The 2nd Amendment is in Dire Need of Revaulation

Sorry for the article dumping I have been a part of recently, but moving is busy and these articles are probably better than something like “My Top 10 Favorite Chewing Gum Flavors” or “Reasons Why the Movie Journey to the Center of the Earth Sucks.” The following is an article about how a Texan school district is allowing teachers to carry handguns. Oh man, is this ten steps in the wrong direction. Not only are they giving students the wrong message that MORE guns are the answer to school violence, but they are adding tension to what sounds like an already hostile environment. There are so many better solutions: metal detectors, hiring policemen instead of doubling a teacher’s duty of teaching with peacekeeping, more school counseling, advocating non-violence…… Ugh, handguns.

Map

Teachers in one part of the US state of Texas are to be allowed to carry concealed firearms when the new school term opens this month.

The school superintendent in Harrold district said the move was intended to protect staff and pupils should there be any gun attacks on its sole campus.

Teachers would have to undertake crisis management training first, the superintendent, David Thweatt, said.

In recent years the US has seen a number of fatal school shootings.

Trustees had approved the policy and parents had not objected, Mr Thweatt said.

“When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started,” he wrote on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s web site.

Mr Thweatt said he believed the school’s proximity to a large, busy motorway could make it a target.

“If something were to happen here, I’d much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them,” Mr Thweatt said.

Texas outlaws the presence of firearms at schools unless individual institutions allow them.

10 responses to “The 2nd Amendment is in Dire Need of Revaulation

  1. Nope. You re-evaluate the 2nd Amendment, you open the whole thing up and you don’t want to do that.

  2. What about the 2nd Amendment needs to be reevaluated? It’s done pretty well for 200 years and change.

    Why do people always freak out when one of these laws is passed or confirmed? There have been fairly liberal (if you’ll pardon the expression) open-and concealed-carry laws on the books in states across the country, and I have yet to read about the kind of “wild West” nightmares everyone predicts.

    “Trustees had approved the policy and parents had not objected, Mr Thweatt said.”

    Are you going to challenge the will of the people as well as the Constitution?

    L
    PS Having said all this, I’m not sure it’s the right answer, but I also think it’s wrong to try to alter one of the essential Rights granted to us by the Constitution.

  3. I don’t want to make trouble my first time around the ‘blog, but….

    I do have a question for you:

    You have a few posts about how the government mistreats its citizens, and a post about how 911 failed a family.
    Would you disarm people under these type of conditions? I just found it ironic that you would advocate disarming the populace, but also distrust the Government and the Police.

    Like The Clash said,
    “When they kick out your front door
    How you gonna come?
    With your hands on your head
    Or on the trigger of your gun?”

  4. Regarding the 2nd Amendment and what needs changed. What I meant by saying the 2nd Amendment needs revaluated is that it needs reinterpreted. The SA only states that citizens have the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” I think that the right to protect oneself is fine, but my problem lies with handguns. If you look at murder statistics, you will find that the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns. It’s very unfortunate that the general public seems to have accepted the ownership of handguns and feels that things have been working just fine when it is very evident statistically that a handgun-free environment results in less murders.

  5. “When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started,”

    i don’t believe this statement is factual.

  6. Would you rather commit crimes where you know people are carrying concealed weapons or where carrying a concealed weapon is illegal?

    You can make all the gun laws you want but the only people who will obey them are the law-abiding citizens. Criminals will get their weapons one way or another. I’m not too worried though, I’m a better shot than most criminals.

    My weapon of choice for home defense: H&K USP Tactical .45 It holds 12 rounds of .230 grain! AND it has the thread for the silencer…sweet.

  7. Whew! I was starting to feel like some kinda looney gun-nut. ;-)

    Ninja, are you quoting a Supreme Court Ruling on the Second Amendment? Last I checked the wording was :
    “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.”

    Good enough for me.

    I’m just going to leave it at that; I understand you have good intentions. I too wish that the world didn’t need handguns, however, I’m still in the camp of “I’d rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.”

    L
    (for Johnny B.: mine’s a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .45 Long Colt.)

  8. I really would prefer the former choice of carrying a concealed weapon, handgun, being illegal. Like with other illegal actions, such as drug abuse, I realize there are going to always be people who break the law and create another slew of problems, such as black markets and lack of regulation. But based on the Chicago murder reports and international comparisons, I think I would rather risk being unarmed and shot by a renegade criminal than risking how it is now. Sweet gun, btw. I do have to admit that guns can be very pretty.

    2005 Chicago Homicide Report (p 28): http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalDeptCategoryAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1637065030.1219007166@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfadeelmkeiflcefecelldffhdfif.0&deptCategoryOID=-536895515&contentType=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&entityName=Police&deptMainCategoryOID=-9967

  9. Wait, you would rather be killed than give people the legal option of defending themselves?

    Wow.

    Okay, well, conversation’s over.

    Luckily for the rest of us, you are not the minority. Some of us still believe in defending our lives and the lives of others.

    L
    PS I still would urge you to take a look at the DC handgun ban and see how successful it was. Bad, violent people will always exist–you would take away the right for good people to stand up against bad? I hope you never have to stand by that decision.

  10. Washington D.C. is a good example of what not to do, as well as the U.K. and Australia. Both had spikes in crime after their respective bans. The Aussies had problems more with criminals entering into homes, not caring if someone was home or not, and using tools, cricket bats, etc. as weapons. Granted, half of them didn’t have guns, but they knew the people at home didn’t have them either so who cares.

    The person who enters my home intending to do harm to me or my family is a dead person. I think a pascifist would only embolden criminals to repeat their offenses, especially against you who don’t fight back.

    Fight the good fight L.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s