Is she part of a well regulated militia?

Just what we'd need. A situation where school children can get caught up in a crossfire between the Teachers and some asswipes.
Guaranteed to increase the body count. I guess that's what it's for-after all-children don't matter to rethuglicunts unless they haven't been born yet.

I looked at the article figuring she had to be a school teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District but she's from Oregon.

If I were a teacher, I would probably want some way to defend myself too, but I don't think a gun is the right way to go. In the event that a kid got hold of it, and tried showing off with it the liklihood of unintentionally firing it off and killing someone is probably pretty good.

We've been in this argument here but I don't see a problem with teachers having non-lethal ways to defend themselves. Something that might bring down an attacker, but won't be able to kill anyone.

From the little bit of information in the article is does sound as if she is trying to make the ex-husband look more dangerous than he is. Its a pretty common tactic in custody battles and many men are deprived of visitation by vindictive ex-wives. If this woman is so concerned about her husband confronting her at school then she owes it to the children in the school to remove herself so that they will not be endangered. She obviously though isn't all that concerned about their safety and seems more intent on bringing attention to herself. The fact that she will not disclose whether she has previously brought the gun to school is reason enough to dismiss her. If I were a parent with kids in that school I would be demanding that she resign.

I take my conceiled gun into places that it is not allowed all the time. If trouble should arise and I have to use deadly force to protect me or mine I'll take the rap for taking it into a place where I should not have.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH

this is about her wanting to have a gun...

when I glanced at the headline I thought it was some teacher.....you know in one of those liberal public schools ....who want to pack MEAT.........you know as in the ole bananna and the egg bit.........

erk erk erk....he said as he pounded his fist in the palm of the other hand.......

and this is a connundrum isnt it????

she has every right to pack for her defense but you have to consider the setting that she wants to take it......

hhhhhhmmmmm verrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.....

Same here 2112.
Just have to know what places have metal detectors.

.......that's gonna be one well-behaved class.......

Here we go again.

She has the right under the 2nd Amendment to possess a weapon. And she has qualified to conceal carry.

But, an employer has the right to dictate certain restrictions as conditions of employment. The employer where I work strictly prohibits any weaponry, including storing a weapon in one's truck. (Sidebar: this same employer has also banned cigarette smoking, a legal activity, anywhere on its properties, including leased properties.) In most cases, if you don't agree with the employment conditions, you can go work somewhere else.

Of course, in the case of this teacher wanting to pack at school, the rub is that the school is technically a public institution. And Oregon evidently allows a person to carry a weapon in some public buildings. So she's pushing it.

She is basing her argument on the extreme long-odds possibility that there will be an incident at her school.

If one applies this same logic, then everybody everywhere should be allowed to pack heat all the time because y'a never know when the bad guys are gonna show up strewing mayhem and death all about.

"If one applies this same logic, then everybody everywhere should be allowed to pack heat all the time because y'a never know when the bad guys are gonna show up strewing mayhem and death all about."
---ZOT


I actually believe that to be a true statement. Thats why I'm almost always packin' heat!

Thats why I'm almost always packin' heat!

Twice in one thread.

OKOK

We get it. You're a "tough" guy.

Enough

"But, an employer has the right to dictate certain restrictions as conditions of employment. The employer where I work strictly prohibits any weaponry, including storing a weapon in one's truck."

The school has a policy that restricts teachers from packing.

The school also has a policy that restricts students from packing.

When students are caught on campus packing, who will shoot back.

To carry a concealed weapon, don't you have to prove you know how to handle a gun in the first place?

It's a scary thought to have teacher 'having' to pack. Restraint orders are a joke. My gal friends have had them and the police usually come after they've been roughed up. It's just a damn piece of paper, right?

Students are caught every single month, perhaps not packing heat, but packing knives and another junk they aren't supposed to have. Considering how many violations I've seen in my own schools since school opened this year (it's just October), the teacher's union should ask the schools if they are safe to teach in - mine aren't and I think a teacher has a good argument to keep at least a baseball bat in class.

"OKOK

We get it. You're a "tough" guy.

Enough"
--R8RH8R

You're retarded. 2112 only mentioned it because he believes it empowers him to defend himself. If he was trying to be a tough guy he would have been bragging about having a large caliber, elongated barrel, and how he polishes it off every night.

Petrous, I do not want to rehash what was discussed when this story first broke a couple of weeks ago, or rehash what is being rehashed now.

My sole point is that if this woman does not like/is willing to accept the conditions of employment placed upon her by her employer, then she can go work someplace else that is more conducive to her own personal philosophy.

The fact that she has a public sector position merely enables her to make a big stink about it. If she attempted to assert her right to conceal carry at say, SAM's Club, Oracle, 7-11, Lockheed-Martin, the US Post Office, she would be shown the door.

If she has that much emotional baggage that she has to fear for her safety while at school, she should think of her students instead of herself and resign.

Why put the students in a situation where some of them could get caught in the crossfire?

"Why put the students in a situation where some of them could get caught in the crossfire?"
--726

Always better that victims remain defenseless while people are shooting at them.

Live or die,

If she wasn't there, why would the students be shot at from her ex?

Let me put it this way....

If she were my child's teacher I would take my child out of that school pronto.

Surprised me twice... that it's a woman, and in sleepy Ashland Oregon.

(Froze our ass off one October night there at an outdoor Shakespeare performance).

