This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
South Dakota Signs 'Gun In Every Classroom' Bill
South Dakota is the first state, since the Newtown tragedy, to enact a law allowing teachers to carry guns in school. As Fox News reports, Governor Dennis Daugaard signed the bill that allows school districts to arm teachers and other personnel. Unsurprisingly, the measure prompted intense debate as many feared it "could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings," and potentially put guns into untrained hands, as well as previously dismissed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan as "a marketing opportunity" for the industry to sell more guns. South Dakota, apparently, doesn't stand alone on this issue (Utah has allowed teachers to wear concealed weapons for 12 years) but as Washington pushes forward on its gun control legislation, other states including Georgia, New Hampshire, and Kansas are working on similar measures. Rep. Scott Craig - the bill's main sponsor - has received support from rural districts who do not have the funds for full-time law enforcement. While the Great Depression promised a 'chicken in every pot', our current repression appears to be heading towards a 'gun in every classroom'.
Interesting discussion of - Who are the 'Gun Guys'?
Via Fox News,
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Friday signed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in school, making his state the first to enact such a law since the Newtown shooting tragedy.
The bill was pushed by gun-rights supporters who say arming teachers could help prevent tragedies ...
...
But the measure prompted intense debate in the capital, as several representatives of school boards, school administrators and teachers opposed the bill during committee testimony last month. They said the measure could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings and put guns in the hands of people who are not adequately trained to shoot in emergency situations.
...
In South Dakota, main bill sponsor Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said earlier this week that he has received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.
South Dakota doesn't stand alone on this issue. For a dozen years, Utah has allowed teachers and others with concealed carry licenses to wear a gun in a public school.
...
The measure does not force a district to arm its teachers and would not force teachers to carry a gun.
On Monday, the South Dakota House voted 40-19 to accept the Senate version of the bill, which added a requirement that a school district must decide in a public meeting whether to arm teachers and others. Another Senate amendment allowed school district residents to push a school board's decision to a public vote.
»
- 17346 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
When living in an 'american' world, looking at the savage sub culture is quite telling.
'American' culture is so superior in this department.
Actually, most of these savage sub cultures want to emulate the boss, the great one, the role model.
Nothing beats 'americanism' when it comes to certain stuff. Learn from the best.
See--and a lot of the regulars here think you say Americans are all bad.
Obviously you recognize some of our cultural strengths.
I've been stated for long facts like 'americans' have risen from the ranks to turn into the best extorters of the weak, farmers of the poor humanity ever knew.
That 'americans' are unrivaled when it comes to consumption
etc
Always reported 'americans' as they are.
Your overpopulated, antlike hordes of Chinese citizenism consumerist zombies have Americans beat by a li when it comes to overconsumptionalizing of world resources. Or are all those Chinese neo-colonial resource-extracting projects in Africa and South America purely for the benefit of the local populations?
Somehow, I doubt it. Just as I doubt that there is anything more than raging anti-American bigotry in your crippled mind.
I think he would call the current crop of leadership in China "americans"...
Superlatives like "always" will always fuck you up.
How do you feel about Texans bitch?
I'll never forgive them for helping inflict that Dubya Presidency on the rest of us, but I realize some were just unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong place.
Al Gore would have been so much better, and John Fing Kerry too. We're totally with you there secret_sam.
Over my years on the interwebs, I have made many Texas friends. Seem like good folks to me.
Texans are good people. And I might yet become one some day. Unfortunately compared to other states, their gun laws suck.
I like Texas, but your gun laws suck. Open carry is illegal, and the TX concealed handgun permit is one of the most expensive in the country. It's a sad state of affairs when a bunch of limp-wristed pussies in Vermont have more gun rights than those who call Texas home.
Don't mess with Vermont
CHL isn't a profit center, but I get it, sure.
Nothing beats ananonmystical chinese citizenism when it comes to certain stuff. Like hypocritical inability to self-indict one's own nation and culture in the realm of resource overconsumptionalizing and blobbing-up, at which they are today unexcelled. Ghost cities and all, typical of chinese citizenims hypocrisy: "Do as I say, not as I blob-up".
Learn from the best.
The sides are being drawn....
divide and conquer
Great job Obama, it's gonna suck to be a liberal
What about an economic liberal? Are those guys OK?
Is it the social liberals we hate? Help me out, here.
LOL, You mean there's a difference?
Obama seems to be pretty thrifty.....sarc
Because libertarians are really into telling people what to do with their lives?!
Clues: get some!
Your going to have to decode that one for me?
I never said anything about Libertarians?
I just don't know what a liberal is anymore, and I want to make sure and hate the right people.
I don't hate.
I just don't want someone telling me how to live or what the right way to live is.
Obama and his cult think they got all the answers.
well, yer other side has a few answers you don't seem to be taking into consideration.
isn't that ALL .gov is for? making rules, then collecting fines for rule breaking? is there ANYone in .gov that isn't on the receiving end of taxation and fines? isn't that why they get called lawmakers?
among other more colourful tags. . .
I think it's topical, around my parts .Gov plays a small role.
LEO are friends and part of our community (one is at my house as we speak)
People here rely on other people, not .Gov
We all barter and trade with each other.
