Have you ever been a teacher? If not you have to room to make that kind of statement. The type of people that become teachers are often not the type of people who would want to even touch a gun. We don't ask police officers to teach kids to read, we shouldn't ask teachers to do police work.

And until you have been on a lock down drill with 25 five year olds you don't get to say what should happen in a school. I have, and they are often afraid even when it is a drill. My main job is to get them into a safe place, lock the doors, calm them down. That is my job. And believe me that is a BIG job! Until you have done it you don't get to say I should be carrying a gun as well.

Regina - You are right it should not be REQUIRED for any teacher. That is asking for disaster. You are taking people that are uncomfortable, unfamiliar and unwilling and putting a gun in their hands. If you aren't willing to fire a gun you should NEVER even pick it up. That being said, we also can't send our teachers to a gun fight with a crayon and a stamp pad. I think that it should be optional (with supported and ongoing training) and would be especially helpful for support personnel that are comfortable with guns to be licensed, marksmen and have a gun in a secure location that can be accessed in case of a lethal emergency. For instance, if there is a maintenance personel, or security guard at the school, lets get those who are volunteering a chance to protect. There are many cases of gun violence in schools that have been stopped by principals / assistant principals that were carrying a gun. Both sides are looking for the same thing - a chance to protect our children.

There are teachers who can't even handle a new math program or reading initiative. Somehow you want them to become certified to handle a firearm? I would never give a teacher who can barely manage to use a Smartboard a handgun.

Jessica: I would hope the worthy Tax dollars for "armed police officers" comes out of your pocket as a separate "security tax" for all parents sending their child to public school. You see, there are many parents not sending their child to public schools.
Those parents already pay substantial security costs out of our own pockets.
Surely, you would agree with that.

Agree. But a few voluntarily well trained school employees and volunteers, carrying concealed, wouldn't hurt.

Ideals are fine but the reality is we can not send our teachers into a gun fight with a crayon and a stamp pad.

absolutely - we can do without other things (like monumental city halls) and protect our children instead!

A minimum of 2 Police officers along with metal detectors @ all schools. More than that depending on the size and configuration of the building. Our tax dollars are spent on things much less important than school security. The Casino Tax money, along with the TAX DOLLARS WE LOST when the Casino Tax took effect, should be used for the security of our schools.

I agree with "flyoverland".Isreal not only arms their teachers but those teachers put their 2 years in, in uniform, after they finished regular school. Apparently all Israelly children automatically serve in the armed forces. I had mentioned on another Yahoo forum, that teaching would be a very good job idea for our returning vets,and would really like to see that happen. We are loosing our older vets so fast now. When I was much younger most our male teachers could say they were a vet. Women vets would be a hugh asset, as well!

How about the fact that parents are no longer parenting and by that I mean buying their children these games and the iphones, computers etc...with which to play them. I know this particular shooter had mental problems and I am not blaming his mother in any way, however if he didn't have access to these guns I doubt this would have happened.

Joan, I think you are right. In the 50's we boys played "war" from time to time. We also played baseball and football, etc. (you could get beat up in my neighborhood for playing soccer or tennis, however), but we didn't play war for hours a day, seven days a week like you can on video games. The worse that would happen was the unlucky kid who got there late and had to play a Nazi would have to grab his chest and dramatically fall over dead. Nothing like the results you see on these video games. We have always had guns and they were much easier to get back then. No licenses, background checks, nothing. Just show up with the money. Its something else. I think video games are part of it. the problem is how do you deny someone their first amendment rights to make these games? It is probably easier and the media is more inclined to blame it on guns and our second amendment rights.

We now can focus on the enormous cost of state sponsored "Free Education".
Schools are costing us --NURSES--Psychiatric couseling---Heavy Live security guards-and many more child raising costs.
Just when do Parents using non-public schools get a tax break to help them pay these extra costs. Are am I being Un-American to have to pay for My child's security guards and Your child's security guards. (even tho I scrape real hard to pay once.)
I have yet to see anyone comment about who would help Pay for ALL the children needing the same security for their non=public schools.
Security is a National ALL CHILDREN problem. ALL SCHOOLS-- Not just Public schools. It rightfully should stay OUT of our Public Education taxes.

Very CREATIVE, Paulie. Now, get upstairs and CREATE ME a tuna salad sandwich. You TAX my nerves sometimes. TAX TAX TAX!