ZOT, I don't agree that she should be packing. But, the school system in my area has proven that it cannot prevent harm from coming into the school.

If the husband is a danger to society, there are laws to deal with him.

If it is just a restraining order, she should be packing and dropping off the firearm at the school main office - some employers allow employees to do that and I know a couple post office employees who do exactly that-leave them with security personnel.

As for having the arms in the classroom? If the school has shown it can prevent the kids from having weapons, then the teacher should be told no. If the school can't prevent the weapons, the teachers should go on strike.

Live or die,

So you gonna answer the question?

How are the victims defenseless from the teacher's ex if she is not there?

Hmmmm?

"Let me put it this way....

If she were my child's teacher I would take my child out of that school pronto.

Posted by 726 "

But, what if it is the fellow students? Are you going to pull your kid out? Then what, home school? I have several high schools nearby that are all having problems, almost weekly, with armed kids and violent kids. Heck, we've got restraining orders from kids against other kids.

If the school system can't handle the violence, then teachers either need to be able to defend themselves, or someone must be in the school available for defense.

Telling the teacher to quit doesn't resolve the problem (except with this teacher if it is just the guy that is the real issue). Do you think this guy could get into the school? I think he could if he was determined. Unless the school has armed guards, the school can be breached.

Why should ADULT teachers be held to the same standards as underage students?

That is ridiculous.

If this teacher is licensed to carry a concealed weapon then she should be able to do so on the job.

I have no problem with adults owning handguns as long as they are licensed, registered, and have passed background checks (incl. a psych evaluation), a safety course, a written test, as well as firing range qualifications. They should also have to renew these licenses and registrations every two-four years.

Live or die,

So you gonna answer the question?

How are the victims defenseless from the teacher's ex if she is not there?

Hmmmm?


Posted by 726

Because the article states she fears more than just her ex. She fears an another armed person in the school - the article states this. So, if she isn't armed and isn't there, her victims are defenseless if the next teach is defenseless, too.

I have no problem with adults owning handguns as long as they are licensed, registered, and have passed background checks (incl. a psych evaluation), a safety course, a written test, as well as firing range qualifications. They should also have to renew these licenses and registrations every two-four years.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-10-09 12:38 PM | Reply

You stinking liberal.

Because the article states she fears more than just her ex. She fears an another armed person in the school - the article states this. So, if she isn't armed and isn't there, her victims are defenseless if the next teach is defenseless, too.

Posted by Petrous at 2007-10-09 12:42 PM | Reply

So she is a pants pisser. That gives her the right to carry a loaded gun in a school.

Thanks for explaining it.

Maybe she should stay in her fortified compound, wrapped in bubble wrap up on the wall 24/7 looking for the gunmen that are coming for her.

Anyone this easily terrorized should not be allowed to teach children.

You stinking liberal.

LOL

that's a new accusation on this site.

Seriously though, I don't understand the NRA's irrational desire to allow adults to own handguns on demand without any licensing or background checks.

I even think rifles should require at least some background checks, licensing and registration (if not as extensive as handguns which can be easily concealed) -- if only because it is the most responsible thing to do with weapons that are capable of causing so much damage to the owner and others.

I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that the NRA did support background checks, but did oppose overly onerous ones. The NRA wants us to enforce existing gun laws vs continuing to create new ones.

Oohrah, you may be right. I'm no expert on the NRA so maybe they have relaxed their views in recent years -- I doubt however they would advocate the extensive checks and licensing which I would support.

I'm not sure what background check could be onerous -- I mean I don't think a persons financials should be included in the check -- but certiainly a criminal background check as well as a psych evaluation should be done.

I know that this is a very contentious issue, but I think anyone who is diagnosed with major depression, serious psycological problems like schizophrenia, violent or suicidal tendencies should be made part of national database that can be accessed only by law enforcement or when someone applies for a gun. For example, If such a database had existed when that Gotabaum woman was arrested in the airport (and died in police custody) they might have known in a few minutes that she was suicidal and should be under constant watch.

Of course, the fear is that if such a database existed it might be accessed illegally by employers or others to stigmatize people who might have overcome their problems and have otherwise been hired.

So as always with these issues, the state must balance the rights of privacy, with the rights of the governemnt to insure the safety of all citizens.

Seriously though, I don't understand the NRA's irrational desire to allow adults to own handguns on demand without any licensing or background checks.

I even think rifles should require at least some background checks, licensing and registration (if not as extensive as handguns which can be easily concealed) -- if only because it is the most responsible thing to do with weapons that are capable of causing so much damage to the owner and others.

Posted by Bowa

What part of the constitution do you use for the basis of that.

Should you have to have a license to post here? The first and the second amendments have no provisions for a license.

Should you have to have a license to post here? The first and the second amendments have no provisions for a license.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-10-09 02:31 PM | Reply

Granted though some of the comments slay me, none of them have the ability to kill me.

Best thing to do is get a carry permit, it will have most of the requirements most of you are saying.
It also, for the most part will allow you to buy a pistol without the required 3 day waiting period.
The NRA is against any law that in its opinion could be used to erode owners rights by changing the intent of law down the road.
You don`t have to be pro gun,thats ok by me.
I do know that in recent years many states have passed laws that allow people to carry guns.
Where people have the right to freely bear arms crime will ultimatly drop.
Because...You Never Know...

rwd

And we can settle disputes with good old fashioned duels!