the people must be confirmed. There is no evidence that the 2nd Amendment was created as anything other than a right of violent revolution to be used both against aggressors foreign and domestic. It was created specifically as a check on government military and police power by people who understood very clearly that control of police and military power was a precursor to tyranny. I need to see politicians acknowledge the 2nd Amendment is a check on government power as important as free speech, assembly, right to trial, or any of the Amendments checking government power.

2. Once that is done, then I am more open to legislation that makes it clear what a person can own much like Switzerland. I'm not a big "guns as a hobby" guy or the like. To me gun ownership and The 2nd Amendment have a very specific purpose. People who exercise it have both a right and a responsibility same as they do with any other right.

3. I would be ok with some limits on gun ownership, especially background checks which I have never opposed and honestly wonder why there are so many loopholes to background checks. I'm not for some kind of untouchable gun right as long as the basis for the 2nd Amendment is clear and communicated to the American people.

There is a saying I learned in political science that goes "All politics is force." When I first heard it, I wondered at it. But the more I learned, the more I understood. We pay taxes, follow laws, and people respect our borders and resource claims solely because we have the means to violently enforce our laws, taxes, borders, resource claims, and the like. A people as a group have extremely limited control over their government or political power if they do not have the means to violently revolt and enforce their will same as the government has no real power if they cannot violently enforce their laws, taxes, resource claims, borders, etcetera.

This idea is inherent in The 2nd Amendment ensuring the power of violent enforcement of the people's will is a right guaranteed in the Constitution to ensure the American people are not disarmed and unprepared to deal with a tyrant foreign or domestic.

That being said it is not some kind of right that we cannot provide intelligently as many towns and states did back in the old days when Town Marshalls often enforced no guns in city limits or at bars or other areas where violence should be controlled. So it is not historical precedent that we are provided some unalterable gun rights. We can ensure the 2nd Amendment right is respected, while at the same time having intelligent implementation of the 2nd Amendment. Thus I would support some laws governing the 2nd Amendment that both acknowledge its purpose while also limiting access to threats like some lone wolf scumbag losing his mind and going on a killing spree because he hates the world. So I guess we'll see what happens this time around.

Given I'm in Washington State, we already have pretty restrictive gun laws. It hasn't seemed to help a great deal at this point as we're still having homicide problems. Mainly because criminals and lunatics always seem to find a way to get guns unless you completely ban them from society, which I would never support. Hopefully they can figure some method other than a total ban to gain some control over these scumbag lunatics wanting to inflict pain on the world before they go out.

I agree with this 100%. To add to your discussion about the 2nd amendment I think it's also important to address the fact that although the amendment says "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." The reality is that almost everybody in America agrees that the government should infringe on our right to keep and bear certain arms. An obvious example of this is nuclear weapons. Another example would be that most people believe that mentally unstable people's right to bear arms should also be infringed, as well as felons, etc. The gray area comes with which arms the government should infringe upon now- AR's, magazine capacity, modifications, etc... We need to make this clear. Also we need to stop politicizing every tragedy. It's pathetic. Every school shooting should be turned into an NRA rally or be used to further liberal gun control. I have heard many people say it's a gun issue or it's a mental health issue, but the ultimate reality is that it is clearly a gun access issue AND a mental health issue. We have to do better as as country.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm going to post one last time and call it a day. This discussion never changes. The two sides are so far apart that it's hard to even have a conversation.

What do I need to support measures to fix some of this?

1. I need to hear the Democrats acknowledge they understand The 2nd Amendment. They understand its purpose in the Constitution in the same manner they understand the 1st Amendment or any of the others they tend to use when convenient for them. The 2nd Amendment is simply written as is every Amendment in our Constitution. That doesn't mean the direct meaning of the words is the intent or definition of the Amendment. No one goes the 1st Amendment says "Freedom of Speech", that means exactly what it says and I can say whatever I want whenever I want even if I'm screaming curse words at your grandma while you can't do nothing but respect my 1st Amendment rights.

2nd Amendment is not for hunting. It's not only for home defense. It's an Amendment to provide the individual and the people as a whole the means to violently protect or dissolve their government should it be necessary to do so.

This is all very clear if you read the rhetoric surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the debate on standing armies, and the like associated with the idea of a citizen militia and ultimate military power resting with the people to offset any military or police power controlled by the government.

Democrats need to accept and show understanding this is the purpose of The 2nd Amendment. It's not some anachronistic afterthought tossed in by some yahoos with no understanding of how to put severe checks and balances on the power of government. It's a powerful check on governmental power the American people should never surrender. It is the Amendment of the citizen soldier, not gun hobbyists or hunters. Americans are expected to protect their rights with their very lives if necessary.

Democrats consistently disrespect and downplay the importance of The 2nd Amendment. This is a non-starter and conversation ender for those us who believe in the 2nd Amendment and understand its intended purpose within the Constitution.

2. Once I see one, then I'm open to discussion as to how we implement The 2nd Amendment in the modern day.

I do not believe in some unregulated right to own firearms. I don't believe The 2nd Amendment was intended to create an unregulated right to own firearms. The Founding Fathers were not some anarchist yahoos wanting unregulated access to weapons.

Thus I would be open to regulation of weapons that includes understanding that American citizens are expected to be able to carry out their duties as a citizen soldier regardless of having a standing army or police force not only to protect against foreign invasion, but to provide a very real check on the police and military power of government.

I won't support a full ban of assault weapons as the assault rifle is the current standard weapon of soldiers of all types worldwide. Americans should be able to own them and train with them so they can execute their duty in defense of the nation if attacked from outside or within as the 2nd Amendment intends.

Does this idea preclude background checks? No. There is a lot of room once you acknowledge the purpose of The 2nd Amendment and work to incorporate it into the modern day in terms of ensuring training, keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people, and teaching Americans the power of and responsibility of weapons ownership.

I myself was raised by uncles who all owned guns. All believed in the 2nd Amendment even while some were union supporting Democrats. And very much taught me to respect gun ownership and the power of the gun. They never taught me any stupid crap like "Guns don't kill people, people do." I was always taught a gun was a tool for killing and you need to respect that at all times. Even I carried a gun in an unsafe manner, I was yelled at and told never to carry a gun in an unsafe or negligent manner. I learned to respect guns and what they represent.

This seems to be a very forgotten idea in America. It needs to come back strongly. Gun culture seems to be driven by hobbyists and people who like to show off the power of the gun, but not teach any of the responsibilities and dangers of gun ownership. The Democrats seem to want to just teach that we should just get rid of them all and no one should have them rather than teach the gun culture that Americans learned early on this nation which was one of responsibility, duty, and respect for the gun as a weapon.

That narrative needs to return. Not this hobbyist, gun ownership as fun right wing narrative or this left wing get rid of all the guns, we don't need them narrative. But the one that served us well for hundreds of years and you can even see at times in older movies where teaching the use of the gun was a real life lesson that included the skill to fire it and the wisdom to not use it needlessly as well as respect for its deadly power.

When I hear some of this talk in the public discussion, then I'm more on board to support legislation to clean some of this up.

[I-5]

I'm going to post one last time and call it a day. This discussion never changes. The two sides are so far apart that it's hard to even have a conversation.

What do I need to support measures to fix some of this?

1. I need to hear the Democrats acknowledge they understand The 2nd Amendment. They understand its purpose in the Constitution in the same manner they understand the 1st Amendment or any of the others they tend to use when convenient for them. The 2nd Amendment is simply written as is every Amendment in our Constitution. That doesn't mean the direct meaning of the words is the intent or definition of the Amendment. No one goes the 1st Amendment says "Freedom of Speech", that means exactly what it says and I can say whatever I want whenever I want even if I'm screaming curse words at your grandma while you can't do nothing but respect my 1st Amendment rights.

2nd Amendment is not for hunting. It's not only for home defense. It's an Amendment to provide the individual and the people as a whole the means to violently protect or dissolve their government should it be necessary to do so.

This is all very clear if you read the rhetoric surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the debate on standing armies, and the like associated with the idea of a citizen militia and ultimate military power resting with the people to offset any military or police power controlled by the government.

Democrats need to accept and show understanding this is the purpose of The 2nd Amendment. It's not some anachronistic afterthought tossed in by some yahoos with no understanding of how to put severe checks and balances on the power of government. It's a powerful check on governmental power the American people should never surrender. It is the Amendment of the citizen soldier, not gun hobbyists or hunters. Americans are expected to protect their rights with their very lives if necessary.

Democrats consistently disrespect and downplay the importance of The 2nd Amendment. This is a non-starter and conversation ender for those us who believe in the 2nd Amendment and understand its intended purpose within the Constitution.

2. Once I see one, then I'm open to discussion as to how we implement The 2nd Amendment in the modern day.

I do not believe in some unregulated right to own firearms. I don't believe The 2nd Amendment was intended to create an unregulated right to own firearms. The Founding Fathers were not some anarchist yahoos wanting unregulated access to weapons.

Thus I would be open to regulation of weapons that includes understanding that American citizens are expected to be able to carry out their duties as a citizen soldier regardless of having a standing army or police force not only to protect against foreign invasion, but to provide a very real check on the police and military power of government.

I won't support a full ban of assault weapons as the assault rifle is the current standard weapon of soldiers of all types worldwide. Americans should be able to own them and train with them so they can execute their duty in defense of the nation if attacked from outside or within as the 2nd Amendment intends.

Does this idea preclude background checks? No. There is a lot of room once you acknowledge the purpose of The 2nd Amendment and work to incorporate it into the modern day in terms of ensuring training, keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people, and teaching Americans the power of and responsibility of weapons ownership.

I myself was raised by uncles who all owned guns. All believed in the 2nd Amendment even while some were union supporting Democrats. And very much taught me to respect gun ownership and the power of the gun. They never taught me any stupid crap like "Guns don't kill people, people do." I was always taught a gun was a tool for killing and you need to respect that at all times. Even I carried a gun in an unsafe manner, I was yelled at and told never to carry a gun in an unsafe or negligent manner. I learned to respect guns and what they represent.

This seems to be a very forgotten idea in America. It needs to come back strongly. Gun culture seems to be driven by hobbyists and people who like to show off the power of the gun, but not teach any of the responsibilities and dangers of gun ownership. The Democrats seem to want to just teach that we should just get rid of them all and no one should have them rather than teach the gun culture that Americans learned early on this nation which was one of responsibility, duty, and respect for the gun as a weapon.

That narrative needs to return. Not this hobbyist, gun ownership as fun right wing narrative or this left wing get rid of all the guns, we don't need them narrative. But the one that served us well for hundreds of years and you can even see at times in older movies where teaching the use of the gun was a real life lesson that included the skill to fire it and the wisdom to not use it needlessly as well as respect for its deadly power.

When I hear some of this talk in the public discussion, then I'm more on board to support legislation to clean some of this up.

Let's look at the actual words of the 2nd Amendment as passed by congress and used by the Supreme Court in 'District of Columbia vs Heller':

"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."

To go from the language above to violently protecting or DISSOLVING their government should it be necessary to do so is....a leap. So who decides when it's necessary exactly? And what if republicans and democrats don't happen to agree? What is that process going to be like?

[c_hawkbob]

To demand that everybody agree with a single narrow interpretation of the 2nd before even discussing gun control is the same as saying you just choose not to confront the issue.

I don't care how you interpret the 2nd, applying the same controls to guns that we apply to motor vehicles would save lives and not infringe on the rights guaranteed within it.

[RiverDog]

The reason why the framers of the Constitution created the 2nd Amendment is because at the time, we had no standing army. If we were attacked by a foreign enemy, the only common defense available would have been for ordinary citizens to band together to repel the attack, ie "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...Various accounts describe a situation during the constitutional convention where there were other founding fathers that wanted the citizens to maintain arms as they feared a repressive government, but it's not reflected in the actual language that is written into the document that was ratified.

My point is (1) that there is no provision in the 2nd Amendment that allows for citizens to take up arms against the government, and (2) if we had a standing army when the Constitution was written, we likely would have had a much different looking document than the one we treat today as the Holy grail.

[RiverDog]

To demand that everybody agree with a single narrow interpretation of the 2nd before even discussing gun control is the same as saying you just choose not to confront the issue.

I don't care how you interpret the 2nd, applying the same controls to guns that we apply to motor vehicles would save lives and not infringe on the rights guaranteed within it.

Agree with your first sentence, disagree with your 2nd.

The difference between guns and motor vehicles is that MV's are not specifically called out in the Constitution the way guns are. You need to find a better analogy.