I sometimes wish we wouldn't have tapped into the trust fund for private schooling, and sent you to PUBLIC SCHOOL instead! Then maybe you wouldn't feel so highfalutin and ENTITLED.
AND we would have SAVED A LOT OF MONEY!

Boy you TAX my nerves sometimes. TAX TAX TAX!

Who needs an assault rifle, and for what purpose? If you're too damn lazy to manually reload your weapon between rounds, then you don't deserve to hunt. And if you think there is a legitimate purpose (overthrowing the gum'ment doesn't count) to owning guns that have large magazines and rapid fire capability (e.g. a shooter can fire quickly enough that unarmed civilians cannot effectively intervene), you frankly don't deserve to be part of the discussion about what to do next. Seriously. It's called: apply for a hunting permit, learn how to aim, get the kill. No automatic or semiautomatic weapons necessary. Next please.

I've yet to hear one good reason why someone should have an automatic weapon other than it's a constitutional right. Guess what, the government's ability to tax it's citizens is also in the constitution yet the same people who want guns because it's in the constitution don't want to be taxed

Automatic weapons have been banned since 1934, Paul.

the assault weapons ban expired in 2004 flyoverland

Mind elaborating on what "namby pamby left wing" means? Did you forget about those pussy Republicans who can't even stand up to Grover Norquist?

Nice try. You said automatic weapons. Not assault weapons. There is a difference. What expired in 2004 was the number of rounds capable of being held in a magazine and several cosmetic features that have nothing to do with making a gun an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic guns fire one round at a time, just like a revolver. Nothing that changed in 2004 added the ability to fire on automatic. Any gun can be used in an assault.

The right wing philosophy in three sentences:

"Waaaaaaa. That's hard, so we shouldn't do it. Waaaaaaa."

Tim, instead of bitching about semantics, why don't you get on the bus and articulate why semiautomatic weapons should be legal. Because it's ____ing clear after years of this kind of mass murder BS that our lazy gun laws are inadequate.

nice use of wikipedia flyoverland. So do you think that the gun the coward in CT used is acceptable to be sold to the public? Yes it is not fully automatic, but it had the ability to fire 100 rounds in a couple minutes. Why does anyone need that type of gun flyoverland?

There are no legal magazines that would allow any of these guns to fire 100 rounds in a minute.

"(In Colorado, Mr. Holmes used a 100-round drum magazine that gun dealers say is primarily a novelty item that is likely to jam, as Mr. Holmes’ rifle apparently did.)"

That quote was from an article in the New York Times today. Holmes was the guy who shot up the movie theater in Colorado and guess what, he used the same type of gun that Lanza used Friday. And that gun was also used by the man in Oregon who killed two people in a shopping mall. So again, why should guns like that be sold to the public?

Also flyoverland I said in a couple of minutes, not in a minute. A couple of minutes was all Lanza needed

Respectfully, I believe you are unfamiliar with why the Second Amendment was instituted.

Respectfully, Mr. Hodge, I get the impression that you're unfamiliar with why the 2nd Amendment was added.

There were no patriots riding around with semi-automatic weapons.

I agree and like my husband said, if caught with a such a weapon go straight to jail, no jury, no appeal.

This doesn't really seem like a solution. If it was would we have marajuana, cocaine, heroin, etc etc etc....Did prohibition work? All this would do is clog our jails and make for wiser criminals. Do you know Mexico is shipping its drugs here in submarines now?

Yes

^ You, buddy, are naive, brainwashed by the NRA, or both.

Missourian, if you really are that, I am far from naive, the nra is, to me, a little left wing, and I will certainly never, ever, be your buddy. I have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and
I trust that our founding fathers, even in the face of adversity, would have realized that the basic human right of self protection is inalienable and not dependent on the acts, however horrible, of a lunatic fringe.

Whatever, buddy.

Or, we could just look at it as one more employee per school. To protect our children.
Doesn't seem so expensive that way.

Taxes, shmaxes. Let's just wave a magic wand, cut some more taxes, have a few more wars, and blame Barack Obama. I think that should make the $4 trillion magically appear. Oh, and arithmetic is for "namby-pamby leftists" in the reality-based community. Pray on it, and it will come.

100,000 x 40,000 = 4 billion not 4 TRILLION

Or should we quit funding studies on things like the amount of methane in a cow fart and put our childrens safety above THAT kind of spending? Our goverments (local and federal) waste more money than it would take to put a cop in every school.

