On 12/29/2012 3:33, BOB KLAHN -> JOHN MASSEY wrote:   
      
    BK>   Do you believe in the right to keep and bear nukes?   
      
   No   
      
    BK>   How about  something more conventional, like anti-aircraft missiles?   
      
   Yes, Also hand held anti-tank, light field artillery, private ownership of a   
   A-10 could be a lot of fun.   
      
      
    BK>   You also said, "... ANY limit is a unwarranted limitation." A   
    BK>   literal reading of the 2nd amendment supports that. It also   
    BK>   means a convicted criminal in prison does have a right to keep   
    BK>   and bear arms. Unless you believe that you have to parse out   
    BK>   your meaning more carefully.   
      
   Well now you are talking about some one else not me.   
      
    BK>   IOW, your true belief is either a matter of degrees of   
    BK>   limitation, or truly far out. Take your choice.   
      
   Of course it's a matter of degrees, but about the person not the weapon.   
   I think there are people that should not be allowed to have a rubber ban and   
   paper clips.   
   I have no problem with limits on crazies being sold guns. But  for those   
   PEOPLE who pass muster mentally, the only limit should be what they can afford.   
      
    JM>> "assault rifles" is all show for the dumb masses. You know   
    JM>> if you pay the government enough you can own fully   
    JM>> automatic machine guns.   
      
    BK>   And register them, and get a license, which requires a local LEO   
    BK>   willing to sign off on it.   
      
   I have no problem with that.   
      
    JM>> It is truly amazing how you and Bob think you can foresee   
    JM>> the future with 100% certainty.   
      
    BK>   What is truly amazing is how little you pay attention to what is   
    BK>   actually posted. What is amazing is how you don't understand   
    BK>   analysis based on experience does have a decent chance of being   
    BK>   accurate.   
      
   Well insulting me and remarks about my ability to understand something sure   
   helped move the conversation along. I thought personal attacks were a no-no   
   here. Guess I was wrong.   
      
    JM>> It is truly amazing how you and Bob think you can foresee   
    JM>> the future with 100% certainty.   
      
    BK>   Since I never said what Lee said,   
      
   No; But you did state with 100% certainty, something you could not have known,   
   when you wrote that armed teachers would have had no effect at that school.   
      
    BK>  I support advancing security in schools by   
    BK>   recruiting Army and Marines approaching discharge to go to   
    BK>   teacher's colleges and become teachers.   
      
   Not original, but one thing that could be done.   
      
    BK>   However, I do not support arming teachers just on the basis of a   
    BK>   basic firearms training class. They would have to go through a   
    BK>   police level firearms class to meet my specs.   
      
   To many (it appears) your specs are to stringent.   
      
    BK>   I do think that   
    BK>   would be a good idea. Complete with going through the maze and   
    BK>   confronting criminal targets mixed with innocent people and you   
    BK>   flunk if you shoot one innocent.   
      
   One bad shot and your out? If you set that standard for regular leo's  I doubt   
   you could keep any one on the force.   
      
    BK>   LaPierre is an idiot in suggesting former military or even   
    BK>   former police for armed school security. Without *RECENT*   
    BK>   training they would not be qualified. Without school specific   
    BK>   training they would not be qualified.   
      
      
   By your idea of what constitutes qualified.   
      
   All I can say Bob is a lot of good people who care about their kids safety,   
   disagree.   
      
    BK>   They put cops in the high schools around here to keep order.   
      
   Same here, Started in the bad schools and  then because two had cops the rest   
   had to follow so the bad schools wouldn't be singled out   
      
      
    BK>   Real cops, not volunteers or former mil/cop rent-a-cops.   
      
   Same here   
      
    BK>   I support that, but boy would it be expensive to expand to   
    BK>   elementary and JR High schools.   
      
    BK>   During this news cycle I have read there are some 98,000+   
    BK>   schools in this country. The cost of keeping a cop in a school   
    BK>   is probably around $50-100K/yr. I bet toward the high side. Even   
    BK>   at $50k/yr that's about $5 billion a year.   
      
   I heard the 5 Billion figure and have no problem with it. 5 Billion is   
   chump-change when compared to other government expenses   
      
    BK>   If you want it done  the federal government would have to do it.   
      
   Why?   
   In it's simplest from, why couldn't each local school system decide the best   
   way to handle it's security, then simply give the invoice to the Fed to pay   
   the bill.   
      
    BK>   I don't really have a problem with that, do you?   
      
      
   No, as long as it applied only to Government Schools, and did not have any   
   control over private schools .   
      
      
   Would you have a problem with a private school providing it's on security,   
   with out Government funds, at the level the school chooses,   
   without interference from any government agency or Representative?   
      
   Personally I think each private  school should get the same per student   
   dollars as the local government school but I don't see it happening.   
      
   --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0   
    * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)