Page 1 of 5
Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:55 pm
by Gob
The US state of South Dakota has enacted a law allowing school districts to arm teachers and other school staff.
The law's backers say it will prevent mass school shootings like a December massacre in Connecticut that killed 26.
Amid a push by the White House to strengthen gun laws, the bill reflects a growing divide in the US over whether more or fewer guns keep people safe.
The measure does not force school districts to arm teachers and will not require teachers to carry guns.
But it allows each school district to choose if staff could be armed. It takes effect in July.
Under the Republican-sponsored bill, school staff given permission to carry firearms on campus will be known as "school sentinels". The state has given a law enforcement commission the task of establishing a training programme for the sentinels.
Several representatives of school boards, teachers and other staff spoke against the bill in legislative hearings, arguing guns would make schools more dangerous.
But sponsor Representative Scott Craig said this week had heard from a number of school officials who back it.
Mr Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time police officers.
What will the excuse be when the first Dakota teacher goes postal and shoots a class up?
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:06 am
by rubato
Gob wrote:"...
What will the excuse be when the first Dakota teacher goes postal and shoots a class up?
The students should have been armed! Duh.
"The only thing that can stop a bad teacher with a gun is a good student with a gun". Writes itself.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:25 am
by Joe Guy
I agree with rubato.
The ACLU should step in & fight for the equal right of students to be armed.
Armed students are polite students.
In the old daze you got slapped on the hand with a ruler.
Nowadaze it's 20 paces & pistols.
We've come a long way.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:45 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
The measure does not force school districts to arm teachers and will not require teachers to carry guns.
But it allows each school district to choose if staff could be armed. It takes effect in July.
It allows each district to decide for itself.
I have no problem with it with one stipulation, those carrying need to pass a gun safety course and a sanity check.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:57 pm
by rubato
oldr_n_wsr wrote:The measure does not force school districts to arm teachers and will not require teachers to carry guns.
But it allows each school district to choose if staff could be armed. It takes effect in July.
It allows each district to decide for itself.
I have no problem with it with one stipulation, those carrying need to pass a gun safety course and a sanity check.
Assuming someone taking a 0.40 cal pistol into a room with 30 7-year-olds can pass a sanity check.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:05 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Had even one of the school officials (principal, teacher) in Newtown been armed, there might have been far fewer children dead.
Many people carry guns around children. Many children are around guns, are brought up with guns and are taught gun safety at an early age. Carrying a gun around children does not indicate one is not sane as you are suggesting.
How many cops go into schools to teach about DARE or other programs and carry their service revolvers?
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:09 pm
by rubato
oldr_n_wsr wrote:Had even one of the school officials (principal, teacher) in Newtown been armed, there might have been far fewer children dead.
Many people carry guns around children. Many children are around guns, are brought up with guns and are taught gun safety at an early age. Carrying a gun around children does not indicate one is not sane as you are suggesting.
How many cops go into schools to teach about DARE or other programs and carry their service revolvers?
Except that he had the element of surprise and a much better gun. And if they were armed he would have known it and prepared for it.
That sniper was shot dead because even if you have a gun someone else with the element of surprise always wins.
Your hypothetical is unpersuasive.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:47 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Except that he had the element of surprise and a much better gun. And if they were armed he would have known it and prepared for it.
You claim that he might have planned for the event that there were armed personel at the school.
Except that maybe, just maybe, had he known that the teachers/principal had been armed, he would not have chosen that school to attack.
He had to break down/open a door. If there was an armed principal/teacher/security guard on the other sid, perhaps only he would be dead.
As far as a "better" gun, I know I can get a much better gun than that, and I think a "better shooter" is better than the amount of firepower. Take the sniper.
Your conclusion is suspect.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:44 pm
by Jarlaxle
Note: I recall Utah passed a similar law last year.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:55 pm
by Gob
Byron, Maine even more mad than Dakota!
Maine town of Byron plans mandatory gun-ownership vote
A small town in the US state of Maine is planning to hold a symbolic vote to require each household to own a gun.
Officials in Byron, population 140, say they understand the move would be unenforceable because the state does not allow municipal firearm laws.
It would join a handful of communities across the US considering similar measures in support of gun ownership.
Byron's vote comes amid a White House campaign to strengthen gun laws after a mass school shooting in December.
"My purpose was to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment," said head selectman Anne Simmons-Edmund, of the vote, which is expected to be held at the town's annual meeting on Monday.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution refers to the right of citizens "to keep and bear arms".
However, restrictions on lawful gun ownership vary by state.
Ms Simmons-Edmund, who is also a police officer in nearby Dixfield, said 90% of residents in the town already own a firearm, but the measure also reflected community concern about the remote area's rising crime rates, which she said have nearly tripled in the last year.
"We're not going to invade anybody's privacy,'' Ms Simmons-Edmunds said. "We just want to send a statement that we're not going to give up our guns."
Not all in Byron were supportive of the move.
"It gives new meaning to the term March Madness," Byron resident Philip Paquette told Reuters news agency, referring to the popular name of America's national collegiate basketball tournament.
"She is infringing on the rights of townspeople. I'm a hunter and own guns, and I have a right to. People also have a right not to own guns."
A similar proposal failed in Sabattus, Maine, where town officials voted not to send the measure to voters.
The Atlanta suburb of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a similar law in 1982, and two other cities - Spring City, Utah, and Greenleaf, Idaho - have laws on the books recommending gun ownership for all households.
Nelson, Georgia is also set to vote on mandatory gun ownership on 1 April
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:57 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Mandatory gun ownership is as stupid as outlawing guns.
I own a rifle. That rifle is not in my house, it's in my cousins gun safe. I do not own it for self defense. I own it to hunt. I have a crossbow pistol, a sword, a bat and a knife (really big) for home defense. Of course none of those will stop a burgler with a gun, but then again, the dog barking might.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:45 pm
by Gob
Dear god, will the last sane person to leave Dakota please turn off the lights...
North Dakota has banned abortion once a foetal heartbeat can be detected - as early as six weeks - in the most restrictive law of its kind in the US.
Governor Jack Dalrymple signed a second law banning abortions based on genetic abnormalities.
He approved a third law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital-admitting privileges.
Correspondents say the laws are in part an effort to close the state's only abortion clinic, in the town of Fargo.
The measures, which take effect on 1 August, make no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.
Gov Dalrymple said: "Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v Wade."
In that landmark 1973 case, the US Supreme Court ruled abortion was legal until the foetus could survive outside the womb.
The governor said that the court has allowed states to adopt stricter abortion measures, and has never before considered a measure like this one - leaving the constitutionality of the bills an "open question".
Gov Dalrymple added the state should put money aside to pay for legal challenges to the laws.
Under the North Dakota bills, women would not be prosecuted for having an abortion after a foetal heartbeat could be detected, but doctors could face five years in prison and a $5,000 (£3,300) penalty.
Pro-choice advocates vowed to challenge the legislation.
Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood, said: "This sweeping package of bills will not stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
"But as a result of North Dakota's leaders' disregard for women's health, the state will endure months and years of drawn-out litigation costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars."
In addition, North Dakota's Republican-dominated legislature last week set up a voter referendum for November 2014 which seeks to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception.
The amendment would grant full legal protection to embryos and foetuses and could outlaw some forms of birth control, stem-cell research and possibly in vitro fertilisation.
Earlier in March, the Republican-controlled legislature in the state of Arkansas enacted tough abortion laws, banning the procedure after 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Scientists generally agree that foetuses become "viable" or able to survive outside the womb at about 22-24 weeks.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:52 pm
by Scooter
In addition, North Dakota's Republican-dominated legislature last week set up a voter referendum for November 2014 which seeks to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception.
Great, so now every time a woman in North Dakota has her period it will need to be investigated as a homicide.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:21 am
by rubato
The mistake is so basic that I'm amazed at how often it is repeated.
Life cannot "begin" at conception because it occurs only when a living ova and a living sperm fuse.
Life is perpetuated or continued at conception. But it never begins there, at least so far.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:25 am
by Sean
From the Twitter account of God himself:
God@TheTweetOfGod
With all due respect, North Dakota, you're the last state that should be defining what constitutes "life".

Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:44 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
rubato wrote:The mistake is so basic that I'm amazed at how often it is repeated.
Life cannot "begin" at conception because it occurs only when a living ova and a living sperm fuse.
Life is perpetuated or continued at conception. But it never begins there, at least so far.
yrs,
rubato
Maybe I'm not reading you right but from what I have read, conception is defined when a living ova and sperm fuse.
From wiki
Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves the fusion of an ovum with a sperm, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo.
I am not against abortion nor am I for it as a primary means of birth control so I really have no dog in the fight.
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:32 pm
by Econoline
rubato's point--with which I agree--is that conception is not the beginning of life; it is merely the continuation of life, since the sperm and the ovum are both already alive. (As far as we know, life began only once--more than 3 billion years ago.)
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:18 am
by Lord Jim
I've said it before, and I'll say it again....
The question of when "human life begins" is
not a scientific question...
And therefore, it is a not a question which "science" can answer....
It is a moral question, or a philosophical question, or an epistemological question...
It is
not a "scientific" question...
It is not the sort of question that science answers....
Science can answer a question like, "when does brain wave activity begin", or "when does a heart beat start" but it
cannot answer a question like, "when does human life begin?" because science is simply not designed to answer questions like that...
A judgement like that exists outside the purview of what science can supply....
(And I'm not an "anti-science" right-winger...Far from it, I am in fact I am a great lover of science....I'm getting ready to use some of our scientific achievements to put some of the hair on the back of my head to fill in some thinning spots on the top of my head, and I await with great personal interest the scientific developments that will increase the human life span to 200 years...

)
I believe that we may one day (in the not too distant future) achieve through the use of scientific methodology faster than light real time space travel, and the ability to cure or prevent or eliminate every cancer, disease, or malady of any sort, currently known to mankind...
But even if we achieve
all of that through science, science will still not be able to answer moral questions...
That burden will always lie with us....
Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:02 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Forget the hair bob LordJim. Cut it down to sub-crewcut level and nobody notices you don't have hair.

Re: Dakota, don't school your kids there!!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:28 pm
by Big RR
rubato wrote:The mistake is so basic that I'm amazed at how often it is repeated.
Life cannot "begin" at conception because it occurs only when a living ova and a living sperm fuse.
Life is perpetuated or continued at conception. But it never begins there, at least so far.
yrs,
rubato
I guess it depnends how you define "life"; but most scientific definitions ordinarily include the ability (or at least potential ability) to reproduce. This ova and sperms cannot do (absent some odd process such as parthenogenesis), although they can unite to produce an organism which can, so it is generally incorrect to say that sperms and ova are "alive". Now these sperms and ova came from a living being, so it is correct to say that reproduction generally "continues" life, but as a living being is the product of reproduction, it is correct to inquire as to when the life of that new being becomes alive (although the consequence of the answer to this eludes me as it applies to abortion).