Where do you think tv shows or movies get their ideas from. Guns have become a huge part of our culture because of how much people use them. Although I do agree with you that we need to get guns out of things like video games

Good: you agree on video games. It's a start.
Guns have always been used for generations. They are embedded in our culture, but the young using them for Mass-killings is a NEW culture. That cultural violence in in the "MIND". I have no doubt. It could be "drugs". Yet no one will start that dialogue.
Recent legalizing states will be proof that drugs destroy the mind. Auto accidents will skyrocket. Society will build Bigger safer (Almost Tanklike cars) for more "security.
It will all fail.
CARS could be the next "Weapon" of choice for mass-killings. (Parade crowds, Concerts, bombing, you name it.
WE DON't NEED 125 MPH cars. They are the AK-47's of non-gun violence.

PaulRevere we are agreeing a little more but do we need semi-automatic rifles. What are they considered, the 100 mph car?

Really believe we should Ban all Cars ,AND large trucks that exceed 75 MPH.
They are not needed, as they are against the laws in what they can do.
If an assault rifle were only loaded with 6 bullets at a time, that would make it equal to a Six shooter, wouldn't it? Under the speed limits--Kind of!

These school shootings have one common theme. They have all happened in public schools. They haven't happened in religious schools.

John - that is not true.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57408214/7-dead-in-shooting-at-oakland-religious-school

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/us/03amish.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Even if it were true, there are a bazillion more public schools and public school students, since the vast majority of taxpayers use the public schools they are in fact paying for. So statistically, duh.

"Why is one event socially acceptable, yet another make us want to fundamentally alter our liberties and way of life?"

I find your twisting of reality offensive. Semi-automatic weapons are not a way of life, they are designed to take life. Creating a false equivalency doesn't change that fact.

There have been 31 school shootings since Columbine. Comparing the intentional act of killing children to car accidents is patently ridiculous.

you know they call those car accidents right. A person doesn't get into a car with the intention of killing innocent children. A person walks into a school with semiautomatic weapons with the intention of killing.

CreveDad:
Good points. Always seems killing ,ONE AT A TIME=40 is not as bad as Killing 20 All at once. We must also be clear that many Gun killings are in the STATS of Gang related.
If Assault weapons are Banned in USA , What would be a Penalty for having one?.
Would Police be allowed to own them? How? If they are banned.
Now if Police or other law enforcements are Allowed to own them, Then THEY ARE NOT REALLY BANNED are They?
Simple answer, NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM.
Right to bear arms is to Protect citizens against a hostile GOVT.
Not one citizen should allow Govt to own weapons that could take over the people.
Here is my BAN suggestion.
ZERO NA-DA NONE NOBODY NO human being in this USA should be allowed to own a weapon larger than the citizenry can own.
This applies to Army and Police and Security and Assault squads.
That is how frightened I am about this Administration and a Democratic controlled USA. No country should give up the Equal ARMS freedom we now enjoy.
Much siimpler to incarcerate any "mentally disturbed" individual caught with any guns in their HOME or possession.
Also any Parent or relative having their gun used by a "mentally unstable" Person would be responsible for any crime using such weapon. Whether it's a Pistol or rifle.
ANY TYPE OF GUN.
Any Psychiatrist should be required to ask every patient--DO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS OWN A GUN. Let's get real here, No sane person mass-kills. It makes no diff if Adults or children.

It is time for all of you to admit it. If guns be banned because of How "Fast" they shoot, Then CARS be Banned because "HOW FAST" they Go. You call them Car "accidents". Does a Drugged mind driving a CAR get into an Accident if he kills a family (including children) in another car? Does a Drunk person driving a CAR get into an Accident if he kills another Family with children in another car?
You miss my point. Cars are vehicles to "use" with sound Mind. They can kill.
They actually kill over 44,000+ per year. Guns used in "sound mind" DO NOT KILL. Cars going 90 MPH is NOT what it is supposed to be used for. It is illegal! If that kills , it is NOT an accident. ACCIDENTS--- are Unavoidable happenings. Not even the Security of Seat belts can save a car occupant from an ILLEGALLY USED CAR driven at 90MPH. I would actually conclude that over 50% of Auto killed Victims did not result of "Accidents". Just as many illegally Fired GUNS used in Mass-killings or single-killing is NOT an Accident.
Warped minds is a respectfull way to label Drunks, Potheads, and mentally Ill.
They all can Kill in the Politically correct term of "ACCIDENT"
So, I put AUTOS as the MOST DANGEROUS "LEGAL" WEAPON IN SOCIETY.

