Ind. could be first to require armed ...

Ind. could be first to require armed school employees

There are 583 comments on the USA Today story from Apr 3, 2013, titled Ind. could be first to require armed school employees. In it, USA Today reports that:

The Indiana House Education Committee approved legislation Tuesday, April 2, 2013, that would mandate the creation of a protection officer for each school.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#373 Apr 8, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming everyone is a criminal in waiting, do you believe you are a criminal waiting? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, a strong pillar of a free society. Following your criminal logic, we all should just report to prison, but who will guard us there?
My logic: if you have committed a crime, found guilty, then serve a sentence to fit the crime. Do not make prison a place to watch tv, or to get a sex change, make it a punishment. For murder and heinous crimes, execute them. When you have teeth and follow thru, crime will fall. You can't stop all crime, but whining about guns does nothing.
I have several firearms from the antique to the modern, and having more guns in my possession has not made me a criminal nor created any deaths. Personal responsibility,that is the key.
Personal responsibility is to a leftist as Tribbles are to Klingons.
Cat74

United States

#374 Apr 8, 2013
Obama's ghetto gunners don't buy their guns, they steal them. They damn sure don't register them, and the cops in Chicago don't stop, and frisk them for the stolen guns either. In fact the Mayor depends on the gangbangers to get their neighbors to the polls on election day. The cops are scared to death of the Godless little bastard children. They have no daddies. That is the definition of bastard children.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#375 Apr 9, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming everyone is a criminal in waiting, do you believe you are a criminal waiting? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, a strong pillar of a free society. Following your criminal logic, we all should just report to prison, but who will guard us there?
My logic: if you have committed a crime, found guilty, then serve a sentence to fit the crime. Do not make prison a place to watch tv, or to get a sex change, make it a punishment. For murder and heinous crimes, execute them. When you have teeth and follow thru, crime will fall. You can't stop all crime, but whining about guns does nothing.
I have several firearms from the antique to the modern, and having more guns in my possession has not made me a criminal nor created any deaths. Personal responsibility,that is the key.
Punishment doesn't prevent the crime from occuring.

If we were talking about shoplifting then you might have a point. But since we're talking about murders committed with guns, the punishment doesn't undead the victim. The only way to prevent gun violence is to get rid of as many guns as possible.

If everyone exhibited personal responsibility, we wouldn't need any laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#376 Apr 9, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA has sold out gun owners in the past. But not even they are suggesting criminals buy firearms. The NRA to thier credit has in the past worked to create better punishment for criminals.
Background checks are not stopping criminals, thier suppliers don't require government mandates to be met. They are criminals as well.
Background checks are done by FFL holders, even at gunshows, its the law. Private citizens selling to thier neighbor does not require a background check.
The issue of private citizens conducting background checks is the real topic. No one has reasonably explained a method for this. But, once again, the criminals we are after will not comply.
If they oppose mandatory background checks for every gun sold, then they are supporting criminals getting guns.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#377 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Punishment doesn't prevent the crime from occuring.
If we were talking about shoplifting then you might have a point. But since we're talking about murders committed with guns, the punishment doesn't undead the victim. The only way to prevent gun violence is to get rid of as many guns as possible.
If everyone exhibited personal responsibility, we wouldn't need any laws.
Gun Control Laws don't have no affect towards the mindset of criminals who careless about Gun Control Laws and do nothing but only affect Law Abiding Citizens which Chicago has proved it and why Chicago was sued in 2010 in the SCOTUS Case of McDonald v Chicago because of the Gun Control Laws were only affecting the Law Abiding Citizens and the criminals were in put in charge of the streets with the banned guns in Chicago because of the Gun Control Laws and why Chicago is the way it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

Maryland girl is armed with arguments against gun control

FormerParatroope r

Des Moines, IA

#378 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Punishment doesn't prevent the crime from occuring.
If we were talking about shoplifting then you might have a point. But since we're talking about murders committed with guns, the punishment doesn't undead the victim. The only way to prevent gun violence is to get rid of as many guns as possible.
If everyone exhibited personal responsibility, wie wouldn't need any laws.
Punishment is a deterrent. Execution stops repeat offenders.
It is not guns causing gun violence, it is people. You cannot get rid of guns, there are many out there, and that would be foolish to think doing so will solve the problem. You attack the disease, not the symptom.
FormerParatroope r

Des Moines, IA

#379 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If they oppose mandatory background checks for every gun sold, then they are supporting criminals getting guns.
The background system is broken. And what US the percentage of prosecutions for falsification of information on the check? Enforce laws before making new ones, if you have the same enforcement rate of the new laws as you do the old you have accomplished nothing. Common sense is needed, and that is missing from both sides.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#380 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If they oppose mandatory background checks for every gun sold, then they are supporting criminals getting guns.
The Modern Liberals in 1968 said that Criminals(Convicts) are to be exempt from gun registration because its a violation of their 5th amendment right of self incrimination and Mandatory Background Checks would be considered the same thing as self incrimination too if they are required to submit themselves to a background check to purchase a gun under the Liberal SCOTUS Haynes v United States ruling in 1968.

Background of the case

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United...

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#381 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'm at the Oklahoma state line; now post your address.
Sure you are pookie, from the backwoods of Minnesota to Oklahoma in 8 hours........you are a hoot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#382 Apr 9, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Gun Control Laws don't have no affect towards the mindset of criminals who careless about Gun Control Laws and do nothing but only affect Law Abiding Citizens which Chicago has proved it and why Chicago was sued in 2010 in the SCOTUS Case of McDonald v Chicago because of the Gun Control Laws were only affecting the Law Abiding Citizens and the criminals were in put in charge of the streets with the banned guns in Chicago because of the Gun Control Laws and why Chicago is the way it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
Maryland girl is armed with arguments against gun control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =L_-N9_tnWBoXX
Dirty Harry shootouts on the streets of Chicago would also be illegal, so there goes your whole "law abiding citizen" theory.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#383 Apr 9, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Sure you are pookie, from the backwoods of Minnesota to Oklahoma in 8 hours........you are a hoot.
Yep, more cowardly excuses.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#384 Apr 9, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Punishment is a deterrent. Execution stops repeat offenders.
It is not guns causing gun violence, it is people. You cannot get rid of guns, there are many out there, and that would be foolish to think doing so will solve the problem. You attack the disease, not the symptom.
Doesn't stop the original crime.

Unless you plan on executing everyone in America, you'll never be able to prevent a crime from happening.

All we can do is punish them AFTER they've committed their crime.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#385 Apr 9, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
The background system is broken. And what US the percentage of prosecutions for falsification of information on the check? Enforce laws before making new ones, if you have the same enforcement rate of the new laws as you do the old you have accomplished nothing. Common sense is needed, and that is missing from both sides.
Then we should get rid of ALL laws against murder, theft, rape, etc, etc, because they're not all enforced properly either.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#386 Apr 9, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>The Modern Liberals in 1968 said that Criminals(Convicts) are to be exempt from gun registration because its a violation of their 5th amendment right of self incrimination and Mandatory Background Checks would be considered the same thing as self incrimination too if they are required to submit themselves to a background check to purchase a gun under the Liberal SCOTUS Haynes v United States ruling in 1968.
Background of the case
The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United...
No one is forced to buy or own a gun, so no one is forced to incriminate themselves.

That's the stupid crap you get when you believe in an individual right to own a gun.
Brad

Manchester, CT

#387 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA obviously supports criminals being able to buy guns legally, otherwise they'd support mandatory background checks.
But you already fear the NRA,now you want them legislating laws?
Why not demand legislators have some kind of grasp on an issue before they author legislation for it?
Clearly they have no understanding of the already thousands of laws on the books or they would have enforced some of them by now.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#388 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is forced to buy or own a gun, so no one is forced to incriminate themselves.
That's the stupid crap you get when you believe in an individual right to own a gun.
Not according to the Modern Pseudo Liberals who held the Majority in 1968 on the SCOTUS when they issued their ruling that is now the law of the land.

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#389 Apr 9, 2013
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
But you already fear the NRA,now you want them legislating laws?
Why not demand legislators have some kind of grasp on an issue before they author legislation for it?
Clearly they have no understanding of the already thousands of laws on the books or they would have enforced some of them by now.
Where did I say I wanted the NRA to legislate?

I said they don't support backrgound checks because they want criminals to be able to buy guns.

Criminals buy a LOT of guns and that makes money for the NRA.

Clearly it is NOT is the best interest of the NRA to ban criminals from being able to buy guns.
FormerParatroope r

Kansas City, MO

#390 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't stop the original crime.
Unless you plan on executing everyone in America, you'll never be able to prevent a crime from happening.
All we can do is punish them AFTER they've committed their crime.
And you will never get enough guns off the street to keep them from criminals. But when laws are enforced, crime does go down. When repeat offenders are kept away from society, they do not offend society further. Executed criminals offend no one else. Laws are a societys way of establishing order, enforcement and punishment are how we deal with those who offend.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#391 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is forced to buy or own a gun, so no one is forced to incriminate themselves.
That's the stupid crap you get when you believe in an individual right to own a gun.
using your logic we as individuals should no rights here in the United States and accept Totalitarianism.
FormerParatroope r

Kansas City, MO

#392 Apr 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we should get rid of ALL laws against murder, theft, rape, etc, etc, because they're not all enforced properly either.
That is nonsense. There is no right to murder, rape, steal or your etc's. There is a right to own a firearm.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Carriage House East Apts (Jun '13) 6 hr The REAL Moon God... 16
Custody attorney 11 hr Ealj1818 3
Closing of the Marion County Children's Guardia... (Apr '09) Wed Iansane90 35
Bruce Springsteen sucks anyways Wed Ivyawe 7
does pepsi drug test? which type? (Jul '14) Wed Amanda 20
News Local restaurant included in statewide money la... Wed ok 3
islam- I slaughter like a madman Wed The REAL Moon God... 2

Indianapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Indianapolis Mortgages