[Aseahawkfan]

Let's look at the actual words of the 2nd Amendment as passed by congress and used by the Supreme Court in 'District of Columbia vs Heller':

"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."

To go from the language above to violently protecting or DISSOLVING their government should it be necessary to do so is....a leap. So who decides when it's necessary exactly? And what if republicans and democrats don't happen to agree? What is that process going to be like?

The People decide. Same as they do with a vote or with words. It is a right provided by the Constitution same as the others to be exercised when a sufficient number of people feel it necessary to do so. Just as was done by those who wrote it when they violently dissolved the colonies from control by Great Britain.

This is what the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is no long definition there defining all speech. It simply says "or abridging freedom of speech" and yet no one would argue the reason for these check is to ensure the government cannot silence opposing political speech or assembly for protest. I see Democrats screaming about "right to protest" which falls under the 1st Amendment even though they didn't spell it out.

But when it comes to The 2nd Amendment it's for hunting? Don't try to play games around language. The 2nd Amendment was created for political purposes. Not for hunting. It's not any more debatable than why freedom of speech or freedom of assembly was included. These Amendments were not written because you want to get together to hang out with your friends.

The political purpose of The 2nd Amendment is to maintain military power with the individual and the people. It is not some narrow interpretation, it is the reason it was created. It is well documented, well supported, and clear in the intent and reasoning behind its inclusion.

[c_hawkbob]

To demand that everybody agree with a single narrow interpretation of the 2nd before even discussing gun control is the same as saying you just choose not to confront the issue.

I don't care how you interpret the 2nd, applying the same controls to guns that we apply to motor vehicles would save lives and not infringe on the rights guaranteed within it.

Agree with your first sentence, disagree with your 2nd.

The difference between guns and motor vehicles is that MV's are not specifically called out in the Constitution the way guns are. You need to find a better analogy.

Why? I don't need an analogy at all, I reference motor vehicles as a framework of potential controls, not as an analogy. The 2nd guarantees your right to bear arms, not your right not to have to carry liability insurance to protect society against any harm those arms might do due to your mishandling, neglect or malfeasance while owning them.

[Aseahawkfan]

Why? I don't need an analogy at all, I reference motor vehicles as a framework of potential controls, not as an analogy. The 2nd guarantees your right to bear arms, not your right not to have to carry liability insurance to protect society against any harm those arms might do due to your mishandling, neglect or malfeasance while owning them.

You and I have already had this discussion. So no point in rehashing it.

If you want to get something done, best to know what concerns the people that you must cooperate with. That position is the one I stated that is parroted by every single pro-2nd Amendment person I know, every public figure supporting it, and all the rhetoric surrounding the 2nd Amendment including the rhetoric from back in the day when it was written.

There would be far more cooperation between the parties on this issue and more support from Republicans if acknowledgment of The 2nd Amendment by Democrats was clearly defined to ensure Republicans that the Democrats understood why Republicans have such strong support for The 2nd Amendment. It is very hard to sell change to a group when Democrats who talk about The 2nd Amendment imply that it's there for hunting or some unnecessary Amendment the dumbass Founders decided to include for no real political reason, just to make hunters and gun enthusiasts happy when that was pretty far from why it was included.

It's 2nd on the list because it was very important to believers in the underlying Constitutional philosophy that military power not be monopolized by the government. A very real and substantial check on government power where a citizen soldiery would always be in place to oppose government overreach up to and including violent revolution.

[RiverDog]

To demand that everybody agree with a single narrow interpretation of the 2nd before even discussing gun control is the same as saying you just choose not to confront the issue.

I don't care how you interpret the 2nd, applying the same controls to guns that we apply to motor vehicles would save lives and not infringe on the rights guaranteed within it.

Agree with your first sentence, disagree with your 2nd.

The difference between guns and motor vehicles is that MV's are not specifically called out in the Constitution the way guns are. You need to find a better analogy.

Why? I don't need an analogy at all, I reference motor vehicles as a framework of potential controls, not as an analogy. The 2nd guarantees your right to bear arms, not your right not to have to carry liability insurance to protect society against any harm those arms might do due to your mishandling, neglect or malfeasance while owning them.

Your reference is irrelevant. The government can and has passed multiple laws restricting the operation of a motor vehicle because it is not a Constitutionally protected right. The framework you are suggesting likely wouldn't work for gun control because, unlike motor vehicles, they are subject to being ruled unconstitutional.

For example: It is very easy for the government to require an adult to obtain a driver's license after having demonstrated acceptable skills, ie a road test, eye test, written test. However, when it comes to guns, it is much more difficult for the government to require an adult to demonstrate similar acceptable skills for operating a firearm prior to granting them a license as it would "infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

[I-5]

The People decide. Same as they do with a vote or with words. It is a right provided by the Constitution same as the others to be exercised when a sufficient number of people feel it necessary to do so. Just as was done by those who wrote it when they violently dissolved the colonies from control by Great Britain.

This is what the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is no long definition there defining all speech. It simply says "or abridging freedom of speech" and yet no one would argue the reason for these check is to ensure the government cannot silence opposing political speech or assembly for protest. I see Democrats screaming about "right to protest" which falls under the 1st Amendment even though they didn't spell it out.

But when it comes to The 2nd Amendment it's for hunting? Don't try to play games around language. The 2nd Amendment was created for political purposes. Not for hunting. It's not any more debatable than why freedom of speech or freedom of assembly was included. These Amendments were not written because you want to get together to hang out with your friends.

The political purpose of The 2nd Amendment is to maintain military power with the individual and the people. It is not some narrow interpretation, it is the reason it was created. It is well documented, well supported, and clear in the intent and reasoning behind its inclusion.

You just said it. The people decide with a vote or with words. What the $#% do owning guns have to do with dissolving the government...the 2nd amendment only talks about maintaining the security of a free state. 'Dissolving' sounds nothing less than civil war. That's not what the amendment is about, whether you think so or not.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Well, it has a great deal to do with dissolving a government. I sincerely hope that voting and talking is all that is needed for change, but that may not always be the case. Under drastic circumstances, non violent means won’t work.

The forefathers knew this and lived it. Britain wouldn’t give up her colonies without a fight. That’s why the preamble in the Declaration of Independence states that governments are established by men with powers given to them by the citizens and when it becomes tyrannical and destructive to the citizens, they have the right and obligation to dissolve that government.

