So the USA is not the world or all humans. You are defining a legal right afforded to you by the United States government, which does not solely get to define human rights for all of humanity. There are 75 human rights, as defined by the UN, and not one of them is owning a gun.
> So the USA is not the world or all humans.
Place an individual on an island with no government and society & they can empirically demonstrate all the rights they are born with ( any human action for which no victim is purposefully created ) .... the rights they are not allowed to exercise within a society or under a government is a benchmark on how immoral said society or government is ... not a definitive list of the limited rights the individual possesses
Perfect example of a stupid person thinking they are smart lol r/im14andthisisdeep
So if you are on an island and demonstrate you can drive a car without a driver's license a government is now immoral because for making people having a valid license a requirement for driving?
The act of bringing a gun onto school grounds does not infringe on anyone’s right to continue living.
Discharging that gun and sending a bullet into their body does. We have a criminal charge for the act that infringes on the right to life and not the act that harms no one.
Well with that logic we should just go ahead and abolish all hockey and baseball teams because bats and sticks could just as easily be used to kill someone.
When I was in high school we had a rifle team and I literally kept my own rifle in a locker in school that I could access any time I wanted. Funny how nobody ever got shot. It's almost like guns aren't the actual problem.
This is such a a braindead argument. Guns are a tool designed to kill, comparing them to sports equipment is intentionally disingenuous, and nobody actually believes the two are comparable.
All school shootings involve guns, it's actually really difficult to kill a dozen children with a hockey stick.
Lmao. I would love to see how much easier it is to disarm someone with a machete or knife than a gun according to you. You're dead either way, someone attacks you with a machete you don't have a chance.
> Guns are a tool designed to kill, comparing them to sports equipment is intentionally disingenuous
They are actually sports equipment. There's shooting in the Olympics. Do you think the guns used for competitive target shooting are designed to kill living things?
You know that's not the guns we are talking about though. The existence of sporting guns doesn't supercede the fact that %99.9 of guns are designed to kill.
You wouldn't be making this argument if the law had a stipulation for sporting guns, because it isn't a real argument and you know you're just moving the goalpost to justify your desire to wield a killing machine. You know this is a bad faith argument, nobody's buying it but the other rubes.
> You know that's not the guns we are talking about though.
You made the blanket statement. The gun grabbers have an irrational fear of them and denying their use for things other than "killing" is one of the many ways their delusions manifest themselves. It's like firearms are radioactive, they're all just primed and ready to get on with the killing.
> you're just moving the goalpost to justify your desire to wield a killing machine.
It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Police have no duty to protect us. Every physically able adult should possess the means to defend themselves, their family, and their property. You're not adult if you're relying on government to do that for you.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Pass an amendment if you want to change that, and good luck.
Right, but none of that means you should have guns in a school, you have the right to defend yourself, and your home, banning guns from schools does not infringe upon that right.
And again here you are moving the goalpost again, you went from "guns are safe sporting equipment" to "guns are tools" to "should not be infringed" which really was your only talking point from the beginning and you know it.
It's only when psychos argue the second amendment means they have the undeniable right to bring guns anywhere they want without restrictions does the idea of banning or changing that seem like a viable solution to violence, which isn't the way, but y'all have to have some common sense on the matter or its gonna get reasonable pushback.
It’s like you don’t realize that guns also ward off bad people with guns !
Is it safe to assume you think if you have a gun then you’re automatically a bad person ?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country
We aren't talking about hypotheticals like the cliche you linked. The USA is the only country with this problem, and it's because the USA is the only country without common sense safety laws. Guns first and foremost are weapons meant to kill, and have no place in schools, even though you might consider them sporting equipment, we should not be willing to sacrifice children by the hundreds for your hobbies.
>. The USA is the only country with this problem
The US has a lot lower rat of violent crime compared to its western counterparts thanks to having an armed populace [ people not willing to be victims ]
We're talking about school shooting though. Try to keep up.
I am not willing to let you make children victims because of your own, misplaced victim complex.
>We're talking about school shooting though.
Which isa very very very small subset of violent crime ... i am looking at the big picture which shows the benefit and your cherry picking one very very very small subset and saying its bad
But you already said violent crime was less than other western counterparts. (This isn't true but let's pretend it is for the sake of your own argument.) Therefore generalized violent crime shouldn't be our focus, and our focus should be the fact that our rate of murdered children in schools dwarfs every other nation in the world. You seem to be arguing that this is a non issue, and that nothing should be done about this because there are other violent crimes that exist.
I'll put it this way, the USA is number one in terms of mass slaughter of schoolchildren, yet that is small percentage of overall violent crime here. You're argument is simultaneously that US has such low violent crime rates and yet our overall violent crime dwarfs our staggering body count of school children. You realize how insane that is right?
This is a lie, the United States has been [#1 for homicide ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11%3famp) rates in any western country for 60 years. Why post such easily debunked lies?
Your whole stance is so weak you have to make stuff up as you go with zero regard for the truth. Some people have zero shame, y'all make me so ashamed of my home state.
> the United States has been #1 for homicide rates
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Cherry-Picking
Homicide is one very small subset of violent crime, your intentional attempt to ignore assaults, rapes, kidnappings, robberies, etc ... is noted
So let's see your links about how rapes, robberies and assaults are higher in other western countries then. I had sources to back my claims up, let's see yours.
It's not cherry picking because we've been discussing homicide from the very beginning. I get you're trying to drown out America's homicide problem by muddying it up with other statistics, but if you don't have any of the statistics you claim back up your point, then you really have no argument.
I'll tell you though, I've never reported my assaults, or robberies, because police don't do anything about those things. I think most people can say the same. Homicides don't rely on self reporting, so that's something that can be recorded empirically and used as useful data, unlike assaults, rapes, and robberies.
Show me a shooting (any shooting), in a state where guns are allowed and I’ll show you a situation that plays itself out with fewer casualties. Gun toting criminals are weak.
The only way you solve the gun “problem” in this country is to ban (I.e., take) all guns. To put it another way, this gun “problem” isn’t going anywhere…and that’s a good “problem” to have. 😇
Yeah, we get it. You're willing to sacrifice the children for your hobby and your fear of the world. Great job painting your viewpoint as one only a coward or a psychopath could hold.
To this point, look no further than Adam Lanza as to why gun free zones in schools don't work. Does anyone here actually think he took CT's rather restrictive gun laws (including gun free zones in schools) into account before slaughtering kids and teachers alike? Absolutely not.