Flyover country, the other America
Libertarians, the ones that aren't full of shit anyway, are socially liberal...i.e. not interested in having the state dictate their social mores, and thus receptive to things that "conservatives" are not...like legalizing pot, immigration reform, and gay marriage.
I say live and let live
surround yourself with like minded people
Obama thinks he has the recipe for everyone....Which is what pisses most folks off.
when you begin to understand "Obama" is merely the current govt figurehead, and makes NONE of the laws/rules that are enForced by law-makers, you'll also understand the true meaning of "live and let live" - which is polar opposite to being governed.
Ya, that's way over my head.....
well, if you're pointing fingers at an "obama" being the root cause of what is happening currently, then perhaps it is.
simply changing the words you're choosing to use might make your point seem less. . . partisan.
I just can't imagine telling somebody they HAVE to own a gun....
Like I can't imagine somebody telling me that I CAN'T own a gun.....
It's that simple. Obama has made it very clear that he doesn't care for Guns. Seeing that a very large percentage
of gun related crimes are commited by Blacks/Hispanics maybe he should look at his own party first.
On top of everything else a very large percentage of those Blacks/Hispanics gun crimes involve illegal guns.
ahhhh, your perspective becomes more clear as you flesh it out. . .
gotcha now. *nods*
LOL....Yup, you got me
He wouldn't know a liberal if one bit him in the ass, (which is unlikely since true liberals are extinct).
which gets back to my first point about the sides being drawn...
That's what Obama wants, push his agenda on everyone, rewrite the constitution and that's going to have to be enough for EVERYONE.
One size fits all.
It wasn't obvious to me that Bush had any more respect for the Constitution than Obama has. They're both on the same team.
+1 I fully agree.....
Lock and load, teachers!
We're gonna have another OK Corral to look forward to in our history, only it may involve 10 year olds.
FAIL
LOL.. not Billy the Kid this time, but Billy the Toddler!
Let's be honest... The only REAL reason you need a 'gun in every classroom' is to protect the kids from the increasing potential of government sponsored hit squads picking targets at random to try and create a hype for gun control legislation...
Teachers are not government sponsored squads?
AnAnonymous is not a chinese government sponsored squat?
gun totin teachers... blobbing up left & right [mostly 'LEFT' though]...
I have often wondered if AnAnonymous gets a flat nickel per post or if he has a floating pay to post scale. I curious if more piles of shit along side the road post gather a higher rate of pay per post at the end of his pathetic day?
Sick bastard! Somebody did something really bad to you. Go get some professional help.
Round eye cosmetic surgury went bad.
An Anon looks like Nancy Pelosi now.
Sending your children to the government schools should be considered child abuse.
Because private schools produce morally responsible people like bankers and politicians.
Politicians are merely the voice of the people. What does this say about the critical thinking skills of those who elected the politicians to hand over the "free shit?"
If I were making the rules, and wanted to reduce intellectual competition for myself and my progeny, government run monopoly indoctrination camps would be the perfect means to such an end.
You mean the ones who voted (40%), or the ones who didn't (60%)?
The ones who went along with it, e.g. virtually everyone. Silly shill. Consent by assent, same as always. You've received a benefit? Then you've legitimated the contract they offered, at least by their logic, which is the only one they recognize. Voting makes you guilty by commission, not voting, by omission. You really think they're stupid don't you?
Anounced a while back: 'americans' can not go for solutions that will bring less consumption.
They have to go for solutions that enable even more consumption.
Among other items in the same tune, watch for defense courses delivered to kids, body armour for kids etc
'Americans' know only one way out of an overconsumption situation and that is even more consumption.
More body armour for American kids = more work for Chinese factories and Chinese slave labour kids.
Better for the kid to be the consumer than the producer in this case don't you think?
A pistol to cool my scrotum is not a bad idea at all.
Sounds fine to me. Most of the shootings in Utah schools were suicides.
At the end of the day, I doubt it's going to make much difference in a simple death-tally.
I DO think most people (although they might not realize it) would be far happier to see the occasional accidental shooting death or suicide in a school than to see the very rare mass-murder.
Two accidental deaths or "defensive" kills per year just don't seem as horrible as a single rampage leaving 20 dead once per decade.
This is thanks to the media. Nutcases know they can make a huge splash by doing a murderous rampage. A single shooting lots of times spread out over time doesn't sell advertising the same way, nor permit demands for expansion of the state.
Yes and no. There are surely nutcases who would never have committed mass-murder if it weren't for the media, but humans are an unruly and unpredictable lot no matter how you slice it.
Some are going to do batshit-crazy whether it's ever reported or not.
Seems to me that it's more the SANE mass-murderers who are motivated by fame.
More motivated by power and money, but yeah.
sad state of affairs when the need to protect children means arming schools, regardless as to any pro/anti gun issue.
yet again the us of a demonstrates its ongoing slide down the slippery slope of mutating itself into something none of the founders would have fought to establish.
No. The US is going the 'american' way.
What is happening is that the influence of previous world orders are waning.
In 1777, this influence was strong.
In 1877, less.
In 1977, even less.
In 2013, the US is more and more 'american', less and less tainted by other things.
What is being witnessed is the utter triumph of 'americanism'.
"No."
?
whatever else you posted after has nothing to do with my post.
bait is my guess but, so what...
:)
p.s.
Please sign me up for your newsletter.