Again, that is very drastic circumstances, but I don’t believe our founders believed that the citizens of this nation would never have to fight for their freedoms again.

[I-5]

Well, it has a great deal to do with dissolving a government. I sincerely hope that voting and talking is all that is needed for change, but that may not always be the case. Under drastic circumstances, non violent means won’t work.

The forefathers knew this and lived it. Britain wouldn’t give up her colonies without a fight. That’s why the preamble in the Declaration of Independence states that governments are established by men with powers given to them by the citizens and when it becomes tyrannical and destructive to the citizens, they have the right and obligation to dissolve that government.

Again, that is very drastic circumstances, but I don’t believe our founders believed that the citizens of this nation would never have to fight for their freedoms again.

The problem is you are guaranteed that roughly half of the country will be in disagreement...hence, civil war.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

You’re presupposing that will definitely be the case. I don’t blame you given the division in this country along party lines. I certainly hope it never comes to that, though I don’t even think that means throwing out the 2nd amendment.

It is possible the majority of the nation might get fed up with an abusive government. In that case, unarmed citizens would stand zero chance of resisting a tyrannical government.

[I-5]

You’re presupposing that will definitely be the case. I don’t blame you given the division in this country along party lines. I certainly hope it never comes to that, though I don’t even think that means throwing out the 2nd amendment.

It is possible the majority of the nation might get fed up with an abusive government. In that case, unarmed citizens would stand zero chance of resisting a tyrannical government.

Your second paragraph about a tyrannical government that BOTH left and right factions hate, as terrible as it sounds, would actually unify the country in a way we haven’t seen since WW2. I don’t see anything like happening since our executive branch is elected by a 2-party system, mostly. The only thing I can think of is if some future president attempted to be king and disregard the Constitution.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Okay, that is essentially the scenario, but a unified but unarmed populace wouldn’t get very far is the point. The left or the right are both capable of going far enough off the rails to turn their supporters agains them.

[I-5]

Okay, that is essentially the scenario, but a unified but unarmed populace wouldn’t get very far is the point. The left or the right are both capable of going far enough off the rails to turn their supporters agains them.

If we apply that theory, Jan 6 2021 was the closest we’ve seen to a president not willing to transfer power, and roughly half the nation seemed to be in support of it. That’s how it is. The only unifying event I can picture is if another country invaded the US, which I can’t see Mexico or Canada attempting. Got anything else?

[Aseahawkfan]

The reason why the framers of the Constitution created the 2nd Amendment is because at the time, we had no standing army. If we were attacked by a foreign enemy, the only common defense available would have been for ordinary citizens to band together to repel the attack, ie "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...Various accounts describe a situation during the constitutional convention where there were other founding fathers that wanted the citizens to maintain arms as they feared a repressive government, but it's not reflected in the actual language that is written into the document that was ratified.

My point is (1) that there is no provision in the 2nd Amendment that allows for citizens to take up arms against the government, and (2) if we had a standing army when the Constitution was written, we likely would have had a much different looking document than the one we treat today as the Holy grail.

And there's no provision in the "freedom of speech" Amendment allowing citizens to speak out against the government. Why do you keep bringing this up as though any of the Amendments are that clear. None of the Amendments spell out every detail. The Bill of Rights provides the understanding of why the rights are in place. They are political rights meant to check the power of government. I do not understand why someone like yourself would likely defend a right to free speech or right to trial as a valuable political right limiting government, why pretending the right to bear arms is "something else." The military powers of government are spelled out elsewhere in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is for individual rights in a Republic. Why do you conveniently discard those rights you find distasteful while trying to claim rights that are not more clearly enumerated that you feel are "important"?

There was a lot of debate about the 2nd Amendment during the creation of the Constitution. It's a well-documented and discussed right with a lot of history.

There is an inherent idea within that Amendment as a check and balance against the military power of government. If you understand the history of the time, then you would understand why. But you have told me time and time again that you don't like reading history prior to a certain era, which is why you likely state this false assertion.

The colonies were formerly British with a mix of other colonial powers like France and Spain. Great Britain had one of the largest standing armies in the world. The professional military of Great Britain was immense, spread across the world, and was the premier military power of the age. One of the reasons they exerted the power over the world they did was because of the size of their standing army including a near unrivaled navy. They engaged in a level of tyranny that is still discussed today. All the colonialism and racism that is talked about comes from The British Crown's decisions and ability to inflict those decisions on others via their military (along with the other colonial powers and their militaries as well).

Here is some summation of the discussions: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99

The articles show some different viewpoints to ensure I understand the differing viewpoints. I already know which one you fall under in regards to the discussion.

I'm not at all a believer the 2nd Amendment allows no regulation. But I definitely cleave with the Anti-Federalists who believe the right to bear arms is a necessary check on government military power. The People as a whole need to ensure they can fight back if necessary.

You have more of a Federalist position. You don't mind the Federal government having all the military power in the nation as you believe Americans won't be able to stand against the American military (a ridiculously false idea as the American military has been driven out by insurgent forces many, many times and would have an even more difficult time dealing with a homegrown insurgency of a large size) or you don't think the government will never engage in tyrannical practices again (which I'm not buying as you can already see plenty of right limitations with the police and legal system operating on behalf of government agents to limit and restrict rights).

That's fine. You live in the flower land where we'll never need to defend ourselves again and the government is just a goody, goody organization we can all sleep comfortably at night allowing them to handle all police and military power as they see fit. They never abuse that power, of course not. Glad you feel so comfortable providing the government such leeway.

I'm not there with you. Probably never will be.

[Aseahawkfan]

If we apply that theory, Jan 6 2021 was the closest we’ve seen to a president not willing to transfer power, and roughly half the nation seemed to be in support of it. That’s how it is. The only unifying event I can picture is if another country invaded the US, which I can’t see Mexico or Canada attempting. Got anything else?

Can you foresee every possibility of tyranny going forward? Why exactly are all of a sudden fully trusting the government to never turn the apparatus of military and police power against the people?

Don't a certain segment of the government sell us that the police are a racist arm of Federal and State power operating as a cruel and tyrannical force against people of non-European ancestry? I have seen more than a few gun right advocate groups made up of Americans of African descent because they have probably the most historical examples of gun control having a very negative outcome within their community.

The Black Codes and Jim Crow South loved coming up with reasons to keep arms out of the hands of folk of African descent so they couldn't fight back. Is that ok? Not being able to fight back when a tyrannical group is standing against you?

And I agree about January 6th. What if those folks had gotten ahold of the apparatus of government and the American military and police supported Donald Trump's coup? What would you do? How would you fight back? If you did peacefully and they dispersed by shooting you like Trump wanted, what would you do then? Just give up? I really want to know.

The 2nd Amendment was built for this type of situation, which some Americans think will never happen. I've listened to Riverdog's position from some Republicans and he would be in exactly the same position: unable to fight back if real tyranny took this nation. He would be able to do nothing but sit there and hope he did not get killed. That's it.

I read about this when the Germans went in on the Jewish folk. They disarmed them. Which is why you find some serious Jewish gun ownership groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_the_Preservation_of_Firearms_Ownership

There are some Jewish folk and folk of African descent who absolutely never want to get caught unarmed again. Better to die fighting than die in a gas chamber or be put under a whip. I completely agree with them. I'd rather be killed fighting against a tyrant, than wait for him to put me on knees or under the yoke or kill me in some disarmed state of servitude. Screw that trash way to suffer.

[Aseahawkfan]

You just said it. The people decide with a vote or with words. What the $#% do owning guns have to do with dissolving the government...the 2nd amendment only talks about maintaining the security of a free state. 'Dissolving' sounds nothing less than civil war. That's not what the amendment is about, whether you think so or not.

A Civil War is very much one of the provisions of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure why you think it isn't. I want you to clearly explain to me why every Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a is a check on government power, but the 2nd Amendment is for what? Break it down for me. Show me why the 2nd Amendment is not a check on government power?

Read some more history. The Founders lived in a time of constant wars and huge standing armies engaged in colonial empire building. They also came from nations conquered by William the Conqueror, Romans, and other nation-states built around military power. They knew what they were doing when they created the 2nd Amendment.

Guns have to do with dissolving government when the words and votes don't work any more because someone like Putin runs your government and you gotta take him out. Like the Ukrainians are doing right now handing out guns to everyone who will take one up to fight against that bastard.

I cannot believe the cognitive dissonance of Democrats like yourself. You watched January 6th where you consider Trump to have almost launched a coup. He wouldn't have given a crap about your words or vote. Only you violently opposing him with a gun which he would have used and wanted to use to shut you up according to reports.

You're even watching in Ukraine a group of people fight against a tyrant invading their nation who doesn't care about their words or peaceful resistance. He is ordering his army to kill them. They are handing out guns to their regular citizens to fight, not just their professional military.

You watch this and ask the above question? That question has been answered for you, but you don't like the answer.

Hell, I even recall c-bob stating he was sitting Kentucky armed waiting out the Trump election craziness because he had a bunch of crazies down there ready to roll into a Civil War if Trump called them to it. I'm wondering if you think c-bob going out and saying, "Hey guys, you need to respect my vote and my words" and they would have said, "Damn. You're right. Let me do that." I know c-bob ain't that dumb, which is why he was ready. I'm betting them loons around him had assault rifles and were ready to go to war over that election.

Glad it didn't happen. But if it had, you had best be ready for it because if the nation goes into another Civil War, they are not going to be respecting your vote or your words.

[I-5]

Read some more history. The Founders lived in a time of constant wars and huge standing armies engaged in colonial empire building. They also came from nations conquered by William the Conqueror, Romans, and other nation-states built around military power. They knew what they were doing when they created the 2nd Amendment.

Guns have to do with dissolving government when the words and votes don't work any more because someone like Putin runs your government and you gotta take him out. Like the Ukrainians are doing right now handing out guns to everyone who will take one up to fight against that bastard.

I cannot believe the cognitive dissonance of Democrats like yourself. You watched 9/11 where you consider Trump to have almost launched a coup. He wouldn't have given a crap about your words or vote. Only you violently opposing him with a gun which he would have used and wanted to use to shut you up according to reports.

You're even watching in Ukraine a group of people fight against a tyrant invading their nation who doesn't care about their words or peaceful resistance. He is ordering his army to kill them. They are handing out guns to their regular citizens to fight, not just their professional military.

You watch this and ask the above question? That question has been answered for you, but you don't like the answer.

I will overlook your patronizing language and ask, who is our Putin when it comes to threats against our country? The closest we had to a president trying to make himself king was 1/6 (not 9/11). All this talk is a waste of time, when an 18 year old mentally disturbed kid making threats online EASILY can purchase an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds, then spend an HOUR inside an elementary school committing mass murder. What happened to all the good guys with guns?

When we look back, any politician or supporter who doesn’t have the will to change something after yet another horrific mass shooting of little kids will find themselves on the wrong side of history. The world is seeing the problem, only some americans can’t.

[Aseahawkfan]

I will overlook your patronizing language and ask, who is our Putin when it comes to threats against our country? The closest we had to a president trying to make himself king was 1/6 (not 9/11). All this talk is a waste of time, when an 18 year old mentally disturbed kid making threats online EASILY can purchase an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds, then spend an HOUR inside an elementary school committing mass murder. What happened to all the good guys with guns? When you look back, you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. The world is seeing the problem, only some americans can’t.

No. I won't be on the wrong side of history. If you read my posts and understand the 2nd Amendment, you would be able to show gun regulation is clearly allowed and has been implemented from the very time the 2nd Amendment was written and voted into law.

I am not against gun control. I do not in anyway believe the 2nd Amendment provides some holy right to own guns of any kind. I believe the 2nd Amendment has a legitimate political purpose and check on government power. I believe it can be properly implemented in the modern day with reasonable controls that help limit incidents like the recent attacks.

I'm very much for background checks. I'm for waiting periods for sale. I'm fine with requiring training requirements. I'm ok with psychological evaluations for those that merit it. I'd even be ok raising the age for assault rifles to 21 or so if they also raise the age to join the military to 21 given it makes no sense to allow 18 year olds to use military weapons but somehow deny they are competent enough to use them in regular society.

What I am not for is a ban on assault weapons. Why? Because that is the weapon of the standard soldier, so I believe an American exercising their Second Amendment right should be allowed to own an assault weapon.

Does it mean I'm cool with a kid going into a store, buying two assault rifles on his 18th birthday, and 375 rounds of ammunition? No, it does not. I don't support gun hobbyists as legitimately exercising their 2nd Amendment right. I'd be just fine with limits on the number of assault rifles you can purchase.