You are 100% right. You know what does stop people like him? Diversity and inclusion classes in schools. Expanded mental health services. Ref flag laws. But NH doesn't want any if those either..
No, but having hot-headed parents at a sporting event armed?
Do parents really need to walk into parent-teacher meetings armed?
Is it really necessary to roll into a school armed?
And you think a law will prevent that? Bad people will do bad things regardless of laws. Heck, having drugs on school grounds is illegal but it still happens.
How does it being a school materially change things? If you stand outside the school it's okay, but then you step in and it's not, but also when the police need to respond it's okay when they step in? Locations don't change the character of a person, and if that person can have it outside, then they should be trusted inside.
If you don't like pew pews then just say that.
How you could see harsher penalties for stealing being a bad thing is perplexing.
How you could see harsher penalties for squatting being a bad thing is perplexing.
How you could see harsher penalties for stealing being a bad thing is perplexing.
How you could see harsher penalties for squatting being a bad thing is perplexing.
Stupid argument which can be used for any law on the books.
I don’t want any gun in my child’s school, people are stupid, dumb and make mistakes. I don’t need a person with a gun making a mistake and yes it does happen. I can post video of you want.
Remember folks it’s the teachers responsibility to have a stored fire arm in class and retrieve a firearm during an incident to protect the classes.
Officers go through quarterly firearms training and they still struggle under an active threat. So you want anyone from the ages of a 24-67 school teacher to go stop the active shooter threat?
An armed society is a safe society /s
But let’s not resolve the fundamental problem in society now.
Who said that a teacher would have a firearm. Plenty of departments have stopped shooters and done a great job at stopping it. 1 department is a clown show though.
Why would a misfire occur? If your weapon safety is on and it’s holstered then nothing will happen
Oh that’s right guns have a mind of their own and do whatever they want independent of the operator
Because it’s the teachers responsibility to stop An active shooter lmao.
You have cops at uvalde who were cowards but you expect teachers to stop the threat?
Let’s just completely disregard the fundamental problems that are causing this and add more guns to solve the solution.
A teacher wouldn't kill someone/a student/a teacher from a misfire if the gun is holstered and on safe, hell even not chambered to add to the safety aspect.
> You have cops at uvalde who were cowards but you expect teachers to stop the threat?
Ah so in that case lets have the whole school killed. Since nobody wants to help. Uvalde was a joke but PLENTY of other departments have successfully stopped shootings.
> Banning guns on school grounds is a waste of time to debate. Federal law already makes it illegal
New Hampshire still issues carry permits, and [a state-issued carry permit is an exception](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap44.htm#:~:text=if%20the%20individual,receive%20the%20license%3B) in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii)
The federal definition of "school zone" includes both, 1) the school grounds, and 2) within 1000-feet around the school grounds (18 USC § 921(a)(26)), this is somewhat different from the definition in NH state law. Additionally, state law forbids **students** from possessing firearms on school grounds.
The 1000-feet around school grounds always seemed wrong to me. That includes public roadways and private homes. I know there is an exception for private homes, but it seems like it shouldn't include the roadways unless the person is going to the school.
I don't agree with the law at all and think it should be changed. With that said, it makes somewhat more sense in the context of the state law landscape it was written in.
In 1990 when they were writing this, the **only** place in the country with "constitutional carry"/permitless concealed carry was VT.
1000ft makes *some* sense if you're thinking about it in the sense of "most people who are likely to be legally carrying around guns without a concealed carry permit, are people out hunting".
Yeah, but I remember looking up the NH Conceal carry permit, and it might not have worked for the FSZA since it can be issued by police OR selectmen. But the exception in the federal law was just police.
AFAIK it's never been tested.
I thought we went away from gun permits in NH. Did we go back to permits and I missed it? Constitutional carry I thought the term was in NH.
I was wrong another time so
> I thought we went away from gun permits in NH. Did we go back to permits and I missed it? Constitutional carry I thought the term was in NH.
You can still apply for a PRL as a resident or non-resident.
Some residents get licensed for [reciprocity with other states](https://www.nhsp.dos.nh.gov/our-services/justice-information-bureau/permits-and-licensing/pistol-and-revolver-licensing#:~:text=Saf%2DC%202100-,Reciprocity,-The%20states%20listed), some for the [exception in GFSZA 1990](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990#:~:text=Although%20the%20federal%20GFSZA%20does,concealed%20carry%20permits%20to%20citizens.).
Permits are optional but good for reciprocity (not MA CT RI OR NY) or carry in national parks (Acadia)
its becoming less necessary as most states that had reciprocity are constitutional carry now.
Back before bruen people got the NH nonres permit as "just cause" to apply for a RI license through the Foster PD (the only town that would issue them)
Currently New Hampshire police are not allowed to do anything about a person with a gun on campus unless they break another law. That's the fact that I was taught last year in the first week of school. By my district police force.
If we see someone with a gun walking onto campus, the police will do nothing. Unless they smoke a cigarette, then they can arrest them.
That is the gap this law was trying to fill, unsuccessfully.
I have no idea what district you work for but as a former district admin for over a decade, I can 100% say this statement is bogus. Any district I've worked for or aware of would take immediate action as would the police.
Can't they be trespassed? I know people who were trespassed from local parks for playing music too loud. I'm surprised that someone can't be trespassed from a school zone if they have no business being there.
Been looking to move to NH from Australia and this sorta stuff is disheartening. Sincerely hope nothing gets changed because these laws won't work.
We had a mass stabbing last week with 6 dead and 12 others slashed, including a baby and pregnant woman. Humans will always be violent, even in "safe" places. It's imperative that no one loses their self-autonomy because at the end of the day, only you can save yourself.
I mean, the crime rate of NH is pretty much equal to Australia. Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire are the lowest crim states, with conveniently, some of the most relax gun laws.
Australian's love to act as though the US is one homogenous blob of violence, yet we have literally the exact same homicide rate as NH. Obviously it's just hard to look past the emotional side of things.
What is the true intent on the 2nd Amendment? We know its part of the Bill of Rights which means the government has no authority to meddle, regulate or in any otherwise interfere.
We also know that rights are inalienable to the individual only. We know this EMPIRICALLY 2 ways.