Right, because the founders were all about disarming citizens.
my post ia about the state of affairs, i.e. a society needing to arm schoolhouses, not about the position the founders had on guns.....
.
Pretty much. The only thing this is going to do is help out gun sales a bit in these states which is the NRA's prime goal (increasing gun sales and the other being no liability for guns in civil suits). Just more increased militarism of American society which is a very bad thing and I expect is that soemthing that will increasingly continue.
In other words South Dakota needed to pass a law to make part of the Bill of Rights the law of the land in a Government Education Camp.
This is why own guns.
Warning! Very graphic.
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2013/02/cdg-execution-video.html#more
You mean to save time when you're executing your enemies?
From the Pol Pot school of efficient management.
Inefficient.
Ought to help with classroom discipline. "Yo Teach - I didn't do no funckin' homework. Watchu got to say to that!"
Blam
That's the spirit, shoot the dissidents! You signed up to be a drone operator for DHS yet?
Dissidents! My guess is that you didn't do your homework and thought you were a rebel. And if you check out my postings I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be making clever comments about me working for DHS. On the other hand, if they let me target idiots like you I might volunteer.
These are the same teachers conservatives claim can't be trusted with collective bargaining rights and shouldn't be allowed to have tenure because they're so incredibly incompetent?
LOL
Every man has a right to self defence.
You are making a more powerful case against public skewlz and public sector unions, than you are against conservatives, and/or people control.
Just pointing out yet another hypocritical plank in the conservative platform.
Hardly, you are using your usual Alinsky Tactic approach to divert attenition. Yawn...........
Hardly, you're using your Michael Levin impersonation to sound just as repetitive without making a point.
What does “compromise” really mean to gun grabbers, though?
I think we can look to Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” for the answer to that. In fact, he has described it pretty clearly in his chapter, A Word About Words.
He writes:
Compromise is another word that carries shades of weakness, vacillation, betrayal of ideals, surrender of moral principles… But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word… If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you are 30 percent ahead.
No, you're just pointing out that you're another urban hipster idiot with only a rudimentary mental capacity.
As opposed to living in your home state with an entire population devoid of rudimentary mental capacity.
As I look out my window, I see:
- Oak trees
- Cattle
- Deer
- The leg you don't have to stand on
Let me guess, if you are in the country now which I doubt, you found a job to earn on a pay per gun grabber post basis? How long have you studied Saul Alinsky Tactics or do your pay masters just give you a vomit script to spew from?
Just sayin..........I've heard the recent pay bump was up to .10 cents a post now. Tough way to make a living if that is the case nutsack.
Keep looking at that sheep out the mirror window. You never know, a lame turkey might fly by soon.
See, I compromised, I was polite to you..............feel better now that we compromised?
You really are a collosal putz, but even that is giving you more credit than you're due.
I'll be watching for your fly-by.
You may have moved to such an area, but I rather doubt you come from one.
Wrong again! Keep trying though. It's fun to watch.
Nice strawman. Public unions are an abomination for plenty of reasons all of which you know. Inability to control oneself economically and politically has no relation to one's ability to use a gun, to teach, or to be professionally competent. Are you even trying? Shill harder.
If you are a crazy person wanting to shoot up schools, just make sure that you do it in a 'blue state' rather than a 'red state' . Most of the red states are on the way to being armed.
Not to worry! The neocon paramilitary Blackwater types have the professional assassins to take care of any sheep that stray from the party line. Few sheep (this means you too) have the skill necessary to come out on top against these well equipped and trained specialists.
That is likely true, but we might kill a couple of these psychotic motherfuckers instead of being fodder. Also, if a couple of the " lone gunmen" were killed at the site of the incident, it might make it a bit more difficult for the official spin doctors...
Well thank god this law has been passed. Now the financial services industry is no longer too big to fail and the bail outs of private sector entities with public money will stop. It's about damn time!
Losers!!!
Rural America gets it, even in the most democrat/socialist/fascist states such as Klownifornia. The ideological divide between the two is nearly insurmountable. There is no middle ground........
Give Military Veterans teaching jobs. Many problems will be solved.
Will they be certified to teach? You don't believe that just anybody can be an educator, do you?
I hope that is a joke. One reason why we don't have good teachers is because you need to become certified to teach by the largest group of collective imbeciles that has ever existed on the planet.
I know more alcoholic certified teaches one acorn shy of the nuthouse than true good educators. Most of the teachers that actually gave a damn were forced to retire when the national certified curriculum was forced on them.
Well I am a certified teacher dumbass! I work everyday with certified teachers. Teachers who help to raise, educate and if it is required, will die protecting your children. You pulled the collectivist nonsense out of your ass and pretended you were intelligent. Certified has nothing to do with national curriculum. It means you understand educational pedagogy. It also means you have the skill and knowledge to differentiate instruction in order to meet the educational needs of each and every student in your charge.
Not just anybody can walk into a classroom and be an effective educator. It is a highly complex skill. Oh, and the reason so many teachers retire as soon as they can is that idiots like you elect politicians who pass laws that are destroying the profession.
"Well I am a certified teacher dumbass!" Add a couple of commas to this sentence: "Well, I am a certified teacher, dumbass!" The second one prevents you from unintentionally insulting yourself.