Mike, you're the one who should be ashamed of yourself. Nobody here is "using the deaths of these children."

This is a discussion about what can be done to prevent incidents like this. If you're willing to actually participate in the discussion, then do so. I'd be happy to debate you on the facts.

It's sad to see people try to defend the use of guns after incidents like this. If we're not going to talk about it after events like this than when are people going to talk about it. What's it going to take to change gun laws Mike? Another mass killing in a couple of months?

"using the the deaths of these children to push their agenda"

Let me explain how laws come to exist. Something bad happens. People look at the something bad that happened, and ask themselves how they can prevent similar bad things from happening again. Policy proposals are made, and laws are passed.

All laws are the result of someone using an event/circumstance "to push their agenda." This is unique in it being a particularly horrific event with two clearly identifiable causes: poor mental health services and excessively lax gun laws. If you can't admit that both of these things equally contributed to this, you aren't part of the discussion, period.

Cost shouldn't be the issue. As I've stated earlier, civilians are not trained for these situations. Picking a target out of a crowd is out of the ability for all but the highest-level marksman. Look at the studies of carriers in confrontations and the idea that a gun is an effective means of self-defense disappears. Someone mentioned the idea that a custodian could carry.

I don't want the custodian carrying. I don't want a civilian carrying around these children.

Having professional law enforcement presence on campus is what's needed.

Study citations: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=related:z8YfEiS4PHgJ:scholar.google.com/&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=-ofOUN-nDIzy9gTZhoGgCQ&ved=0CDsQzwIwAA

Worth reading through. To underline the point: civilians don't have the judgment and training of LEOs. We need to invest in the most effective means of halting gun violence in a school.... with trained personnel.

So here is a scenario. Teacher in a classroom hears gunfire outside her door, corrals the kids, locks the door, gets out the secured weapon, and faces the door, waiting. Sure maybe a LEO could do it better, but at this point I would be grateful for that armed teacher. Remember, when seconds count, LEOs are just minutes away.

That's a fine scenario. Works out well. The perp is standing in front of you and you have a clear shot. I'm assuming there are no kids behind the target...

Ask someone who's been a firefight how often real-world scenarios work out that cleanly. Where is the teacher's firearm? Is it locked? Where's the key? Is the teacher alerted and understands who is at the door?

This isn't a range with a static, well-marked target. These are chaotic situations involving innocents. There may even be multiple targets (as with Columbine).

In my opinion, this is fantasy pure and simple.

We need an officer in that building and alerted before the gunman reaches that door.

I'm not talking about schools I'm talking about the use of guns in general. Just earlier this year a guy shot up a movie theater. Should we allow all movie theater employees to carry guns? Again, how long are we going to allow these incidents to happen for the second amendment?

As far as gun control, you can type until your fingers can't move anymore and that second amendment will still be there when you get back, but I digress...

They're working on that, Mike.

I have never allowed guns in my house, and as a parent of a 1st grader - I would never want her to go to a school where teachers were armed. Our teachers are there to nurtur, care for and teach our children. I realize in light of the recent tragedy people are trying to find solutions. I however, do not think that more guns is the answer. Was I scared to drop my daugher off at school today - yes. But we cannot live afraid - that is not really living. The only temporary option I would see that makes sense would be to have a trained police officer at the school until all of the media hype dies down. Long term solution is ban on assault weapons of any kind, regulating the amount of ammunition that could be purchased online, and really who needs a bullet proof vest except law enforcement. More funding for in patient psych wards, changes in the law that would allow more control for parents whose child has been diagnosed with mental illness with history of violence. Some sort of data base that retailers could access that would show if a person ever had an inpatient psych admit or any stay in a facility because of mental health issues. Change is not going to happen overnight - so there needs to be both short term and long term solutions.

Tim, this isn't a Chuck Norris movie. The principal would have been shot several times before he/she had any idea what was going on, as the principal is not a trained tactical agent. The fact is, our gun laws suck. We have the highest level of gun violence of any western country. 45 times higher than the UK, for example. We have had years and years and years to weigh the pros and cons of allowing civilians to carry fast guns, and this is no longer a debate. We can talk about stupid ideas like turning schools into maximum security lockdown zones, or be rational and consider the idea that maybe it isn't such a great idea to allow ownership of firearms that enable a certain speed and quantity of killing.