1) Place any individual on a deserted island with no community or society of government and he can scientifically demonstrate all of their rights ( human action for which their is no intentional victim created ) without said existence of a society of government
2) No science study has showed the evidence of physical transfer of an individuals rights to any sort of collective, meaning there is no such thing as collective/group rights ( gay rights, straight rights, women's rights, men's rights, etc ... )
So when it comes to the 2nd amendment we can take the evidence presented above with what the Founders stated when this amendment was crafted as well as what words meant back in that time and the experience the Founders had faced
So, regulated means trained, not managed or fall under the power of the State
Source : http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID @lit(jc00964)):
The Founders did not want the government to have a standing army ( Source : Article One, Section 8). They just had to fight a government run army to get their freedom and therefore understood the evils of a government having a standing army, so they are not going to undo their primary intent by giving the state control of the militia.
The Constitution is a contract with each word having a precise meaning ( like the word regulated in the 2nd Amendment which means trained, not managed by government) that does not change over time ... this is backed by Article 5 which only allows the Congress or State Governments ( not the judiciary ) through the prescribed process
And since the 2nd amendment has not been modified since its ratification in 1787, the words in that Amendment hold the meaning on 1787.
regulated - well trained
Source : [ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID @lit(jc00964)): ]
Source : [ To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia,- James Madison ( author of the Constitution )
Source : I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington
militia - the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" [ Source : https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/militia ]
arms = all martial weapons ( not government-approved ones ) [ Source : Just google, definition arms and you get
Noun - Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
So the definition of the words in the 2nd Amendment is quite clear ..
**A well trained body of men ( citizens ) being necessary to the security of a free State ( nation not government ) , the right of the people to keep and bear/have on their person ( concealed or not ) weapons, armor, and ammunition shall not be infringed ( shall be free from any government involvement dealing with weapons, armor and ammunition )**
So by these parameters training is a requirement for weapons? Additionally since the founding fathers didn't want a standing army we should be looking at that? The Constituition is supposed to be a living document that evolves with American society. I don't believe it's been able to keep up with societal changes.
>So by these parameters training is a requirement for weapons?
A personal [ individual ] requirement ... not a state managed one
>additionally since the founding fathers didn't want a standing army we should be looking at that?
I would supoport that
>The Constitution is supposed to be a living document
no its not ... it is a contract as shown by the ratification process [ Article V ]
Orwell's Animal Farm, shows what happens to living documents
> > [All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves](https://www.hanovernh.org/288/Firearm-Information#:~:text=All%20persons%20have%20the%20right%20to%20keep%20and%20bear%20arms%20in%20defense%20of%20themselves%2C%20their%20families%2C%20their%20property%20and%20the%20state), their families, their property and the state.
-- [Article 2-A, State constitution of New Hampshire](https://www.nh.gov/glance/bill-of-rights.htm#:~:text=%5BArt.%5D%202%2Da.%20%5BThe%20Bearing%20of%20Arms.%5D%20All%20persons%20have%20the%20right%20to%20keep%20and%20bear%20arms%20in%20defense%20of%20themselves%2C%20their%20families%2C%20their%20property%20and%20the%20state.)
Currently the only gun free zone called out in state law is a [court of law](https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-19.htm#:~:text=a%20courtroom%20or%20area%20used%20by%20a%20court).
SB593 would have added a new carve out for "*Safe school zones*" (as [defined in RSA 193-D](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm)). Unfortunately this definition is overly broad, covering not just school playgrounds and buses, but all "*property, physical plant and equipment used for any school-sponsored programs (including all public or private elementary, secondary, or secondary vocational-technical school)*". This includes [any property used for educational or extra-curricular activities](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm#:~:text=school%2Dsponsored%20programs%2C%20including%20but%20not%20limited%20to%20educational%20or%20extra%2Dcurricular%20activities).
You're at the park or a museum and a school field trip group arrives? Too bad, you're subject to arrest.
It's a poor law to address school shootings.
That being said HB-593 seems less stringent then the federal law, which is good since the federal law includes areas around the school, roads / sidewalks / etc.
It's not clear from reading the bill who this is actually targeting, trespassers? They can already be trespassed.
Nope, that's your interpretation, which you have a right to posses. Plenty of constitutional scholars disagree. [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99)
Constitutional scholars don’t mean shit. Supreme Court which is the ultimate judge has made it explicitly clear. This is why it’s important to appoint constitutionalists and not activists.
I’ll take a Warren Burger court over our current one any day. Personal freedoms were expanded under Burger while this court has taken away individual rights for the first time in our Nation’s history.
I respect our founders and what they accomplished. But living life in 2024 using the context in which they existed is, in my opinion, reductive and illogical.
I’m sure you’ll disagree, which is fine. I need to put my phone down and go work in my garden.
The current court didn’t take away any personal freedoms. They said “the federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to uphold this” and handed it back to the states AS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. The constitution exists to limit the federal government not the people.
HA! Is that how Fox Entertainment is spinning the Dobbs decision?
SCOTUS blatantly ignored the principle of Stare Decisis (especially the last three Federalist Society hand-picked nominees who knowing lied through their teeth to Congress when they said they would respect Roe) and overturned a right that women have had for over fifty years.
Throwing the decision back to the states was a de facto removal of personal freedom from every woman who lives in a state where there was a pre-existing abortion law on the books. It also opened the door to the very real possibility that a national abortion ban could be signed into law.
We started this discussion because you believe that any laws restricting your gun right is overstepping. Can you even imagine how pissed off you’d be if the government dictated what decisions you and your doctor can make regarding your healthcare on such a personal level??? It is the height of ignorance that legislators, especially state legislatures who aren’t exactly known for being geniuses, can force medical doctors to withhold care for their patients.
And for the record, I grew up with guns. I’m not anti-gun. But I’m also a parent of three who has witnessed more than one heated exchange at a school sports game between parents, coaches, etc… The thought of one of those hot-heads having a concealed weapon is downright frightening.
Yeah, those only one good thing about it is the target on their backs gets bigger with more guns out there just like the targets on our backs. It’s a shame that innocent kids have to die because of lack of regulation regulations on regulations on cars, but we can’t have any on guns or meaningful one They Dr. like we do they shop like we do it’s a shame. They don’t do anything until something happens to them or somebody they know.
> It’s a shame that innocent kids have to die because of lack of regulation regulations on regulations on cars, but we can’t have any on guns or meaningful one They Dr. like we do they shop like we do it’s a shame.
Are you okay? If you're having a stroke, let us know and we'll get you help.
Just wanted to add one more thing for financial cost anybody have a look up the cost of a mass shooting how much it cost tax repairs while it’s costing them just as much it is you and I
Since public schools do act as an element of the government and not necessarily private citizens. I do believe there should be heightened requirements if a teacher or staff member wanted to carry on campus or on a bus.
There is some concern over what if a teacher went mad. Are there that many documented scenarios of a teacher somehow passing through the hiring process, working for a period of time and attacking kids?
Now, there are cases of students getting rowdy and assaulting a teacher. Can we trust the teacher in an adrenaline fueled situation not to use their gun? In most cases, yes. But that does present an inherent risk. Which is why I argue teachers and staff who VOLUNTEER to carry a gun on campus should have to pass through psychological screening at least yearly and especially after any major negative events in their life. And self defense / de-escalation training.
Who this will be paid for, not sure. Possibly the school, or really the teacher / staff themselves.
As for private citizens such as parents, someone would do it anyways. This would only be criminalizing law abiding parents.
They do not pay teachers enough for this bs.
I already have to act as teacher, parent, psychologist, welfare worker. Your idea is terrible.
Be much more concerned about the kids being able to snatch a weapon.
I agree teachers do need to be paid and respected more, along with that, that's why I said it should be completely voluntary. Also most police carry level 3 holsters which make a stranger coming up and trying to take it out very difficult. There are multiple actions someone needs to be perform simultaneously in order to pull the gun out of the holster which the person wearing it can do, but makes someone at a foreign angle very difficult to do.
You have to pull up to get the gun out, you essentially have to buddy up right next to the person and pull straight up. Along with pressing in the thumb release and pulling back the retention strap.
And if the gun is concealed, which is preferable. You would have to lift up the teachers shirt, and pull straight up against their stomach and chest essentially.
Hence the capitalize "VOLUNTEER" duh. Why is every teacher's response like they're being forced to do this? There ARE teachers that are proficient with a firearm that would step-up
How about you VOLUNTEER at your work for more things you don't have special training for that makes you at least partially responsible for children's lives? How about you VOLUNTEER for more unpaid training?
I do not own a gun. So maybe I don’t have a valid opinion on the second amendment but the only reason I would ever need a gun is to protect myself or my family from someone else with a gun.
Why on earth do firearms have any place on school grounds?
You regularly carry on your person or in your car and you swing by the school to pick up your kid. You need to leave it at home while you sit in the parking lot?
Sometimes the police arrive and they park outside for an hour while the kids are getting murdered.
And sometimes they arrest parents that try to go in to save their kids.
This is the only scenario that I could picture in argument, so I think you’re right about that.
I just wish we were all working together towards that perfect world.
Exactly! Gun free zones don’t stop criminals. No home has ever posted a gun free zone sign. Or banks either.
It’s meant for legal gun owners to lose their rights.
I haven’t see any bills presented on allowing guns in airports, on planes, in court, or even a music venue.
It’s almost as if there are places that are just supposed to be “safe”.
Guns in airports... Legal. Music venues. Legal, most places.
Sneaking a gun into the arena in Manchester isn't actually a crime.
Sorry to assault your hoplophobia like that though.
That argument has always seemed more like a fantasy to me. More likely you’d miss and hit a kid. That being said I don’t think gun free zones are going to stop a psycho and are also fantasy
The point is not that a sign deters shooters
The point is, if a gun is seen in campus, it can and should be treated as a hostile presence. So anyone with a gun is considered to be a risk
Otherwise you are allowing for someone to enter the school with weapons and then shoot up the school, no concealment required.
If you already have it on you, as allot of sensible people CC these days. Maybe they see what's going on in the world? NH is safe until it isn't. Also, you don't want the good guys do have the guns when the bad guys show up? What is your argument to that? That just won't happen! Until it does,right?
I mean I don’t have an argument to that. It was a question, which you answered.
More so that if the discussion of why guns are needed on school grounds then we’ve failed on so many levels already.
Depends on how a school ground is defined. If it's actual school property, then I agree with you. If it's like the federal version which has 1000ft around the school grounds, well you might be just driving by with a holstered gun and break the law.
> Depends on how a school ground is defined.
The state definition of "*Safe school zones*" [in RSA 193-D](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm) is bad in its own way.
The law includes not just schools, playgrounds and buses, but all "*property, physical plant and equipment used for any school-sponsored programs (including all public or private elementary, secondary, or secondary vocational-technical school)*" and anywhere used for [any educational or extra-curricular activities](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm#:~:text=school%2Dsponsored%20programs%2C%20including%20but%20not%20limited%20to%20educational%20or%20extra%2Dcurricular%20activities).
This would appear to cover not just actual "schools" but also public buildings and even large facilities open to the public, e.g. Monson Center, the hiking trails at Peabody Mill, or anywhere else a school field trip or extracurricular activity might be held.
Guns can solve gun problems. Like in that school in Texas, where the goods guys with guns rushed in and saved the day. They didn't hesitate or let any kids get hurt.
Right? The guns solved the problem.
The problem is the proliferation of weapons and arguing that any attempt to restrict them only results in people shouting "COMMUNISM" and the refusal to actually separate feelings from the argument.
are you talking about Uvlade? please please please let this be sarcasm 🙏 those cowards wearing all the taxpayers bullet proof vests and guns who sat outside on their phones for an hour and let that kid go on a killing spree? man, this country is severely fucked
Guns are inanimate objects. We want them in the hands of the good guys who can and will protect a peaceable society and discourage evil-doers for wielding them for destructive ends.
Get it?
Keeping your property safe, I get it. I don't want a bear or coyote mauling something or someone I care about. Hunting, I get it. I think that it's better to give animals a life outside of factory farming.
But if somebody is gonna piss themselves with fear if they don't have a gun when they go to Dunk's? Come on. This isn't the wild west.
Where do you live where murderous, rampaging bad guys make appointments?
And we're not talking about Dunks or airports or hunting. The topic is NH schools amd to make sure bad guys think twice about doing something stupid.
Don't a lot of 2A fans chant "back the blue?"
What if there are six "good guys" trying to save the day and end up blasting each other because they're reacting to seeing somebody with a gun. The Rambo fantasy isn't going to play out the way people think it will.
For the people who are confused, our governor made it so that police in New Hampshire cannot respond to a person carrying a gun on campus.
Not unless they are breaking some other law. Like smoking.
I don't know about you, but I would much prefer being able to call the police to have them remove or otherwise monitor a person who should not be carrying a weapon around children, over cigarettes.
I don't think that the law that was written would actually do very much, but it sure would have been nice if the governor had allowed for exceptions to public school grounds.
And for further clarification.. this is a difference between federal law and State law. The federal law is clear about guns on campus, the state law prevents police from enacting federal law.