I'm completely ok with weapon registration. Don't have a problem with it.

I'd be fine with some shoring up of the gun laws. Doesn't bother me even a little bit and I don't buy 2nd Amendment advocates claiming it violates their rights. Gun regulation has been part of the 2nd Amendment same as speech regulation has been part of the 1st Amendment.

The Founders weren't stupid. They wrote those Amendments very simply and were quite aware that changing times would require new interpretations and means to implement the ideas inherent in the Amendments. As long as the idea behind the Amendments were considered when creating new laws or regulations, then I can live with them. Our entire government apparatus is set up to adapt with changing times.

Big gap between wanting Democrats to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment as a legitimate and important political right and check and balance on government power and not supporting reasonable gun control.

But the way this is playing out, seems both sides are doing their usual song and dance and not much will get down. Democrats are doing their usual emotional pleas, politicians crying in public, calling for a ban on assault weapons same as I heard back when Bill Clinton was president. Republicans are saying they'll discuss some measures, while also knowing no way their voting blocs support a ban on assault weapons. Probably see a spike in gun sales. Then it will all pass again and nothing will get done because both sides just talk past each other.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

If we apply that theory, Jan 6 2021 was the closest we’ve seen to a president not willing to transfer power, and roughly half the nation seemed to be in support of it. That’s how it is. The only unifying event I can picture is if another country invaded the US, which I can’t see Mexico or Canada attempting. Got anything else?

I don't understand your point. Perhaps it won't happen in yours or my lifetime, but all I am saying is there may come a time where the populace as a whole (or the majority of it) must resist a tyrannical government and they'll won't have much chance at all if they are unarmed.

You make it sound as if it could never happen. Ever.

[I-5]

No, I'm not saying it could never happen. Just highly unlikely. And I'm not for abolishing all guns. I understand the 2nd Amendment...BUT

I just want to know.....how do we prevent another troubled teen from LEGALLY buying an AR-15, hundreds of rounds, and doing what that scumbag did yesterday?

Texas has some of the most liberal gun laws in the country...what did all the good guys with guns do to stop the shooting? Where were they?

[RiverDog]

Well, it has a great deal to do with dissolving a government. I sincerely hope that voting and talking is all that is needed for change, but that may not always be the case. Under drastic circumstances, non violent means won’t work.

The forefathers knew this and lived it. Britain wouldn’t give up her colonies without a fight. That’s why the preamble in the Declaration of Independence states that governments are established by men with powers given to them by the citizens and when it becomes tyrannical and destructive to the citizens, they have the right and obligation to dissolve that government.

Again, that is very drastic circumstances, but I don’t believe our founders believed that the citizens of this nation would never have to fight for their freedoms again.

The "Founding Fathers" were 55 delegates drawn from 13 colonies ip and down the eastern seaboard that participated in the Constitutional convention in 1787, There wasn't widespread agreement on very many of the items. It was a bill created by a committee, filled with compromises, the 'you vote for my pet peeve and I'll vote for yours'. It was a political exercise. The Bill of Rights, ie the first 10 amendments, were added during a very bitter ratification fight to satisfy the concerns of the Federalists.

It always irritates me when people talk about what the Founding Fathers 'knew and lived.' They were a group of privileged white men with a wide range of experiences and motivations and scattered up and down the 13 colonies. Some were slave holders. Many had their own selfish, personal interests. They were not a cohesive unit with a single, unifying set of principles. They weren't like Moses coming down from heaven to read his commandments.

Was the Founding Fathers' motivation for the 2nd Amendment because they were worried about a tyrannical government that might have to be overthrown? Or was it the opposite, ie were they worried about a group of domestic terrorists attempting a coup d'état? Or were they worried about not having a standing army to repel a foreign invader?

Bottom line is that it's impossible to read in-between the lines of the Constitution and figure out what the 'Founding Fathers' meant. It has to be taken literally.

[c_hawkbob]

The Founding fathers were not right about everything in perpetuity and they knew it. Times and situations change so they made a system (amendments) capable of accommodating change. When the 2nd was written guns had a capacity of one and could fire one round a minute, times have changed, now 30 or more round capacity is common and 600 rounds per minute is possible. We needn't consider ourselves stuck with 2nd either as originally intended or as currently interpreted.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The "Founding Fathers" were 55 delegates drawn from 13 colonies ip and down the eastern seaboard that participated in the Constitutional convention in 1787, There wasn't widespread agreement on very many of the items. It was a bill created by a committee, filled with compromises, the 'you vote for my pet peeve and I'll vote for yours'. It was a political exercise. The Bill of Rights, ie the first 10 amendments, were added during a very bitter ratification fight to satisfy the concerns of the Federalists.

It always irritates me when people talk about what the Founding Fathers 'knew and lived.' They were a group of privileged white men with a wide range of experiences and motivations and scattered up and down the 13 colonies. Some were slave holders. Many had their own selfish, personal interests. They were not a cohesive unit with a single, unifying set of principles. They weren't like Moses coming down from heaven to read his commandments.

Was the Founding Fathers' motivation for the 2nd Amendment because they were worried about a tyrannical government that might have to be overthrown? Or was it the opposite, ie were they worried about a group of domestic terrorists attempting a coup d'état? Or were they worried about not having a standing army to repel a foreign invader?

Bottom line is that it's impossible to read in-between the lines of the Constitution and figure out what the 'Founding Fathers' meant. It has to be taken literally.

I don't think it's a reach for me to draw that conclusion. No, I don't know exactly what they thought and how they lived day-to-day, but they all came to an agreement that these things were important. It's irritating on a similar level that having gone through a war against a major world power to gain independence, that somehow they didn't "know" and "live" that they wouldn't have been successful with unarmed citizens. They could have included it as an answer to all of the questions you posed, and the Declaration of Independence (and the preamble contained therein) immediately followed military action by citizen soldiers at Lexington, Concord, and the Siege of Boston. I don't see how the two documents (D of I and Constitution) can be separated. Call guessing if you like, but it's educated guessing not WAG.

And, no, this doesn't mean that there can't be measures instituted to limit the destructive power in citizens' hands. The 2nd Amendment isn't and doesn't have to be a free-for-all on firearm ownership.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The Founding fathers were not right about everything in perpetuity and they knew it. Times and situations change so they made a system (amendments) capable of accommodating change. When the 2nd was written guns had a capacity of one and could fire one round a minute, times have changed, now 30 or more round capacity is common and 600 rounds per minute is possible. We needn't consider ourselves stuck with 2nd either as originally intended or as currently interpreted.