No, 'certified' basically means you passed a test and got a piece of paper. It's no guarantee of anything, especially competence.
While you're correct that one should pass the established bar to teach (certification standards, required core courses as well as an overall degree), it ain't f-cking Quantum Physics, as test scores and actual college grades of home schooled kids attest. Most folks with "Public Education" majors have towards the bottom of the pile of SAT and similar test scores. Then they preach only they know the alchemy...oops, I meant pedagogy. to teach the yutes. Sorry, I'll take the guy/woman who got a degree in a hard science or mathematics (or History, Foreign Languages/culture for Social Studies and English/Literature for English classes) who got the minimum required education electives and then spent 10-years in the private or public sector in their chosen field who then wanted to give back by becoming a teacher over the Education majors who went direct to teaching--or even worse, administors--any day of the week. Note, there are the exceptions who stand out to prove the rule who we should cherish and support as well. I hope you are the latter.
FWIW, my favorite teacher was a Marine who got his degree in History, left the Corps after 10-years and became a HS History teacher. The guy not only knew the way to reach each student, but had the personal experiences in multiple countries to link the curriculum and make it "come alive." He never pushed his political opinions into the curriculum, and graded based on the student's work and participation. Years later I ran into him at a 20-year Reunion and turns out he's a life-long Democrat, albeit of the "Reagan Democrats" variety.
The worst? The Sociology major who became a HS teacher in the English department for a class called "critical thinking and writing." Why? She straight-out gave grades on whether the student's "critical thinking" agreed entirely with her hard left ideology. After the first essay on whether a woman deserved to be found guilty of the crime of leaving her baby to die alone in a Chicago apartment and manically drove to San Diego when her boyfriend moved there, I received a "C+" because my conclusion differed from hers. For the remainder of the course, on every essay I first asked myself "if I were a psychotic leftist, what would my opinion be?" Oddly enough, with the exact same style and grammer, I received "A+ and A's" for the rest of the course.
Obama was 'certified' to teach Constitutional Law by Hahvud...
Look how well that's turning out.
Bwahahahaha...
If they're really good at killing, they can get much better paying jobs with Academi/Blackwater. Plus they don't need to know nuttin about them 3 Rs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
oooh yah! with rape/sexual assault currently labeled "epidemic" within the military, that'll work!
exactly who folks want teaching their kids. . . armed.
Rape/sexual assualt are rampant in the armed forces and they still don't have the same type of rape shield laws that most US states and the federal justice code implemented in the 80s/90s to protect women who were the victims of sexual crimes.
working as intended, yes?
by the way, laws won't ever protect women from sexual assault. that has to come from the men.
No, it comes from an armed woman ready & willing to use it. They're "soldiers" are they not? Did they not go through the same boot camp? Have the same training or something different?
So, self defense should be the pinnacle strived for in universal womens sufferage ;-)
if rape is to be addressed, it will have to come from men - that the denial is so deep, and so joked about, not taken seriously, this will need to change. women with guns don't prevent every rape. many women are drugged prior to being assaulted, etc.
do a search on "military culture rape" - see what you turn up. or don't.
/shrug.
CA really? Are you saying we must look to men for our protection? Oh dear lord please say no. Have I misunderstood? Is this sarc? I'm shaken.
Miffed;-)
when men are the rapists, then ending rape must begin with men.
not so very hard to understand?
and within the military culture of men, for rape to be at the levels reported requires a fundamental shift in attitudes, towards ALL HUMANS.
I encourage you to scroll down and read a couple of posts by swmnguy, who gives descriptions of the culture I'm referencing - no amount of "women armed" is going to stop this way of thinking.
if you shoot someone who is trying to rape you, do you really believe that's where it ends? and not in the legal system that will require absolute proof of a crime that wasn't committed (if you indeed foiled the rape), and do you think women understand this, that they are not believed unless the assault lands them in hospital?
at what point do you pull out your gun and shoot? before or after you've been raped? between being raped, and then murdered? at what point in an assault does it become a legal defense to kill your attacker?
look into it.
and one last point - many gang-rapes happen to young teenagers, too young to have a license to conceal carry - shall we just wait for them to be of age before we take their lives into consideration?
CA, I never meant to imply women carrying guns would lead to no rapes. I was the victim of an attempted rape myself at the age of 19 and no gun would have saved me from the attack. So, believe me, I do not in any circumstance claim guns are a panacea to crimes against women. I won't address the legal aspects of this for the simple reason when you are being attacked this is the furthest thing in your mind. All it is about is survival and then if you do survive, what will you do in the future to prevent a reoccurrence. Frankly, IMHO there is nothing to be done to "cure" or "rehabilitate" a man who has decided to rape. Why it has happened to this man is also of no interest to me because there is just no way to use such info to prevent it. These men do not "think" , they act when they see a potential victim, someone they can use. I believe the best solution is raising young girls to be strong and capable. I raised my two daughters to be wise not nice. Both took self defense and are trained to handle a gun. Most importantly I told them NO ONE has the right to abuse them physically or sexually. Of course I'm not naive and realize dangers abound and there is no way to fully protect oneself from evil people, man and women alike, who are intent to harm you. But I do believe in preparing as best you can. There is a loaded .40 cal semi auto pistol with a 2nd magazine on my bed stand next to me as I type this. If someone broke into my bedroom tonight,I would shoot to kill. My German Shepard would give me plenty of warning. In fact, she would probably foil his attack before I had to shoot. I had to work last week pm shift. Our lab is in a dangerous part of San Diego so when I went to my car I checked my surroundings carefully, drew my knife and held it in a way that I could slash quickly if someone grabbed me. I don't get any pleasure doing this, but I will never allow myself to become a victim again and I will die fighting. If I kill my attacker and go to jail for some inane reason then so be it. At least that one individual will never harm another. This may seem brutally harsh to you but this has kept me safe for 33 years since my own attack. Rapists are attracted to the weak because they want an easy target, therefore I do my best to stay strong.
