Grizzlies And Politics

I don’t agree with Trump or some of his nominees on just about anything but “BetsyDeVos would not oppose putting guns in our schools. I was shaken to the core by her answer. So should every American parent.”
 
See Citing grizzlies, Betsy DeVos says states should determine school gun policies
making all schools gun-free zones is just silly. Police/guards/staff should have firearms as an option to protect children against predators. I’ve lived in communities where a teacher was chewed up trying to rescue a child who was being dragged off by dogs. I’ve lived in a community where a polar bear did walk right through the playground a few minutes before the children were to be released into it. Such bears treat everything that moves as food. Then we have the murdering bastards who figure schools are just a target-rich zone.

I’ve taught in many northern/remote communties and while I don’t remember any school having firearms you can bet the immediate community neighbouring the school did. That polar bear was hunted down and killed within minutes. Those dogs were shot. I’ve lived on school property and I possessed a rifle for hunting. There’s nothing wrong with firearms on school property if they are properly managed.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms, politics, Teaching. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Grizzlies And Politics

  1. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    See The Ruling

    See the part about nut-cases, eh?

  2. dougman says:

    “The 2nd Amendment is about states having militias not nut-cases owning firearms. ”

    You fool, please define “militia in context as used and applied in the 18th century.

    Additionally, the U.S Supreme Court has always called it an individual right. The 2008 Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

    DERP….go pound oil sands.

  3. Ivan wrote, ” Do you actually think someone on a killing rampage really gives a shit if anyone is going to be shooting back at them?”

    This is not a yes/no question. A suicidal maniac probably doesn’t care. He just wants attention as he departs mortality. A murdering bastard may well care. He wants to kill more for the same effort. He likes soft targets that don’t shoot back or have any defence. Al Qaeda used to have a training manual on the web. In it there was a consideration that a target have multiple means of escape and tactics for evasion. Daesh, OTOH, is mostly concerned with body-count and considers suicide a goal. Both like remote controlled bombs but Daesh is much more likely to use suicide vests.

    I’ve worked in schools in which a murderer paid a visit because it was the place his victim would be known to be and there were no guards and no defence except locked doors. Recess and class-changes make doors unreliable as a defence. It makes sense to have armed guards at schools. Haven’t we learned anything since Columbine? Columbine had guards… but they weren’t enough to cover the whole school and they were out-gunned. In a society where murdering bastards can easily get semi-auto rifles with large magazines pistols may be insufficient.

  4. Ivan says:

    Gun free zones are where nuts go where they KNOW they will not be bothered by persons with guns TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.

    This is close to the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this blog. Do you actually think someone on a killing rampage really gives a shit if anyone is going to be shooting back at them? Gun free zones in schools give a legal angle to throw the book at the perp of the next Columbine that gets interrupted. But go on, be a cunt about how you need to defend yourself.

  5. dougman wrote, “Extreme you say?”

    Having firearms for hunting, target-shooting, and defence is not extreme. Allowing every idiot to have firearms for crazy purposes is though. We don’t permit ten year old kids to drive for good reason. We should not allow them or nut-cases to own firearms either.

    Already, many states have such restrictions but they are not uniform so a terrorist can buy whatever in one state and illegally move it into another state to commit some horror. It’s really hard to stop that movement but not so hard to prevent businesses from selling to them. The “gun-show” loophole is another thing. It’s harder to regulate less formal businesses or personal trading but governments can still make those deals illegal and punish those that get caught just like other crimes.

    The 2nd Amendment is about states having militias not nut-cases owning firearms. It’s good to have citizens familiar with firearms in case of war or even crimes/terrorism but it’s stupid to allow every person to own a firearm even when they are known to be unreliable people. The fastest solution to this problem is to create federal laws regulating firearms but the states and the NRA have blocked most reasonable measures. Trump claims to represent the ordinary citizens. Here’s an opportunity to do that. Most USAians want reasonable gun-control even NRA members.

  6. dougman says:

    “USA is taking an extreme view of the right to keep and bear arms. ”

    Extreme you say? Whats wrong with walking down to the store, with a .45 strapped to my side? Obviously, you have a issue with everyday people wanting to not have to rely on the police for defense.

    Whats next out of your mouth?…Don’t put a up a fight, as you may anger and incite further violence from your attacker? Go piss a rope.

  7. Dan Brown wrote, “our 2nd amendment rights you don’t have in Canada”.

    The 2nd Amendment is a reflection of the English Bill of Rights which was operational in those days. ie. Settlers in USA/13 colonies who came from England were used to the right to keep and bear arms quite normally. The 2nd Amendment is a restatement of that right. It was particularly appropriate when the British tried to strip colonists of their weapons. Canada comes from the same tradition except we accept that reasonable limitations are OK: no history of violence or mental disorder, good relations with family/friends, and training to standard.

    The Canadian government did go too far when it tried to register all firearms. Citizens rebelled and the law was changed. This is the normal to and fro when folks from a variety of cultures and ways of life all share the same government. Compromises have to be made.

    USA is taking an extreme view of the right to keep and bear arms. They are reaping the whirlwind in the form of criminal use of firearms and terrorism. Reasonable firearms control gives a handle on both of those issues. Eventually the problem of criminal access to firearms will cause USA to implement more control of firearms. I don’t know what it will take. Citizens refusing to sign up to be police/targets? Even higher death-rates? Local insurrections by murdering bastards? What? Aren’t thousands of deaths per annum enough? Aren’t slaughter of classrooms of students and teachers enough? What does it take?

  8. Dan Brown says:

    Gun free zones are where nuts go where they KNOW they will not be bothered by persons with guns TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.
    So I consider them to be bad, and a cut into our 2nd amendment rights you don’t have in Canada.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *