.357 wrote on September 24, 2008 06:06 PM: FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUN.

Sick of ignorance wrote on September 09, 2008 01:09 PM: The framers of the constitution by and large DID MEAN that all men be armed. to say otherwise is to display deep abiding ignorance of fact. The act that started the first battle of the revolution was when the British attempted to take away an armoury held by the committees of safety. Private arms and a few committee muskets were the only weapons the colonials had. One of the BIGGEST complaints by WASHINGTON was that veterans who mustered out were taking their arms home as the army had a shortage of muskets.

Many of the comments here that dismiss arming the populace are not based in reality or any sort of knowledge of the actual conditions faced by the founders.

John S wrote on August 28, 2008 07:52 PM: Terrible things are happening in the world around us. The gentleman who things we should take pistols away is unknowingly taking away our rights with his ideas. Give up some basic freedoms for temporary and illusionary safety? I thank our founding fathers and those who fought for this country. I thank those who stay armed, and fight even now. If you disarm the people, you disarm the law abiding citizens. If you are a criminal, you don't acquire firearms legally. The ban doesn't mean anything to you, but the ability to pick and choose your targets. If you're a criminal, you now know that your targets are un-armed and easy pickings. The day we have complete registration of arms, and the prohibition of defensive arms is the day we truly lose our freedom. Police are not on every corner, they are not baby sitters. If you're getting robbed, you don't have a cop hiding in the shadows to protect you. They show up to clean up, to notate, and record. They do what they can, but if the criminal is already gone they can only collect evidence. Hopefully the evidence leads to a conviction. So if you're held at gun point with no way to defend yourself, I hope the cops document your death well. Maybe they'll even be able to catch the person who did it. He/she might even get convicted and spend a few years in jail. While you could still be alive because you defended yourself instead of relying on the government to protect you and guarantee the illusion of safety.

Christopher wrote on August 28, 2008 12:18 AM: I am reading this exchange between Robert and Jen, and I have come to the conclusion that Jen simply spoke without fully understanding the particulars of Beers' proposed law. Therefore, the ensuing "argument" between Robert and Jen is irrelevant.

If Jen knew that teachers permitted to carry firearms would always carry them securely, safely, and secretly upon their persons, she would never have thought the firearm would be left in a desk, potentially left unlocked, and found by a delinquent. The training required of the teachers permitted to carry firearms would ensure that the teacher was intimately familiar with appropriate mechanisms to maintain a firearm secure and on their person (Indeed … “in their pants”). Therefore, Jen should have no objection.

If Jen knew that teachers permitted to carry firearms would have to pass background checks vastly more extensive than those required of current teachers, and much more similar to the vetting that is required of a potential law-enforcement officers, then she would have never questioned the personal integrity of those teachers. Therefore, Jen should have no objection.

If Jen knew that the teachers permitted to carry firearms would have to undergo six months of training, testing, observation, and evaluation in order to obtain such a carry permit, then she should have never questioned the teacher’s competence and attention to detail regarding their firearm in the classroom (actually upon their person). Therefore, Jen should have no objection.

Who am I to weigh in on this matter? I am a college instructor, firearm safety instructor, father of a teenager, concealed weapons permit holder, concealed weapon carrier, NRA member, productive member of my community … and I hope to God that Beers get his “teacher with guns” bill passed!

John Thayer wrote on August 26, 2008 10:37 PM: Lou Schettino of Las Vegas, said he would like tougher gun laws, to the point where handgun ownership would be banned.

"And I'm a Republican," he said. "My son was a policeman in New York City. As far as I am concerned, we need to take handguns off the street."

So Lou, do you plan on sending your son to sacrifice his life trying to take my guns from me, or do you plan on committing suicide by armed American citizen yourself?

PacificGatePost wrote on August 26, 2008 03:56 PM: a href=" http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/08/gun-debate-intent-emotions-reason.html "> GUN DEBATE - INTENT, EMOTIONS and REASON

PacificGatePost wrote on August 26, 2008 03:54 PM: A GUN IN EVERY POCKET – Probably not what the framers of the Constitution really would intend today.

Emotions make this an endless debate, and solutions will be hard to come by.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/08/gun-debate-intent-emotions-reason.html

ST wrote on August 26, 2008 08:21 AM: For those who think they don't need a gun, they will just call 911; you are in for a huge surprise. As a local firefighter, I can tell you with certainty, that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. I see it every day out on calls. When the shooting starts, you will be lucky if you see the police in less than two minutes. This is an EXTREMELY long time when someone is trying to kill you and all you can do is wait and hope someone else saves you. I'm knocking our police, they are excellent, its just simple math. There are only so many police officer and they can't be everywhere at once.

Robert wrote on August 26, 2008 07:35 AM: Jen Jen Jen,

Of course they would keep their guns in their pants! Or more specifically, in a concealed carry holster which they are comfortable with and have trained to properly and effectively use.

Why in the world would they keep their gun locked in a drawer, where it would be completely inaccessible when they need it the most? Do you think madmen give warnings or allow time outs?

I really suggest you spend the $100 and take a state approved concealed weapons permit class. I think you'll find the experience enlightening.

As for you not trying to "push your opinion", you certainly are. You "hope to god" that Beer's bill doesn't pass. If it doesn't, because of the opinions of people such as yourself, all of our children will continue to live in danger at their schools.

Listen, I have no doubt that you believe your opinion is for the protection of your child. Of course it is! But does your opinion REALLY make sense, when you really think about it?

Does it really make sense to gather all of our children into one easily accessed area, and leave them completely and utterly unprotected--while announcing loudly to those who would do them harm that our schools are completely unprotected?

It doesn't to me! What makes sense to me, is to allow teachers who are willing to go through the rigorous training process to carry a gun, concealed on their person, while at school. I can't think of any better way to protect our children than having properly trained individuals right their in the classroom with them!

If a teacher could volunteer to be trained as well or better than a police officer, and was required to keep their gun concealed on their person at all times, would you still oppose this?

Jim in Houston wrote on August 26, 2008 07:05 AM: jen wrote on August 25, 2008 08:12 PM: " I'm not trying to be misleading. I don't know where teachers would store their gun if they had one. I couldn't imagine them keeping it in their pants, could you? I was thinking their locked desk drawer - which could accidentally be left unlocked etc... "

Just going to pop in here quickly. As a Texas CHL holder, I would not EVER lose personal control of my gun. Yes, it stays on my body at all times and remains concealed at all time. No student would ever know that I had it. Leaving a gun in a desk drawer, locked or not, would be irresponsible and contrary to basic CHL principles.

Read All Comments