Yeah, pretty sure a lot of supporters of the 2nd Amendment agree with this, including myself and others on this forum. Things like bump stocks or other non-factory modifications that ridiculously increase the fire rate should be criminal. That among other measures should most definitely be taken.

[I-5]

Yeah, pretty sure a lot of supporters of the 2nd Amendment agree with this, including myself and others on this forum. Things like bump stocks or other non-factory modifications that ridiculously increase the fire rate should be criminal. That among other measures should most definitely be taken.

I’m glad to hear there is common ground. Question; do you think even 30 rounds a minute shouldn’t be necessary? Where to draw the line? I can’t stop thinking of these helpless students and their teachers just being annihilated at point blank. While up to 19 law enforcement officers stood in the hallway waiting for a command, no less. The timeline corroborates there was still gunfire happening while the officers were in the school…unconscionable.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I've only heard about the LEO hesitation; haven't read into, yet, but, for sure, that ain't right. I know fight or flight is a thing, but I would hope I would put myself in harm's way ahead of children, especially if I was a LEO.

I hate to say it, but an AR15 with a 30 round clip and a average level of training, one could put out 2 rounds per second (120 rounds per minute) roughly on a stationary target. I'm not against having them, but it should be very difficult to get one. Pistols less so, but training and education and verification still required to the nth degree. Even a 9mm pistol with a 15 round clip with hollow points is incredibly destructive. Pistol revolvers (6 shot max; double action only), pump action shotguns, and bolt action rifles wouldn't need the same level of restriction. They aren't high capacity and take a lot of training and proficiency development to increase their rate of fire.

I'm not sure the where the fascination comes from for gun nuts to be able to fire ludicrous amounts of bullets in seconds. You don't need it for hunting or home defense.

I'm guessing we disagree on allowing private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, and I don't blame people who want them gone. I think responsible individuals can handle having those just fine, but making sure those are the only people who own them is obviously very difficult and maybe impossible to make happen. Limiting them to 10 round magazines may help, and they need to criminalize high-capacity mags and anything that increases the rate of fire beyond the factory semi-automatic rate. First time heavy fine (like Louisiana hits you with a $10k for drunk driving), next time it's jail time. And people and retailers that sell to anybody with a pulse have to be held liable for crimes committed with the firearm they sold.

[I-5]

I've only heard about the LEO hesitation; haven't read into, yet, but, for sure, that ain't right. I know fight or flight is a thing, but I would hope I would put myself in harm's way ahead of children, especially if I was a LEO.

I hate to say it, but an AR15 with a 30 round clip and a average level of training, one could put out 2 rounds per second (120 rounds per minute) roughly on a stationary target. I'm not against having them, but it should be very difficult to get one. Pistols less so, but training and education and verification still required to the nth degree. Even a 9mm pistol with a 15 round clip with hollow points is incredibly destructive. Pistol revolvers (6 shot max; double action only), pump action shotguns, and bolt action rifles wouldn't need the same level of restriction. They aren't high capacity and take a lot of training and proficiency development to increase their rate of fire.

I'm not sure the where the fascination comes from for gun nuts to be able to fire ludicrous amounts of bullets in seconds. You don't need it for hunting or home defense.

I'm guessing we disagree on allowing private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, and I don't blame people who want them gone. I think responsible individuals can handle having those just fine, but making sure those are the only people who own them is obviously very difficult and maybe impossible to make happen. Limiting them to 10 round magazines may help, and they need to criminalize high-capacity mags and anything that increases the rate of fire beyond the factory semi-automatic rate. First time heavy fine (like Louisiana hits you with a $10k for drunk driving), next time it's jail time. And people and retailers that sell to anybody with a pulse have to be held liable for crimes committed with the firearm they sold.

I’m actually ok with everything you said here. Obviously you’re a responsible gun owner, so thats not the issue. I want to hear better solutions to how this troubled kid could so easily buy a gun. With all the AI technology at our disposal, companies know what you want to purchase even before you search for it - why cant that AI be used to flag mentally unstable people who purchase high grade weapons? I dont want to hear ‘arm the teachers’ or putting more security guards in schools. My wife is a teacher and she thinks arming teachers is the dumbest and most dangerous idea.

I highly recommend reading up on the revised timeline at the school shooting. Its beyond disturbing, while the police in the hallway outside the classroom stood down for over 40 minutes while kids were still alive inside the 2 classrooms, meanwhile there were parents, some with guns, trying to get into school to get their kids, and police not only stopped them, they cuffed a few of the parents. Even worse, some of the police had kids in the school, which they made sure to ger them out first. I get the parental instinct to protect your own, but if you are wearing the uniform, you have a job to serve and protect. I cant think of anything more cowardly or negligent. I cant imagine what those parents are feeling knowing the police allowed their kids to get murdered. I would probably go to prison.

[c_hawkbob]

This is the best timeline of events I've found, some incompetence, some negligence and a lot of piss poor decisions (some potentially evidencing cowardice, though possibly more of the aforementioned incompetence): https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/27 ... IMLB1Rb1SY

[RiverDog]

After what happened in Florida when an armed security guard waited outside while people were being killed inside, I find it incredible that any competent law enforcement officer would sit and wait for reinforcements when they knew that there was an active shooter inside a room with people.

I've attended several active shooter trainings put on by law enforcement officers, and they said emphatically that any officer that arrived on the scene of an active shooter would make every attempt to engage the suspect immediately, that time was of the essence. They told us that SWAT teams could take several hours to get organized, but that within 5 minutes, there'd be several dozen LE's on the scene and that they would immediately move on the suspect by whatever means they had available. The types of tactics that the Texas officers employed went out the window after Colombine.

I'm curious as to what kind of training these individuals had, and if it is consistent with training offered in other regions of the country. My understanding is that they had just practiced an active shooter scenario a few weeks prior to the incident.

[I-5]

The ‘reason’ given was that the school district police chief who was commanding officer on the scene had deemed it a ‘barricaded’ situation and that they had time because they believed there were no children left in harm’s way. First, I don’t believe they really thought that, since the 17 officers in the hallway couid hear sporadic gunfire over the roughly 48 minutes they stood outside the door. If they really thought there were no kids left in harm’s way, logically that also means they assumed all the kids inside were dead. I’m pretty sure the police report is going to continue to evolve as people try to practice CYA.

