Topic: Don't know about you, I'm with LaPierre on this

[Mooning Freddy]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-lobby-ceo-calls-guns-protect-schools-162454142--finance.html

Don't get me wrong. I do believe USA should have more gun control (don't see any reason why people should keep f**king assault rifles in their homes, other than zombie attacks it seems to me like it's justified by nothing more than American gunsexuality)
But! Since more gun-control would probably be dropped by second-amendment supporters, I think an armed guard in every school should be customary. As LaPierre said, in Israel there hasn't been any attacks on schools since every school has been assigned with a guard.

Israeli sources have been disgusted by LaPierre's comparison, saying that the reason Israeli schools have guards is to protect them from gruesome terror-attacks, and that Israel has far more strict gun-laws than USA; however, I disagree. I believe there's no difference between a terrorist and a maniac bent on murdering. They're equally dangerous, and equally require more security to protect from. I believe USA has far more guns-per-person than Israel, which means the possibility of violence and need for security is the same, if not greater. 

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

1 Cop = $40,000 minimum.
Do you need one or a few of these in the schools?  I guess it would depend on the school.

Police = a State and Local Government-funded institution.
We are in a recession.
There are roughly over 100,000 schools in the USA, give or take.  At least, as of 2012.  citation provided
I'll let you guys work out the math in that one.

“Israel had a whole lot of school shootings, until they did one thing. They said we’re going to stop it and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then.” -LaPierre
Well... about that...
You're from Israel, aren't you?  The very people there seem to be saying something else.  I disagree with you and agree with the Israeli Sources.

OPINION:
I don't believe the founding fathers considered a weapon that can shoot 15-20 bullets a second and mow down a dozen people in record time the type of 'arm' they were talking about, nor do I think they were forecasting the future of guns at the time.  To put it in perspective, if you told someone in 1776 that in the future, you will be able to have any book in existence sent through the air and to the palm of your hand to a device everyone will have, they would have you committed.  At the time, the reload times of a bayonet and a flintlock pistol were, at best, in the 'about half a minute' mark.  They were not considering quick auto-reloading magazines that held 30 to 100 rounds per clip.

They were considering 'arms' to be knives, swords, bayonets, muskets, flintlock pistols, and rudimentary explosives.

IN MY OPINION, I don't think an individual citizen should have access to a military assault weapon, or any weapon that can kill more than three people a second.  I can tolerate a knife, a sword, and at most, a shotgun (two rounds) and a six-shooter, but you have as an individual NO BUSINESS holding a military-grade piece of weaponry, and relying on the second amendment (which unfortunately was re-interpreted by the US Supreme Court Recently, and prior to that interpreted 'arms' as part of a state and local militia, not as individuals) to give you the right to have massive slaughtering weaponry seems like it's catering to, as Freddy said, 'Gunsexuality' of the more xenophobic individuals.

The 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Unfortunetely recently the US Supreme Court has chosen to put far less emphasis on the former part of the statement (the part about militia and security of a free state) and more on the latter.

Yeah let a person build a nuclear weapon in their basement, which would count as an 'arm' by those words, and see how quickly they come and take it away.  I think there should be a threshold after which it's not an 'arm' but a 'slaughtering weapon'.

No one needs an assault rifle.  As much as people would like to think there's a Zombie Apocalypse coming, it's not.  Put the damn guns away, make it hard for the deranged to get ahold of them, and let people keep the ones that can only take out three or so people per minute at max.

[Mooning Freddy]

1 Cop = $40,000 minimum.
Do you need one or a few of these in the schools?  I guess it would depend on the school.
Police = a State and Local Government-funded institution.
We are in a recession.

Most security guards in my country belong to private security companies. They're not police men. They do not make as much as police men. An average guard is paid 6,000 to 8,000 NIS max, that's around 2,200 dollars. Since wages in USA are higher, it should probably be no more than 4,000$-5,000$ a month. That's not much to pay for your children's security.

You're from Israel, aren't you?  The very people there seem to be saying something else.  I disagree with you and agree with the Israeli Sources.

I simply refuse to agree with those sources. They're shouting out- it's not the same! It's not the same! You're comparing psychopaths with terrorists! But ultimately, it's the same. They both wish to murder people, only that the terrorists hope to achieve a political cause by doing it, while the school-shooters do it out of frustration with the system or god-knows-why. Security is supposed to be in the right place in the right time, and when it's not there, you failed.

Agree with the rest.

[Vampire Killer]

It's a slippery slope. On the one side, I agree that ordinary citizens DO NOT NEED to own assault rifles, BUT, I also prefer to have as few restrictions as possible. History has show that the less control a government has over its people, the better.

I think a compromise might be the best solution. Allow only those who has passed a rigorous psyche evaluation and training to own assault rifles, and require to evaluations to be retested every two years or so.

Also, we need some sort of trigger lockout technology which would make it all but impossible for anyone who is not the direct registered user of that firearm to discharge the weapon.

[X]

Also, we need some sort of trigger lockout technology which would make it all but impossible for anyone who is not the direct registered user of that firearm to discharge the weapon.

Having a weapon read a person's RNA for unlocking a gun would be one of the best locks ever devised. Unlike DNA which stays the same RNA changes over time allowing for a more secure locking mechanism.

The 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I still don't know why America still hangs onto this piece of legislation. The second British invasion (which the 'people have the right to bear arms' act was created for) never happened. It should've been scrapped right then and there. It's helped cause more problems in American society with regards to weapons then anything else. And as Jorge had mentioned, in today's world we have far more advanced weaponry of military grade that the Forefathers had never been able to imagine. The civilian populous should not have access to them even if they are out of date by fifty years or so. America has unfortunately an unhealthy addiction to their weapons and last time I checked 57% of the total US budget is geared towards military production. With such numbers it's no small wonder that their civilian sector is suffering horribly. Outrageous for a free nation imo.

[Sonic_Reaper]

People seem to be missing the bigger picture here.  The fore father's intention was to allow citizens to bear arms with the intention of protecting themselves, not against each other, but from a renegade and potentially militant government.  Especially recently, the politicians have been trying way too hard to rid American's of their ability to defend themselves, it's becoming transparent and laughable.  Think about where the US, and the world, as a whole currently stands, economically, and you'll realize just how important it is for the 300+ million people of the US to have fire arms.

[X]

The fore father's intention was to allow citizens to bear arms with the intention of protecting themselves, not against each other, but from a renegade and potentially militant government.

"Their intentions were fair, but the execution was flawed." -Big Mama. Metal Gear Solid 4

In the end arming the people has had the opposite effect then what was intended. There are always alternatives to protecting the people and people protecting themselves without putting a gun in their hand. However the Founding Fathers didn't have the ability to forecast into the future and see the end-result of their idea. And it's now gotten out of control. America needs to change or else, worse-case scenario, she will end up looking like the Middle-east. A Middle-East armed advanced military arms and a Nuclear payload. Again this is only a worst case scenario but the probability is never-the-less there. Believe me, I'm not missing the bigger picture here. I'm looking beyond it and right now its a mess. We're living in the 21'st century, not the 18th century. Everyone needs to change with the times or there will always be strife in some form or another. We need to let go of old and outdated ideas and put new and better ones in their place in order to meet with the current criteria. All these gun related crimes are the result of an old idea that no-longer fits the current criteria. There needs to be change or chaos will ensue.