Miffed:-)
Miffed, my reply was not necessarily to you personally, although I did reply to your query as to my opinions, which seemed unclear to a handful, apparently.
I've been stalked, and had an "attempt" at assault, so I do empathise, from a perspective many men just can't seem to acknowledge. your descriptions of how you must stay aware in all your movements simply doesn't register for some men - they believe it's "irrational, emotional" and all the other words used to minimise the reality of many, many women - armed or not - that of hyper-awareness of assault, particularly sexual assault.
I brought up the "legal aspects" because I've volunteered at rape crisis centres in the past, both in amrka and the UK when I lived there - and both countries have appalling attitudes towards sexual assaults. though I suppose we've come a bit of a ways from when the woman was blamed for looking appealing/what she's wearing/etc. and this is not to say that I don't believe women need to acknowledge the world they inhabit, and act responsibly, with awareness. but no excuses - if a rape is proven, then the punishment needs to reflect the damage done to the individual, none of this crap about "well, men have needs/can't control themselves" or whatever - rape is not sex, it is a power-over show of strength - it's assault, sexually, and has enormous consequences in the lives it touches.
that it's rampant in the amrkn military is no surprise - it's been noted in the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs for over a decade, when it was put at 12% of female graduates had been subjected to rape/attempts, with few reporting to authorities because of the culture of the military, which IMHO resembles the culture of Penn State sports teams, and the culture of both the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts hiding pedophiles in their ranks. these things get swept aside, and therefore become endemic. there are more women (and men!) who have been molested as children by family members than you'd guess, many more. and they live within the culture too - mostly silent, some carrying undeserved shame for what was done to them.
until men acknowledge the problem - of rape, of molesting of children, of human trafficking for sex, of "sex tourists" who see no problems with using children sexually in other'd countries, etc. etc. - until men take the responsibility seriously, then nothing will change, as history has proven. no amount of armed women is going to change the way women are perceived culturally by some men - not all, certainly, but a not insignificant percentage, who are free to act because it's always seen as a "joke" by their peers. not cool.
for the record, I have many dear friends who are male, and put up with zero immature chat - sexual maybe, abusive never. a couple of them have young daughters, which gives me hope. they have my respect.
(by the way, I replied belatedly to your final reply on an old thread, totally off topic, but I'd like to think you read it, as it was fun to write, personal, and this topic, more difficult, for us both)
I appreciate your taking the time to reply, and I'm truly sorry that you even had a story to share. so many do, eh.
Dear CA, I whole heartily agree there is NO excuse for rape. The arguments of " inappropriate clothing, sexual suggestiveness etc.." are absolute garbage and would never sway me. You and I both know rape is all about power and the sex is just incidental. But some just seem to focus on the sex. Perhaps is the titillation which attracts, I don't know, but the whole argument is specious and a waste of time.
On the other hand you bring up until men acknowledge there is a problem there will never be a solution. Here I have to disagree. Men will NEVER see the problem. Not because they are heartless assholes but they CAN'T understand it the way we can. Just as we cant fully appreciate their issues,they have plenty; no one seems to acknowledge this because it's subtle and rarely focused on. Men are haunted by deep seeded emotions they rarely express because to do so would be incredibly dangerous for them. They would be less of a man in the eyes of other men and therefore anathema. I think you see this in the military examples you give. Extreme aggression and camaraderie of men combined in a military setting makes for a powerful fighting force. However it is a powerful breeding ground for evil actions. History is rife with examples of rape and pillage, atrocities against men and women alike. The military must foster cohesion in the troops for an effective fighting force. I'm sure they consider these rapes as an unfortunate casualty. I'm not saying I approve of this in any way, just stating the nature of the beast. Any women who wants to enter this sphere must do so with full knowledge of the danger involved. This is not saying they can't but they must be aware and prepared for the possibility of assault. I know many women who have entered the military with the idea this is just a career for advancement or the idea to get a free education. I think is shows a lack of understanding what the military is. Perhaps this attitude of mine stems from my training of Arabian stallions. I was handling an animal 10x my size that could kill me at any moment. Basically trying to control 1500lbs of raw testosterone. I learned, ultimately, it was all about respect, a firm but gentle hand, and an understanding not to do what the animal could not do, ie go against its instincts. No amount of pain or punishment will stop a stallion from hurting you if his intent is to do so. Men, in my view, are just a bit more along on the evolutionary scale and it tend to treat them as such. :-) if a man perceives a women as just an object to be used for his sexual rape fantasies he will never change and therefore it falls to us to prevent or stop him using any means at our disposal. I, for one will gladly rise to the call if confronted. Hiding behind laws in this case is pointless to me....I guess I run on the more pragmatic side on this issue.