This is a pretty damning article that states what happened in Uvalde was not an outlier but business as usual. I’m not saying I agree with it, but its hard to refute the examples it notates:

-As Patrick Blanchfield, author of the forthcoming “Gunpower: The Structure of American Violence,” noted on Twitter, “U.S. police are trained to maximize control over situations while minimizing their personal risk. That translates into beating parents while a rampage shooter executes their children just as easily as it does their rolling up on a kid with a toy guy and executing him seconds later.

-One mother who was urging the police to enter the building, Angeli Rose Gomez, was handcuffed. When she was released, she managed to run into the school, grab her kids, and bring them out to safety, which is the alleged job of the police. According to one Texas Department of Public Safety lieutenant interviewed by local news, some officers did run into the school — but only to grab their own children.

-To be clear, this was not a question of funding or training: Police in the Uvalde school district had both.

https://theintercept.com/2022/05/27/uvalde-texas-shooting-police-law-enforcement/

[RiverDog]

Interesting article, I-5. It's contrary to what I've been told by law enforcement officers that I've met in person, and contrary to the actions of some very brave policemen and women that we've all witnessed over the years.

I have to wonder if our societies' 'defund the police' movement, initiatives to cut police departments of staff, the restrictions they've placed on tactics and weapons, and the general demoralization of law enforcement in general, didn't have something to do with this 'cover your ass' mentality demonstrated by the police in Texas.

[I-5]

Interesting article, I-5. It's contrary to what I've been told by law enforcement officers that I've met in person, and contrary to the actions of some very brave policemen and women that we've all witnessed over the years.

I have to wonder if our societies' 'defund the police' movement, initiatives to cut police departments of staff, the restrictions they've placed on tactics and weapons, and the general demoralization of law enforcement in general, didn't have something to do with this 'cover your ass' mentality demonstrated by the police in Texas.

Tough to say, Riv. It could be a chicken or egg scenario. I’m not saying I agree its the rule not the exception, but it backs up its points. It’s worth paying more attention to. I just couldn’t believe the blatant disregard for what seemed like the obvious right thing to do based on all the other school shootings we’ve seen. Each minute you stand down instead of engaging a shooter is potentially another life lost. The fact some police got their own children out speaks to something way beyond incompetence. Is it true the supreme court decided the police’s job doesn’t include protecting the public?

[RiverDog]

Is it true the supreme court decided the police’s job doesn’t include protecting the public?

I guess you could say that, but that's not how I would interpret the court's decision:

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out. “Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own — such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.”

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

In both of these court cases, clear and repeated threats were made against the safety of children — but government agencies chose to take no action.

A consideration of these facts does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that law enforcement agencies are somehow on the hook for every violent act committed by private citizens.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-h ... -yet-again

I think the last sentence is the logic that SCOTUS was using in making their ruling. If LE gets a bomb threat and decides not to act on it and a building blows up, are they legally/criminally liable? If they were, I could see a huge number of problems.

Most police/LE take some sort of oath that includes protecting the public, but from the looks of it, it's mostly symbolic as there's no consequence for failing to uphold their oath other than termination of employment.

[RiverDog]

Interesting article, I-5. It's contrary to what I've been told by law enforcement officers that I've met in person, and contrary to the actions of some very brave policemen and women that we've all witnessed over the years.

I have to wonder if our societies' 'defund the police' movement, initiatives to cut police departments of staff, the restrictions they've placed on tactics and weapons, and the general demoralization of law enforcement in general, didn't have something to do with this 'cover your ass' mentality demonstrated by the police in Texas.

Tough to say, Riv. It could be a chicken or egg scenario. I’m not saying I agree its the rule not the exception, but it backs up its points. It’s worth paying more attention to. I just couldn’t believe the blatant disregard for what seemed like the obvious right thing to do based on all the other school shootings we’ve seen. Each minute you stand down instead of engaging a shooter is potentially another life lost. The fact some police got their own children out speaks to something way beyond incompetence.

Yeah, I couldn't believe it, either. Most police officers, or at least the ones I've ever met, have a genuine interest in helping those that are in need, and what other people have a greater need than grade school children?

I might be going off on a tangent, but the other thing I worry about is that this labor shortage is eliminating the fear employees used to have of losing their job. I can remember when I was in college, you could tell which professors had tenure, in other words, they couldn't be fired. They were the ones that wouldn't stay when class was over to answer a question.

Over the years, I've told a number of people not to "F this job up as jobs are hard to come by." Fear is a powerful motivator, but it doesn't work in today's economy. Why should a cop, or anyone else, worry about losing their job when they can easily get another job of equal or greater value? I wonder how many cops are in their jobs simply for the pay and benefits, especially after the past couple of years of humiliation and unending attacks on their profession. Has the combination of these factors resulted in an "I don't give a crap" attitude? Or being that the school was predominantly Hispanic, did race enter into it? I have lots of very ugly thoughts and suspicions about what was really going on in those cop's minds.

[I-5]

Yeah, I couldn't believe it, either. Most police officers, or at least the ones I've ever met, have a genuine interest in helping those that are in need, and what other people have a greater need than grade school children?

I might be going off on a tangent, but the other thing I worry about is that this labor shortage is eliminating the fear employees used to have of losing their job. I can remember when I was in college, you could tell which professors had tenure, in other words, they couldn't be fired. They were the ones that wouldn't stay when class was over to answer a question.

Over the years, I've told a number of people not to "F this job up as jobs are hard to come by." Fear is a powerful motivator, but it doesn't work in today's economy. Why should a cop, or anyone else, worry about losing their job when they can easily get another job of equal or greater value? I wonder how many cops are in their jobs simply for the pay and benefits, especially after the past couple of years of humiliation and unending attacks on their profession. Has the combination of these factors resulted in an "I don't give a crap" attitude? Or being that the school was predominantly Hispanic, did race enter into it? I have lots of very ugly thoughts and suspicions about what was really going on in those cop's minds.

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the Uvalde Police Dept are mostly hispanic themselves based on their facebook page, so I don't know if race is a big factor there. I see it more as self-preservation and cowardice, and possibly incompetence (though it shouldn't be since the Uvalde Police Dept had been posting about all the training they've been receiving).