BK>>   Do you believe in the right to keep and bear nukes?   
      
    JM> No   
      
    BK>>   How about  something more conventional, like anti-aircraft missiles?   
      
    JM> Yes, Also hand held anti-tank, light field artillery,   
    JM> private ownership of a A-10 could be a lot of fun.   
      
    Yes, it could. Still a bad idea.   
      
    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.   
      
    JM> Well now you are talking about some one else not me.   
      
    Oh? You didn't say, "... ANY limit is a unwarranted limitation."   
    Sorry I got you confused with someone else.   
      
    BK>>   IOW, your true belief is either a matter of degrees of   
    BK>>   limitation, or truly far out. Take your choice.   
      
    JM> Of course it's a matter of degrees, but about the person   
    JM> not the weapon.   
      
    That is not a literal reading of the 2nd amendment.   
      
    JM> I think there are people that should not be   
    JM> allowed to have a rubber ban and paper clips.   
    JM> I have no problem with limits on crazies being sold guns.   
    JM> But  for those PEOPLE who pass muster mentally, the only   
    JM> limit should be what they can afford.   
      
    Until we get that down to an exact science, no nukes, no   
    anti-aircraft missiles, no artillery, no etc.   
      
    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.   
      
    JM> 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.   
      
    JM> Well insulting me and remarks about my ability to   
    JM> understand something sure helped move the conversation   
      
    It was no more insulting you than your comment immediately   
    above.   
      
    JM> along. I thought personal attacks were a no-no here. Guess   
    JM> I was wrong.   
      
    You were not wrong, and that does not meet the standard. What   
    you said was analyzed, not what you are.   
      
    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,   
      
    JM> No; But you did state with 100% certainty, something you   
    JM> could not have known, when you wrote that armed teachers   
    JM> would have had no effect at that school.   
      
    When did I say that?   
      
    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.   
      
    JM> Not original, but one thing that could be done.   
      
    It's not? Dang, who came up with it first?   
      
    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.   
      
    JM> To many (it appears) your specs are to stringent.   
      
    That's their postion, my position is as given.   
      
    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.   
      
    JM> One bad shot and your out? If you set that standard for   
    JM> regular leo's  I doubt you could keep any one on the force.   
      
    One bad shot and you flunk. Then you continue training. If you   
    can't get it right you should be out.   
      
    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.   
      
    JM> By your idea of what constitutes qualified.   
      
    Which just happens to be right.   
      
    Even by much lower than what I require they would not qualify.   
      
    JM> All I can say Bob is a lot of good people who care about   
    JM> their kids safety, disagree.   
      
    They would be wrong, now wouldn't they. After all, if they care   
    that much about their kid's safety why wouldn't they want the   
    best trained security they can get?   
      
    BK>>   They put cops in the high schools around here to keep order.   
      
    JM> Same here, Started in the bad schools and  then because two   
    JM> had cops the rest had to follow so the bad schools wouldn't   
    JM> be singled out   
      
    The suburban schools are not concerned with what happens in city   
    schools. Good suburban schools are not concerned with what   
    happens in bad suburban schools. Neither are all that much   
    concerned with what happens in rural schools.   
      
    Notice how often those shootings occur in "good schools"?   
      
    BK>>   Real cops, not volunteers or former mil/cop rent-a-cops.   
      
    JM> 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.   
      
    JM> I heard the 5 Billion figure and have no problem with it. 5   
    JM> Billion is chump-change when compared to other government   
    JM> expenses   
      
    I have no problem with it either.   
      
    BK>>   If you want it done  the federal government would have to do it.   
      
    JM> Why?   
      
    Cause the cities and states are letting people go as it is.   
    Cause the poor schools in poor areas couldn't afford it before   
    the economy went south.   
      
    JM> In it's simplest from, why couldn't each local school   
    JM> system decide the best way to handle it's security, then   
    JM> simply give the invoice to the Fed to pay the bill.   
      
    With school boards made up of locals with no experience or   
    training in the field, how would they qualify to know how? And   
    why would the feds pay a bill to hire the mayor's burnout son or   
    nephew?   
      
    BK>>   I don't really have a problem with that, do you?   
      
    JM> No, as long as it applied only to Government Schools, and   
    JM> did not have any control over private schools .   
      
    Why should states have the authority to tell private schools   
    they have to let people carry weapons in their schools?   
      
    JM> Would you have a problem with a private school providing   
    JM> it's on security, with out Government funds, at the level   
    JM> the school chooses, without interference from any   
    JM> government agency or Representative?   
      
    I'm not the one who was pushing for armed guards in the schools.   
    If you want to let them go without guards, remember, the   
    liability follows the decision.   
      
    Besides, then the shooters will know the private schools are the   
    place to go to shoot kids.   
      
    JM> Personally I think each private  school should get the same   
    JM> per student dollars as the local government school but I   
    JM> don't see it happening.   
      
    I think schools should be a government responsibility, paid for   
    by the govt. Those who chose to opt out should pay their own   
    way.   
      
    In those cases where private schools get govt money they should   
    have to accept all students who apply and not charge above the   
    govt payment. Get and keep under the same standards.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... CAFFINE.COM not found:  A)dd more, R)eheat F)reak out   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)