Thank you for such a wonderful reply to my post and I am so sorry I hadn't seen it. " Please, for gods sake,get your fish moving in one direction or I'm going to scream!" was one of my mom favorite tongue lashings when I was young.Only recently have I begun to fully appreciate its meaning. You are incredibly perceptive and gifted. I've always enjoyed reading your posts here even though we aren't in agreement I've always respected your point of view. I must remember to return to some of my comments, I could have truly missed a gem in your case. I hope I haven't caused any offense, if so it was unintentional. People here can be cruel at times and I certainly don't want to add to it. I enjoy the debate. You and many others have rocked my world and that is always a good thing! A bientot!
Miffed;-)
I'll just answer to a couple of points you're making here, although I realise we're coming from differing perspectives.
think about these words. what you're describing here is gendered male behaviour, learned and culturally enforced. in other words, culture says men must internalise their emotions, seed them deeply, in order to be perceived as "men" by other "men" - so men are policing the culture of men, right? if a man isn't MANLY enough, then other men will address that, by mocking/fighting/whatever - but you're saying men fear other mens disapproval/judgement of their behaviours, yes?
well, I agree. that's what is referenced by gender policing. men culturally police, both themselves and women - the culture police decide whether a woman is living down to the culturally standards, by appearance/actions/beliefs - in much the same way as the men police each other. so who is setting these standards, and who benefits?
who benefits from rigid standards of behaviours, enforced sometimes violently? who benefits from people suppressing their natural feelings, or talents, or desires, and instead adopting stereotyped role-playing? who benefits from relationships breaking down within cultures, stressed out people sedating themselves, or acting out violently within relationships, or families?
I know you've posted here that you believe women undermine the amrkn culture, or some such similar - do you believe that "women" are naturally mis-behaving in a cultural context, or not playing their assigned roles, and thus things don't work well any more, etc? that it's not in the best interests of men to adjust their behaviours and beliefs (globally)? not trying to pick a fight, genuinely looking to provoke a deeper awareness of just what it is that you think you believe (in), particularly in the context of gender role-playing in this country.
does "cohesion" include the hatred of women and children? so as to be more effective human killers? because there has always been large numbers of women and children targeted and killed in wars. I think the military strives to de-humanise everything outside of its uni-formed. and I think this way of thinking is rampant in amrka, intentionally so. I believe this whole artificial gender policing is deliberate, a way to keep people pre-occupied and in emotional pain, which allows the sociopaths who don't suffer any empathy to continue the grand looting spree. much in the same way depleted uranium is used on "enemies" - and lied and denied - and yet also affects the user-troops - long term debilitating dis-orders, often unacknowledged. . . there is a trend of dishonesty.
I'm just going to repeat what I've often said - I have male friends, my closest friends are male - they've done some inner work, and applied it to their lives, and they don't "act" in stereotyped men-ways. most are in long-term relationships with strong females who have also realised how this culture stunts the growth and awareness of each, particularly with strict gender roles that limit their creativity and emotional awareness. I've been around males all my adult life, working with them, sharing living space, traveling, etc. they can vary incredibly, thankfully.
it took me many years to realise just how false "society" is - how carefully constructed via advertising, media, and religious dogma the whole soup is, how re-enForced the mainstream herd can be. it took living for decades in a different culture, albeit western, but certainly the friends I made when I left amrka were much wiser as to how manipulated society can be. and that was decades ago - it's waaaay more obvious in the here and now.
it is what it is though, no changing the pattern overnight. luckily many of the more recent "generations" are re-working the memes, and raising their kids accordingly, although what sort of state the world will degenerate into, ecologically and otherwise because the corporate/military/financial machinery seems determined to shit the nest, and there's really nothing any One can do now. . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
drawing a mental line! appreciate your kind words with regards the ole astrology stuffs - that's just with awareness of a couple of points, sun and moon - the whole chart, read over time, that's where the really interesting commentary can happen! I don't do people charts much any more, same old same old, folks don't vary all that much, lol - but watching nationstate charts, or individuals in "power over" situations, etc. - very compelling. certain national charts, compared, can be fascinating (well, to me and a few others, *smiles*)
if I don't catch up with you before, enjoy your birthday!
Oh my. Poor lil' pathetic things just can't do anything without a man to look out for and protect them?
Given your posting history, this is just hilarious. How about the now common news stories of female teachers preying on young male students, as the law is clearly not sufficient will women ever cease this predatory behavior?
I hope you meant " things" as in women in general rather than " things" referring to the 2 female posters.
Miffed;-)
gotta love the dudes who strive for equivalency by citing a handful of incidents - none of which involve anything similar to the violence of male rape - whilst simultaneously overlooking the centuries of male sexual violence, on everything from women, to men, children, animals. . .
yeah.
Now if they could only find someone who isn't a moron to guard the schools
"School police officer accidentally discharges his firearm in school."
http://www.ksat.com/news/Jordan-Middle-School-police-officer-s-gun-accid...
"Security-guard leaves gun unattended in restroom at charter school."
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/01/18/security-guard-leaves-gun-una...