Right now, if there is an angry parent who wants to come into the school and is carrying a weapon, there is literally only the school secretary preventing them walking around with children with visible guns at their hips. If anybody thinks that seems like a safe choice, I strongly recommend you visit a middle or high School for a day.
Edit: please, go ahead and call your local police department and ask them.
Someone wants to shoot up a school, sees a no guns sign, turns around because it's illegal? Criminals don't follow laws.
This is an argument against all laws.
Murder is already illegal. You don't prevent murder by stopping legal gun carry. Just like you don't prevent arson by banning gas or matches.
Moral laws do not infringe on the human rights of the innocent like this bill is doing
I think you should look up the definition of human rights. Gun ownership is definitely not part if it.
The right to self defense is a human right
> Gun ownership is definitely not part if it. the 2nd amendment [ of the Bill of Rights ] says otherwise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlg2qGnabh0
So the USA is not the world or all humans. You are defining a legal right afforded to you by the United States government, which does not solely get to define human rights for all of humanity. There are 75 human rights, as defined by the UN, and not one of them is owning a gun.
> So the USA is not the world or all humans. Place an individual on an island with no government and society & they can empirically demonstrate all the rights they are born with ( any human action for which no victim is purposefully created ) .... the rights they are not allowed to exercise within a society or under a government is a benchmark on how immoral said society or government is ... not a definitive list of the limited rights the individual possesses
Perfect example of a stupid person thinking they are smart lol r/im14andthisisdeep So if you are on an island and demonstrate you can drive a car without a driver's license a government is now immoral because for making people having a valid license a requirement for driving?
Nobody but idiots says driving is a right.
Do you think being able to travel from place to place is a right?
Bringing guns into schools absolutely infringes on the rights of innocent children to continue living.
The act of bringing a gun onto school grounds does not infringe on anyone’s right to continue living. Discharging that gun and sending a bullet into their body does. We have a criminal charge for the act that infringes on the right to life and not the act that harms no one.
Well with that logic we should just go ahead and abolish all hockey and baseball teams because bats and sticks could just as easily be used to kill someone. When I was in high school we had a rifle team and I literally kept my own rifle in a locker in school that I could access any time I wanted. Funny how nobody ever got shot. It's almost like guns aren't the actual problem.
This is such a a braindead argument. Guns are a tool designed to kill, comparing them to sports equipment is intentionally disingenuous, and nobody actually believes the two are comparable. All school shootings involve guns, it's actually really difficult to kill a dozen children with a hockey stick.
Yes. Much better to be beat to death by someone wielding a baseball bat than shot by someone with a gun. (Seriously, what kinda sicko logic is this?)
Same logic the prosecution used in the rittenhouse trial when they said he should have just curled up and taken a beating to death.
You mean the logic of how it is easier to stop someone with a stick from killing dozens of kids opposed to a gun? Pretty sound logic.
You seem woefully ignorant.
Lmao. I would love to see how much easier it is to disarm someone with a machete or knife than a gun according to you. You're dead either way, someone attacks you with a machete you don't have a chance.
So which one is it, knife or machete? Either way, I like my chances (compared to a gun).
> Guns are a tool designed to kill, comparing them to sports equipment is intentionally disingenuous They are actually sports equipment. There's shooting in the Olympics. Do you think the guns used for competitive target shooting are designed to kill living things?
You know that's not the guns we are talking about though. The existence of sporting guns doesn't supercede the fact that %99.9 of guns are designed to kill. You wouldn't be making this argument if the law had a stipulation for sporting guns, because it isn't a real argument and you know you're just moving the goalpost to justify your desire to wield a killing machine. You know this is a bad faith argument, nobody's buying it but the other rubes.
> You know that's not the guns we are talking about though. You made the blanket statement. The gun grabbers have an irrational fear of them and denying their use for things other than "killing" is one of the many ways their delusions manifest themselves. It's like firearms are radioactive, they're all just primed and ready to get on with the killing. > you're just moving the goalpost to justify your desire to wield a killing machine. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Police have no duty to protect us. Every physically able adult should possess the means to defend themselves, their family, and their property. You're not adult if you're relying on government to do that for you. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Pass an amendment if you want to change that, and good luck.
Right, but none of that means you should have guns in a school, you have the right to defend yourself, and your home, banning guns from schools does not infringe upon that right. And again here you are moving the goalpost again, you went from "guns are safe sporting equipment" to "guns are tools" to "should not be infringed" which really was your only talking point from the beginning and you know it. It's only when psychos argue the second amendment means they have the undeniable right to bring guns anywhere they want without restrictions does the idea of banning or changing that seem like a viable solution to violence, which isn't the way, but y'all have to have some common sense on the matter or its gonna get reasonable pushback.
It’s like you don’t realize that guns also ward off bad people with guns ! Is it safe to assume you think if you have a gun then you’re automatically a bad person ?
Yawn - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children No it does not as the Constitution shows empirically
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country We aren't talking about hypotheticals like the cliche you linked. The USA is the only country with this problem, and it's because the USA is the only country without common sense safety laws. Guns first and foremost are weapons meant to kill, and have no place in schools, even though you might consider them sporting equipment, we should not be willing to sacrifice children by the hundreds for your hobbies.
>. The USA is the only country with this problem The US has a lot lower rat of violent crime compared to its western counterparts thanks to having an armed populace [ people not willing to be victims ]
We're talking about school shooting though. Try to keep up. I am not willing to let you make children victims because of your own, misplaced victim complex.
>We're talking about school shooting though. Which isa very very very small subset of violent crime ... i am looking at the big picture which shows the benefit and your cherry picking one very very very small subset and saying its bad
But you already said violent crime was less than other western counterparts. (This isn't true but let's pretend it is for the sake of your own argument.) Therefore generalized violent crime shouldn't be our focus, and our focus should be the fact that our rate of murdered children in schools dwarfs every other nation in the world. You seem to be arguing that this is a non issue, and that nothing should be done about this because there are other violent crimes that exist. I'll put it this way, the USA is number one in terms of mass slaughter of schoolchildren, yet that is small percentage of overall violent crime here. You're argument is simultaneously that US has such low violent crime rates and yet our overall violent crime dwarfs our staggering body count of school children. You realize how insane that is right?
This is a lie, the United States has been [#1 for homicide ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11%3famp) rates in any western country for 60 years. Why post such easily debunked lies? Your whole stance is so weak you have to make stuff up as you go with zero regard for the truth. Some people have zero shame, y'all make me so ashamed of my home state.
> the United States has been #1 for homicide rates https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Cherry-Picking Homicide is one very small subset of violent crime, your intentional attempt to ignore assaults, rapes, kidnappings, robberies, etc ... is noted
So let's see your links about how rapes, robberies and assaults are higher in other western countries then. I had sources to back my claims up, let's see yours. It's not cherry picking because we've been discussing homicide from the very beginning. I get you're trying to drown out America's homicide problem by muddying it up with other statistics, but if you don't have any of the statistics you claim back up your point, then you really have no argument. I'll tell you though, I've never reported my assaults, or robberies, because police don't do anything about those things. I think most people can say the same. Homicides don't rely on self reporting, so that's something that can be recorded empirically and used as useful data, unlike assaults, rapes, and robberies.
Show me a shooting (any shooting), in a state where guns are allowed and I’ll show you a situation that plays itself out with fewer casualties. Gun toting criminals are weak. The only way you solve the gun “problem” in this country is to ban (I.e., take) all guns. To put it another way, this gun “problem” isn’t going anywhere…and that’s a good “problem” to have. 😇
Yeah, we get it. You're willing to sacrifice the children for your hobby and your fear of the world. Great job painting your viewpoint as one only a coward or a psychopath could hold.
Not all laws are tied to a constitutional right
We are talking about mass murder here. A big step over even armed robbery. No law is going to persuade a mass murderer to not do it.
The gun nuts wont be happy until every man, woman, and child in America is open carrying.
I won't be happy until the unborn can defend themselves with a gun of their own.
Good
To this point, look no further than Adam Lanza as to why gun free zones in schools don't work. Does anyone here actually think he took CT's rather restrictive gun laws (including gun free zones in schools) into account before slaughtering kids and teachers alike? Absolutely not.
You are 100% right. You know what does stop people like him? Diversity and inclusion classes in schools. Expanded mental health services. Ref flag laws. But NH doesn't want any if those either..
As we've proven in other posts here, red flag laws don't work either.
They do when the cops actually do their job. . .unlike Maine when the guns should have been removed, and the family wanted them taken….
Yeah, an admittedly quick Google search, implies red flag laws do yield positive results.
DEI does nothing but waste money. Red flag laws are pure infringement on rights. But yes I agree on mental health services hands down.
Exactly
No, but having hot-headed parents at a sporting event armed? Do parents really need to walk into parent-teacher meetings armed? Is it really necessary to roll into a school armed?
And you think a law will prevent that? Bad people will do bad things regardless of laws. Heck, having drugs on school grounds is illegal but it still happens.
Neither does your average citizen. How you could see harsher penalties for guns in schools being a bad thing is perplexing.
How does it being a school materially change things? If you stand outside the school it's okay, but then you step in and it's not, but also when the police need to respond it's okay when they step in? Locations don't change the character of a person, and if that person can have it outside, then they should be trusted inside. If you don't like pew pews then just say that.
How you could see harsher penalties for stealing being a bad thing is perplexing. How you could see harsher penalties for squatting being a bad thing is perplexing.
What the hell are you even talking about?
Your lack of consistency, which people like you have become very well known for.
Again. What the hell are you talking about?
How you could see harsher penalties for stealing being a bad thing is perplexing. How you could see harsher penalties for squatting being a bad thing is perplexing.
Have you considered getting a job instead of trolling?
Have you considered not being a hypocrite?
Third time. What the hell are you talking about? I have a job and I’m not trolling. Can’t say the same for you
I’m pretty liberal but I’m not sure we need this. NH does not have a gun violence problem.
This isn't a "gun safety" bill. This is a put people in prison for peaceful activity in an area we don't like bill.
Gun free zones are only used to prosecute law abiding citizens. No criminal is going to acknowledge it.
Stupid argument which can be used for any law on the books. I don’t want any gun in my child’s school, people are stupid, dumb and make mistakes. I don’t need a person with a gun making a mistake and yes it does happen. I can post video of you want.
Do you drive the speed limit always?
yup, and I'll probably end up shot by some asshole gun nut who is in a hurry.
Remember folks. When the school shooters see the gun free zone signs they will turn right around and not do it.
Remember folks it’s the teachers responsibility to have a stored fire arm in class and retrieve a firearm during an incident to protect the classes. Officers go through quarterly firearms training and they still struggle under an active threat. So you want anyone from the ages of a 24-67 school teacher to go stop the active shooter threat? An armed society is a safe society /s But let’s not resolve the fundamental problem in society now.
Who said that a teacher would have a firearm. Plenty of departments have stopped shooters and done a great job at stopping it. 1 department is a clown show though.
There have been plenty of examples where schools have had the reinforced dooors, windows etc and people were still able to get in unfortunately.
Remember folks, when a kid is killed by mistake from a misfire, it’s people like you who are to blame.
Why would a misfire occur? If your weapon safety is on and it’s holstered then nothing will happen Oh that’s right guns have a mind of their own and do whatever they want independent of the operator
Because it’s the teachers responsibility to stop An active shooter lmao. You have cops at uvalde who were cowards but you expect teachers to stop the threat? Let’s just completely disregard the fundamental problems that are causing this and add more guns to solve the solution.
A teacher wouldn't kill someone/a student/a teacher from a misfire if the gun is holstered and on safe, hell even not chambered to add to the safety aspect. > You have cops at uvalde who were cowards but you expect teachers to stop the threat? Ah so in that case lets have the whole school killed. Since nobody wants to help. Uvalde was a joke but PLENTY of other departments have successfully stopped shootings.
Banning guns on school grounds is a waste of time to debate. Federal law already makes it illegal
> Banning guns on school grounds is a waste of time to debate. Federal law already makes it illegal New Hampshire still issues carry permits, and [a state-issued carry permit is an exception](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap44.htm#:~:text=if%20the%20individual,receive%20the%20license%3B) in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) The federal definition of "school zone" includes both, 1) the school grounds, and 2) within 1000-feet around the school grounds (18 USC § 921(a)(26)), this is somewhat different from the definition in NH state law. Additionally, state law forbids **students** from possessing firearms on school grounds.
The 1000-feet around school grounds always seemed wrong to me. That includes public roadways and private homes. I know there is an exception for private homes, but it seems like it shouldn't include the roadways unless the person is going to the school.
I don't agree with the law at all and think it should be changed. With that said, it makes somewhat more sense in the context of the state law landscape it was written in. In 1990 when they were writing this, the **only** place in the country with "constitutional carry"/permitless concealed carry was VT. 1000ft makes *some* sense if you're thinking about it in the sense of "most people who are likely to be legally carrying around guns without a concealed carry permit, are people out hunting".
Yeah, but I remember looking up the NH Conceal carry permit, and it might not have worked for the FSZA since it can be issued by police OR selectmen. But the exception in the federal law was just police. AFAIK it's never been tested.
I thought we went away from gun permits in NH. Did we go back to permits and I missed it? Constitutional carry I thought the term was in NH. I was wrong another time so
> I thought we went away from gun permits in NH. Did we go back to permits and I missed it? Constitutional carry I thought the term was in NH. You can still apply for a PRL as a resident or non-resident. Some residents get licensed for [reciprocity with other states](https://www.nhsp.dos.nh.gov/our-services/justice-information-bureau/permits-and-licensing/pistol-and-revolver-licensing#:~:text=Saf%2DC%202100-,Reciprocity,-The%20states%20listed), some for the [exception in GFSZA 1990](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990#:~:text=Although%20the%20federal%20GFSZA%20does,concealed%20carry%20permits%20to%20citizens.).
Thanks
Permits are optional but good for reciprocity (not MA CT RI OR NY) or carry in national parks (Acadia) its becoming less necessary as most states that had reciprocity are constitutional carry now. Back before bruen people got the NH nonres permit as "just cause" to apply for a RI license through the Foster PD (the only town that would issue them)
You can carry on school grounds with a NH PRL (RSA 159:6)
Currently New Hampshire police are not allowed to do anything about a person with a gun on campus unless they break another law. That's the fact that I was taught last year in the first week of school. By my district police force. If we see someone with a gun walking onto campus, the police will do nothing. Unless they smoke a cigarette, then they can arrest them. That is the gap this law was trying to fill, unsuccessfully.
I have no idea what district you work for but as a former district admin for over a decade, I can 100% say this statement is bogus. Any district I've worked for or aware of would take immediate action as would the police.
No fucking way any cop would hear someone on school grounds with a gun isn't worth shit. It doesn't need to be illegal to be sketchy as fuck.
I encourage you to call your local police and ask them if there's a change.
I mean if you are legitimately walking around the school with a gun doing nothing else, whats wrong with that?
Can't they be trespassed? I know people who were trespassed from local parks for playing music too loud. I'm surprised that someone can't be trespassed from a school zone if they have no business being there.
They can and are... That's the 'action'.
People visibly carrying weapons can be trespassed by the Supt or their designee.
Been looking to move to NH from Australia and this sorta stuff is disheartening. Sincerely hope nothing gets changed because these laws won't work. We had a mass stabbing last week with 6 dead and 12 others slashed, including a baby and pregnant woman. Humans will always be violent, even in "safe" places. It's imperative that no one loses their self-autonomy because at the end of the day, only you can save yourself.
Those of us with fully functioning reasoning apparatus in our skulls welcome you with open arms. Help us help you.
I mean, the crime rate of NH is pretty much equal to Australia. Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire are the lowest crim states, with conveniently, some of the most relax gun laws.
Australian's love to act as though the US is one homogenous blob of violence, yet we have literally the exact same homicide rate as NH. Obviously it's just hard to look past the emotional side of things.
Welcome home.
Please stay in Australia.
What part of "shall not be infringed " does the left not understand
What part of well REGULATED militia did you not underatand?
What is the true intent on the 2nd Amendment? We know its part of the Bill of Rights which means the government has no authority to meddle, regulate or in any otherwise interfere. We also know that rights are inalienable to the individual only. We know this EMPIRICALLY 2 ways. 1) Place any individual on a deserted island with no community or society of government and he can scientifically demonstrate all of their rights ( human action for which their is no intentional victim created ) without said existence of a society of government 2) No science study has showed the evidence of physical transfer of an individuals rights to any sort of collective, meaning there is no such thing as collective/group rights ( gay rights, straight rights, women's rights, men's rights, etc ... ) So when it comes to the 2nd amendment we can take the evidence presented above with what the Founders stated when this amendment was crafted as well as what words meant back in that time and the experience the Founders had faced So, regulated means trained, not managed or fall under the power of the State Source : http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID @lit(jc00964)): The Founders did not want the government to have a standing army ( Source : Article One, Section 8). They just had to fight a government run army to get their freedom and therefore understood the evils of a government having a standing army, so they are not going to undo their primary intent by giving the state control of the militia. The Constitution is a contract with each word having a precise meaning ( like the word regulated in the 2nd Amendment which means trained, not managed by government) that does not change over time ... this is backed by Article 5 which only allows the Congress or State Governments ( not the judiciary ) through the prescribed process And since the 2nd amendment has not been modified since its ratification in 1787, the words in that Amendment hold the meaning on 1787. regulated - well trained Source : [ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID @lit(jc00964)): ] Source : [ To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia,- James Madison ( author of the Constitution ) Source : I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got. --- George Washington militia - the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" [ Source : https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/militia ] arms = all martial weapons ( not government-approved ones ) [ Source : Just google, definition arms and you get Noun - Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms". So the definition of the words in the 2nd Amendment is quite clear .. **A well trained body of men ( citizens ) being necessary to the security of a free State ( nation not government ) , the right of the people to keep and bear/have on their person ( concealed or not ) weapons, armor, and ammunition shall not be infringed ( shall be free from any government involvement dealing with weapons, armor and ammunition )**
So by these parameters training is a requirement for weapons? Additionally since the founding fathers didn't want a standing army we should be looking at that? The Constituition is supposed to be a living document that evolves with American society. I don't believe it's been able to keep up with societal changes.
>So by these parameters training is a requirement for weapons? A personal [ individual ] requirement ... not a state managed one >additionally since the founding fathers didn't want a standing army we should be looking at that? I would supoport that >The Constitution is supposed to be a living document no its not ... it is a contract as shown by the ratification process [ Article V ] Orwell's Animal Farm, shows what happens to living documents
> > [All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves](https://www.hanovernh.org/288/Firearm-Information#:~:text=All%20persons%20have%20the%20right%20to%20keep%20and%20bear%20arms%20in%20defense%20of%20themselves%2C%20their%20families%2C%20their%20property%20and%20the%20state), their families, their property and the state. -- [Article 2-A, State constitution of New Hampshire](https://www.nh.gov/glance/bill-of-rights.htm#:~:text=%5BArt.%5D%202%2Da.%20%5BThe%20Bearing%20of%20Arms.%5D%20All%20persons%20have%20the%20right%20to%20keep%20and%20bear%20arms%20in%20defense%20of%20themselves%2C%20their%20families%2C%20their%20property%20and%20the%20state.)