From what I've heard, this brave woman was able to run at the shooter and physically attack him, if this is true, even the average marksman would have had time to get off a few shots from the cover of her office. Maybe this wasn't the case, maybe she would have chosen not to attempt the use of deadly force, maybe she would have tried and failed. We will never know, but to say that she should be denied the right to try to protect herself and her children if she so chose is ludicrous.
This topic was started as a discussion of possible ways to protect our children in schools. You and a couple of your liberal "buddies" have instead chosen to use it to promote your anti-gun, anti-civil rights, agenda. Have fun with that. I'm not wasting any more time with you.

"You and a couple of your liberal "buddies" have instead chosen to use it to promote your anti-gun, anti-civil rights, agenda."

You are incredible. High-capacity magazines, semi-automatic assault rifles and massive weapon caches are not civil rights.

The CT shooter had HUNDREDS of rounds, and three semi-automatic weapons that he acquired from a legal owner.

THERE IS NO REASON FOR HIS MOTHER TO HAVE HAD THIS CACHE. Another year, and this kid would have been able to purchase these legally. Liberal? You have no idea who you're talking to.

Why do you need a high-capacity magazine? For killing multiple deer? Protection from a horde? The idea that any of you "responsible gun-owners" have the skill or judgement to effectively take out a shooter in a situation such as this leaves me with chills. You're not Rambo. Hell, most of you can't be trusted to responsibly drive without texting.

Tim, do you have kids? I assume you do not.

The Missourian, can you explain to me why an active shooter lockdown is a bad idea?, wait, excuse me, stupid idea?

Seems like asking someone to eat clorox to cure their stomach ulcer.

The shooter's mother was NOT a teacher at the school. She had no affiliation with the school whatsoever. It was originally posted that she was a teacher but that was incorrect information. I don't think you should make all of those assumptions as you do not know these people and the facts about their situation have not come to light. Fact - they were divorced, but you don't know if the father had contact with his son or not.

SECURE OUR SCHOOLS?
RE-HIRE GOD & PRAYER! In all our schools.
In this aftermath, I cannot help but share in the Security that Parents now seek with
GOD and Prayer in church.
We all owe our children security of "faith" "Daily" in their lives.
"Faith" & GOD will follow your children, wherever they go, not just in our schools.
What is easier, reducing the mentally Ill or reducing Guns?
What is more acceptable--20 killings in one place 2 times a year, or 3 killings daily all year long?
It is not Guns. Our society (especially our Young) have kicked out our biggest "evil" enforcer. GOD & Prayer.
Mental Illness is "evil" at work. Using our Children to accomplsh it's goals.
Call me crazy , call me warped thinking, but think about why our young have been deprived of "nourishing" their minds with "good" as they only see "evil".
"Prayer is NOT a Religion" The mind needs it daily. Evil is invisible. No Human security Guard is equipped to fight that. Prayer Unites all to form the the largest defense against evil-mindset.
It is in the Mind that Prayer defends against the force of Evil. It keeps the mind strong. I believe the mindset makes our young do bad things.
Parents must re-assess giving our childen the tool of "Daily Prayer" to ward off the forces of evil and grow to be "HEALTHY IN BODY AND SOUL".
No GOD--No Faith--No Religion--No Prayer-- Has Mentally-DISARMED us already.
The forces of EVIL will win that mind-war.

Great information. It is good to look for solutions and compromises. Nice.

Also to go along with that point, aren't there a lot less guns and violence in European films compared to American ones? I'm not completely sure about that point so if someone can back me up on it that would be great. But if it's true, it seems like a good model to follow when it comes to guns and guns involved in media.

There is little to no relationship between media violence and violence in a society in general. People love to blame the latest media for upswing in violence, but it's doubtful there is any link. Comic books, of all things, were blamed for youth violence in the 1950s, hence the Comics Code Authority seal of approval on all comic books from the 1950's onward. Video games are the latest scapegoat since they are the newest technology, yet overall violence in society has decreased since the advent of the FPS games in the mid-1990s.

I recall reading somewhere a long time ago that South Africa had some of the strictest codes against media violence, yet it was one of the most violent societies on Earth on a per capita basis.