In Texas on Black Friday a crowd was getting out of control after a man tried to cut in line. Another guy with a concealed carry pulled out his gun, told the guy to get back in line and defused the situation.The liberals would have us think that the guy with the gun was a madman and he should have his gun taken away because by carrying that weapon he intended to shoot 100 people with it that day.
I think we have a bigger problem if we have teachers that are so maladjusted and prone to breakdowns, that they would start firing a gun at little children because she was having a bad day. However, knowing some liberal teachers, they would perhaps do just that. In fact I am sure if they start arming teachers some liberal hack teacher will shoot a misbehaving child just to further the gun control agenda.
I have been thinking long and hard about whether or not to home school my kid after meeting some of the teachers at our local school. Some of them are so lacking in common sense and judgement that I can not feel safe knowing they are in charge of teaching young minds. It is sad that in most cases the public schools have become the worst possible place for an education. When the Department of Education took over the total US curriculum, education became nothing but liberal indoctrination. Your child no longer learns anything of value in school, unless the teacher breaks the rules and goes against the DOE, teaching outside the law.
In Texas don't you have the right to shoot someone that pulls a gun on you like that? Queue jumping in not even a killing offense in England.
No, not even in Texas does someone have the right to harm someone who is not about to harm them. While Texas does have some unusual laws with respect to being able to use deadly force to defend property, no one would seriously suggest that you use deadly force to protect property. The standard for use of deadly force in the US is a simple one: you can only use deadly force to defend your life or that of others and you have to show that you were in reasonable fear of your life or extreme bodily harm to do so. Otherwise the person who is going to prison is YOU. Frankly I'm surprised that this gentleman didn't spend some time in the iron bar hilton for brandishing.
For the emasculated in Britain, let me translate. This means that you can actually use a weapon or your fists to prevent you or your loved ones from being murdered, raped, or grievously assaulted. That's pretty much the standard throughout the US. So you don't have to bend over and spread your cheeks while thanking the assailant for a "jolly good rogering" as seems to be the legal standard in the UK.
Do you even read the nonsense you write?
If someone pulls a gun on me, that strongly suggests that that person intends to harm me. Doesn't that give me the legal right to shoot him, regardless of whether I jumped in front of him in a queue?
The English have been known to defend their place in the queue with their fists.
In Florida you can literally get away with murder thanks to the "stand your ground" law:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-groun...
I'm calling bullshit.
"The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews"...
Yes, that certainly sounds comprehensive, thorough and analytical doesn't it? And the reporters expertise in the interpretation of said law is, what, exactly? Two years in Columbia Yellow Journalism Skewl?
The "study" cited here was done by the Tampa Bay Times...which used to be called the St.Petersburg Times. If you research the origins of the St.Pete Times you will find a guy named Nelson Poytner, a fucking socialist. How do I know this? I used to live in St.Pete and wouldn't use the Times to line a bird cage with. It is called Pravda West for good reason...no matter how many times they change their name.
One might just as well commission any other gun control organization to do a "study", the result would be the same. The NYT's maybe...lol.
Always check your sources.
You can kill with fists. You can injure with a gun. Who's to say a potential victim can tell the difference in intent?
Unfortunately ours is a culture that rewards rudeness and uncouthness by discouraging self-defense. People do bad stuff when they know they can get away with it.
The answer is to pull a gun and threaten someone with it if they jump line in a queue? Your nuts.
Do you even think before you write anti-self defense tripe?
In answer to your re-phrased question: "If someone pulls a gun on me, that strongly suggests that that person intends to harm me. Doesn't that give me the legal right to shoot him, regardless of whether I jumped in front of him in a queue?"
No. IANAL, and it depends on the state, but in order to have a legal defense you generally need to show that you did nothing to provoke an attack. If you provoked someone, you would be required to retreat and rightfully so. If you did retreat and the other individual continued to pursue or attack, you might have a defense at that point if you injured or killed them. Emphasis on the might. The legal right to self-defense was not intended to allow you to provoke someone, have them react, and then allow you in turn to injure or kill them and then walk away scot-free.
And keep in mind that simply being prosecuted means you are fucked fifteen ways to Tuesday. Shoot someone and have it not be an obvious self defense scenario and you will be prosecuted. Yeah, with a good lawyer and a good story, you might walk away. Eventually. But you'll spend months if not years in jail and be bankrupt when you finally get out.
Another guy with a concealed carry pulled out his gun, told the guy to get back in line and defused the situation.The liberals would have us think that the guy with the gun was a madman
I find it amusing that you use this specific example in an attempt to demonstrate that "liberals" are the UNREASONABLE ones. I'm ALL FOR guns and gun ownership, AND I'm a liberal, AND I think the guy with the gun is an asshole who really shouldn't be carrying.
But now you've piqued my curiosity, though, so I'd ask for your input. Say a CCW holder had ordered a very dry cappuccino from the same Starbucks and been disappointed numerous times with how wet it was.
Would it be reasonable for this gentleman to order the same very dry cappuccino one day and then show his Glock to the girl at the register and suggest they really make an effort to get it right?
Why or why not?
It's just as reasonable as showing one's gun to the teller at the bank when requesting a withdrawal.
A possible reason why not is one could get imprisoned or killed for doing that, not to mention your mom may have taught you that that wasn't the polite thing to do.
Just as she must have told that guy that queue breaking wasn't the polite thing to do.
In a bit of hindsight, if the story is more like the slightly amended story below, and the line-jumper was seriously *assaulting* people who tried to stop him, it's not as clear that he's a major asshole who shouldn't be carrying.
I know for sure, if I'd been there, I'd have preferred to have a piece, but I very much doubt I'd have made any move to reveal it until things had gotten pretty brutal.
Cutting lines is high-school stuff. There is no need for shooting.
Way to half truth it. The man who cut in line assaulted another who told him to move to the back. The fear of serious injury became very real and the CWP holder diffused the situation amazingly well.
Wow...that's a lot of dumb to pack in one post.
Using a gun to settle a dispute about positions in line is very much insane...unless you think someone cutting in front of you in line is equivalent to bodily harm and fear of assault or death; you've just given liberals a great reason to oppose concealed carry, which is that unreasonable people will be that much closer to doing something unreasonable on a whim.
The ad hominem attack on liberals (who, if your party line is to be believed, would have nothing to do with a firearm for obvious reasons) reeks of desperation and goes a long way to confirming the stereotype of conservatives as completely irrational people unworthy of intellectual consideration by intelligent men.
Teachers are not "in charge of teaching young minds". Never have been. Never will be. That is a parent's responsibility from their birth until they are an adult. Period. It's a real shame your children stop learning as soon as they set foot outside of the school.
Home school every child thru the internet........SAVE TRILLIONS
Yeah because that is a realistic solution for so many families where both parents work or have just a single parent let alone having a parent who is qualified to actually teach their chidlren especially when you get to high school level material including math and physical sciences.
meh, they can lurn math via MMPORG, calculatin' their stats - and "physical science" = that's prOn, amirite?
teh internets has all yr problems, cover'd.
Home schooling works for some but it is not a solution to improve the overall U.S. primary education status and there is a reason why no country in the world does it.
I may be mis-understanding what you've posted, if so, sorry.
"home schooling" at this point in amrkn history should be a no-brainer - basic question is do you want your kids schooled in Gov.Speak and exposed to mass'd media via "peers" or do you want your kids to learn? un-schooling is a much better alternative than being educated into a particular mind-set, IMO.
the truth is most people use schools as baby-sitters, much like they use TeeVee, or the internets - which I suppose is fine, if one is hoping for an average amrkn kid. as in, all incentive towards brilliance averaged out of 'em. . .
if by "it" you mean "homeschool" - yes, the nationstates need to educate their humans into citizen/consumers, preferably uni-formed, thinking similarly. . .
Because noone who homeschools has a "mindset" that is instilled? Makes damn sure they don't get any alternative inputs though.
LOL
yes, I absolutely agree that what is being schooled at home will vary, widely, depending on the parents level of awareness.
the difference may lie in the outcome when the schooled child reaches the age of social integration - those who don't slot easily into culture will get their theories tested, and that's where real learning can begin.
unfortunately, those schooled in pledges of allegiance have a much greater pool of similars, massively delaying the "Aha!" moments - witness the herding process we currently have, in-action.
at least with the concept of home schooling, or un-schooling, which is preferable, in my opinion, there are alternatives to blind following of national memes - rather the Amish than militarised flag-wavers. . .
And the ones that don't own computers, sub-genius?
My God, did you take an idiot pill this morning?
You can buy a refurbished desktop at wal-mart right now for $148 FRN. That's too much money? You can pick one up for free on freecycle. Or craigslist.
Cool. Now you've only got to supply another 9,999,999.
You don't need an idiot pill as you synthesize stupid endogenously.
This is a left wing embedded story. Ask yourself, did you grow up under prison conditions to graduate from High School? Central planners hope you comply. Paul Krugman needs to save face by creating fear to balance the US deficit. Do you begin to see the illusion?
"did you grow up under prison conditions to graduate from High School?"
I sincerely hope this is a rhetorical question, or you only ask it of people who graduated long ago.
Long ago. I remember guns in a window rack of vehicles on school grounds. No one ever had a gun in school, yet they had automatic weapons/ shot guns in cars on school grounds. Why did we survive this new gun scare? We were taught & smart enough to know how to use the weapons.
Daily gang bagging deaths & drug OTC induced who look to blame their action with a scumbag attorney . The scumbag attorney sues the drug company/gun company. The attorney crosses his fingers to settle claim and retire. The victim continues to suffer. This is how justice is served today.
I remember this too atomizer. Perhaps the problem is so few people today know or remember this. I grew up all my life with guns and they never were a big deal to me or any one I knew. They were just tools. Only recently have I actively improved my firing skills and acquired more firearms not because I've become a " fanatical gun freak" but I have seen the tide change in this country. What I took for granted as an unalienable right is being questioned. The portcullis is starting to close and lines are being drawn. Everyone at some point must choose where they stand.
Miffed;-)
Yes, actually...we were very much treated like prisoners...fenced in, constant surveillance, (safety) "guards" with actual watch towers to catch "escapees".
You were allowed furloughs to work though or you could join the ROTC. Come to think of it, they only thing they didn't have were actual guns, but now that glaring difference is resolved too.
Are we missing the point of the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights here? You know, that pesky little amendment that says the following:
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
We should not forget about that Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Voluntary union of states or mandatory union at gunpoint?