The thing that is difficult about American society is that we're not all one society. Eliminate violent, often drug/gang-related violence in American cities, and the violence rate in the U.S. is probably not that different that much of Europe. Even a place as violent as the city of St. Louis has most of its homicides concentrated in a few small neighborhoods.

Restricting firearm ownership by people who merely live with people who are mentally ill is undoubtedly highly unconstitutional. There is no guilt by association, and being found guilty or incompetent in a court of law is generally the only way someone may be stripped of their civil rights.

Damn that due process of law thing...

CreveCouerDad you just seem lazy and act as if the constitution cannot be changed.

Changing the Constitution is one of the most difficult things in American government.
It's not going to happen over this. You're welcome to try, but I'll lay big odds and take your bet against you succeeding. Trust me, I'll die with your money.

CreveDad
The constituion Does allow for any law "regulating commerce".
I would remind you that obamacare "regulates" medical insurance.
We already have Gun license laws that can refuse ownership of guns to "certain" individuals. Guilt is not the starting point of refusal. Refusing A gun in the house of any mentally Ill person could be Constitutional under the "Welfare of US citizenry clause" or the "Commerce Clause". Once that Mother Placed that Gun in the hands of that "mentally Ill child" placed the Welfare of every Citizen in Danger.
No supreme court would rule otherwise.

Obamacare was found to be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, it was only found to be constitutional under the Taxation Clause.

Be very careful in using the General Welfare clause that way, you'll quickly regret it. As you are trying to use it, nothing would then be unconstitutional if duly passed by Congress and then the whole concept of limited government and any rights you may have is gone. If not sure you really want that...

"All those in favor of stoning PaulRevere is order to appease the rain gods and promote the General Welfare, say "I". The motion is passed, grab a rock. Sorry dude, it's not personal, it's for the General Welfare."

Of course supplying a gun to a mentally ill person is/could be a crime, but you cannot prevent that same non-mentally ill person from owning a gun by virtue of the fact that they MIGHT give it to a mentally ill person they happen to live with. Perhaps they want it as protection from that same mentally ill person.

You might be able to make a case that it is the mentally ill person who is prevented from living with a person who owns guns, but I doubt. Not all mentally-ill persons are violence prone and often times the mentally ill have no one else to live with other than a family member. You aren't going to gain much sympathy from the Court in requiring people who are caring for ill relatives to give up their civil rights.

CreveDad:
Technically, a "Taxation clause" does not exist.
The power of congress to "TO LEVY TAXES" does exist. That is where justice Roberts pinned obamacare. THE POWER TO TAX.
Justice labelled it a tax, Not congress.
But, that clause says congress has "The Power to Tax" to pay the "DEBTS OF THE US". (Note: TO PAY THE DEBTS OF US)
Come 2014, there should be a whole new round of lawsuits.
Why, Because Obamacare TAX would not be "Paying the DEBTS OF THE US" in accordance with the constitution. Congress, Levying a TAX to PAY OUR Personal medical expenses Hospitals, etc IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
Only U.S. owned Doctors and Hospitals can make that TAX constitutional--that is Truly Govt provided Health care.
The same kind of Health care we all Tried in Missouri's City of St Louis.
(CALLED CITY HOSPITAL) Remember That?
Wait until 2014! Round 2 could be coming! Congress has it fully in their power to use a Tax for the "GENERAL WELFARE" of the country. I am not sure the welfare of any one individual was the intent of "Welfare clause".
Another topic!

Missouriian: Your words follow--Mine in Parenthesis.
The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people
(I could assert "the education" does not include the "security")
and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it,
(without a "School" in it" means what? Doesn't a non-public school come under the definition of "A School"?)
not founded by a charitable individual,
(Not founded by Charitable "Individual"- really? are there any public schools not named after charitable individuals.? I believed you are confusing "charitable Religious Organizations" with Individuals.
but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves."
Finally, John Adams vision of "school" did not include Nurses, Psychiatrist, and Security guards as a necessary maintenence at public expense.
All Schools (private or Public) are supported at the Public expense. Just who do you think residents are? All schools fit John Adams vision of Basic.
Quit trying to be a freeloader on having others support your children's non-education costs to society, because that is exactly what daily Counseling and Security are.
Our public schools would not exist without the Charitable Individual support.
You need look no further than those "Charitable Tennis Assoc Individuals" providing Tennis Courts. Need I say more? Who provided our solar panels?
Major Freeloader--You are!

^ I think you're a damn snob who thinks he's too good for the wonderful public institutions this country is built on.

It's not the "building" of our Public institutions that concern me.

It is the "Teacher costs" that must come down.
Public sector unions are the leaches of society. My hope is that there are a whole bunch of Resident "snobs" who see the light.

Instead of bitching about how teachers have it so much better than you or whatever your problem is, why don't you work on making sure people who aren't getting a fair shake do. F___ing race-to-the-bottom moron.

Missourian: It is teachers that "OPT OUT"
The same Way "Teachers " Have opted OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY?
Why don't Teachers have to Pay their social security Tax for the benefit of all.
Exactly my point! You want me to pay Public Education because I opt out while Teachers can opt out of Soc sec and not have to pay into that public system.
Private school parents do not Opt out of anything.
It is the Public school Parents who Opt out of Paying for their own Education.
Public school parents "freeload" off a neighbor who already pays for their childs education.

Teachers Opt out of a Public Social Security system--Yet do not pay One-cent to support that Public cost. Instead-, choosing to freeload their Pension by again Taxing it as "Education". Result--Residents support Teacher pensions and have to support their own soc security costs.
Don't you see a double cost for all the workers in School districts.
Why should You (Teachers) be exempt from soc sec? Why should You OPT Out ?
And yet NOT pay into the system. You are the "Human Leaches" of society.
No other words can describe your greed and fraud to the uninformed Parents.
Shame on you,.

Missourian:
Every Resident in every Public school district does not get a "fair Shake"
And that is exactly what I hope to accomplish here first.
My message is for Residents who are not teachers or part of the Public sector Union. (I fully support Private unions-you should know).
That is because they must compete for their wages. Teacher unions compete among themselves. (translated-- No competition) Result: the highest non-earned Wages in Missouri.
You can continue to call me any name you want.
An informed resident will take time.

so teachers should pay social security, even though the law won't let them? How is that the teacher's fault? They don't get the choice to OPT OUT, and cannot collect SS even if they paid into it for previous jobs.

Yogurt:
The (Missouri)Teachers unions themselves got special waivers to not pay into soc sec.(??1980's). They Opted-Out. They have private pensions, proving that we all could retire with $80,000 pensions if we could ALL OPT-OUT of soc sec.
It is not a Law. I think there are teachers in otrher states that DO belong to the soc sec system like all other workers in America. I speak only about MISSOURI's ELITIST Teacher Unions-- A Majority of who are out to retire 10 years earlier with CEO styled pensions that actually run 3X more than 99% of CEO's.
All paid by the working middle-class in Missouri.

I say their pensions should not be any more than comparable Social security workers get. That alone would substantially reduce Property taxes for every Parent and business in Missouri. It's our money , not theirs.

Schools already have the money to boost security. It's just that our Greedy Unions are raking it off the top and stealing it from the KID's security.
Just a 2% Teacher's pay cut would give all the security our Kid's need. That would show how much they CARE for the kid's. ($1.4mil in Mehlvile $800Thousand in Lindbergh) That buys a lot of security.

Paul R--factually not close to being correct--the teachers pay 15% of their paycheck into their system---

Now Paulie, I told you to get off this damn internet. When in the world are you going to get a job, and start paying rent for living in my basement?

I'm willing to bet none of PaulRevere's facts are right. He lied about his niece's salary so I didn't see any reason why these numbers should be accurate

Already decided. Freedom wins again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

The assault weapons ban was pre-Heller. Given that decision, a new ban might not be upheld, though I expect we might get to find out.

Clarification. Citizens United says 'charitable religious organization' == Individual. So, no, we are not confused about those two terms. You clearly are, however, it seems.

Bradley:
Do you Drink?
Do you ever take Drugs?
Do you Own a Car?
Now would you like to label every drunken driver or Pot smoking driver a "KILLER"
if they actually Kill over 44,000 Adults and children a year.(All incorrectly labelled Auto Accidents)
SHOULD CARS BE SUPPORTED? SHOULD ALCOHOL BE SUPPORTED?

Not disagreeing with you. You have a good point.
But, it is the "USER" of these weapons that Kill.
According to your logic--The only way to stop "auto killings" is to BAN THEM---Stop buying them.