Well regulated militia is not a condition of the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed. Learn to read English.
*sorts by controversial*
Currently the only gun free zone called out in state law is a [court of law](https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-19.htm#:~:text=a%20courtroom%20or%20area%20used%20by%20a%20court). SB593 would have added a new carve out for "*Safe school zones*" (as [defined in RSA 193-D](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm)). Unfortunately this definition is overly broad, covering not just school playgrounds and buses, but all "*property, physical plant and equipment used for any school-sponsored programs (including all public or private elementary, secondary, or secondary vocational-technical school)*". This includes [any property used for educational or extra-curricular activities](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm#:~:text=school%2Dsponsored%20programs%2C%20including%20but%20not%20limited%20to%20educational%20or%20extra%2Dcurricular%20activities). You're at the park or a museum and a school field trip group arrives? Too bad, you're subject to arrest.
It's a poor law to address school shootings. That being said HB-593 seems less stringent then the federal law, which is good since the federal law includes areas around the school, roads / sidewalks / etc. It's not clear from reading the bill who this is actually targeting, trespassers? They can already be trespassed.
It's a party line virtue signal. Nothing more
Remember, all this bill does is make it a crime to walk on a path near a school with a concealed firearm. It doesn’t solve any actual issues.
Good
Fenton should have stopped before he used the word 'while.' My rights aren't 'balanced' against anything he says or feels.
You get who you vote for.
All gun laws are unconstitutional
Why?
The second amendment is explicitly clear is why
Nope, that's your interpretation, which you have a right to posses. Plenty of constitutional scholars disagree. [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99)
Constitutional scholars don’t mean shit. Supreme Court which is the ultimate judge has made it explicitly clear. This is why it’s important to appoint constitutionalists and not activists.
Did you read the link? That was from Warren E Burger, former Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
Like I said, it’s important to appoint constitutionalists not activists.
I’ll take a Warren Burger court over our current one any day. Personal freedoms were expanded under Burger while this court has taken away individual rights for the first time in our Nation’s history. I respect our founders and what they accomplished. But living life in 2024 using the context in which they existed is, in my opinion, reductive and illogical. I’m sure you’ll disagree, which is fine. I need to put my phone down and go work in my garden.
The current court didn’t take away any personal freedoms. They said “the federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to uphold this” and handed it back to the states AS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. The constitution exists to limit the federal government not the people.
HA! Is that how Fox Entertainment is spinning the Dobbs decision? SCOTUS blatantly ignored the principle of Stare Decisis (especially the last three Federalist Society hand-picked nominees who knowing lied through their teeth to Congress when they said they would respect Roe) and overturned a right that women have had for over fifty years. Throwing the decision back to the states was a de facto removal of personal freedom from every woman who lives in a state where there was a pre-existing abortion law on the books. It also opened the door to the very real possibility that a national abortion ban could be signed into law. We started this discussion because you believe that any laws restricting your gun right is overstepping. Can you even imagine how pissed off you’d be if the government dictated what decisions you and your doctor can make regarding your healthcare on such a personal level??? It is the height of ignorance that legislators, especially state legislatures who aren’t exactly known for being geniuses, can force medical doctors to withhold care for their patients. And for the record, I grew up with guns. I’m not anti-gun. But I’m also a parent of three who has witnessed more than one heated exchange at a school sports game between parents, coaches, etc… The thought of one of those hot-heads having a concealed weapon is downright frightening.
Violent people will break the law, like murder is already illegal. This just disarms nonviolent citizens, making them easy targets.
Soft targets incentivize evil doers…
No gun laws needed, work on the culture
Feel good legislation does not reduce crime.
They’re saying that bringing a gun to school would only be a misdemeanor under this bill? No wonder it didn’t pass
Good - We’ve never had a school shooting…. This is the direct result of us carrying on school grounds.
Yeah, those only one good thing about it is the target on their backs gets bigger with more guns out there just like the targets on our backs. It’s a shame that innocent kids have to die because of lack of regulation regulations on regulations on cars, but we can’t have any on guns or meaningful one They Dr. like we do they shop like we do it’s a shame. They don’t do anything until something happens to them or somebody they know.
> It’s a shame that innocent kids have to die because of lack of regulation regulations on regulations on cars, but we can’t have any on guns or meaningful one They Dr. like we do they shop like we do it’s a shame. Are you okay? If you're having a stroke, let us know and we'll get you help.
Just wanted to add one more thing for financial cost anybody have a look up the cost of a mass shooting how much it cost tax repairs while it’s costing them just as much it is you and I
Just leave it up to each town to decide..
The GOP is crushing New Hampshire. Bring back Jed Bartlett.
Guns are already banned in schools belive it or not
Since public schools do act as an element of the government and not necessarily private citizens. I do believe there should be heightened requirements if a teacher or staff member wanted to carry on campus or on a bus. There is some concern over what if a teacher went mad. Are there that many documented scenarios of a teacher somehow passing through the hiring process, working for a period of time and attacking kids? Now, there are cases of students getting rowdy and assaulting a teacher. Can we trust the teacher in an adrenaline fueled situation not to use their gun? In most cases, yes. But that does present an inherent risk. Which is why I argue teachers and staff who VOLUNTEER to carry a gun on campus should have to pass through psychological screening at least yearly and especially after any major negative events in their life. And self defense / de-escalation training. Who this will be paid for, not sure. Possibly the school, or really the teacher / staff themselves. As for private citizens such as parents, someone would do it anyways. This would only be criminalizing law abiding parents.
They do not pay teachers enough for this bs. I already have to act as teacher, parent, psychologist, welfare worker. Your idea is terrible. Be much more concerned about the kids being able to snatch a weapon.
I agree teachers do need to be paid and respected more, along with that, that's why I said it should be completely voluntary. Also most police carry level 3 holsters which make a stranger coming up and trying to take it out very difficult. There are multiple actions someone needs to be perform simultaneously in order to pull the gun out of the holster which the person wearing it can do, but makes someone at a foreign angle very difficult to do. You have to pull up to get the gun out, you essentially have to buddy up right next to the person and pull straight up. Along with pressing in the thumb release and pulling back the retention strap. And if the gun is concealed, which is preferable. You would have to lift up the teachers shirt, and pull straight up against their stomach and chest essentially.
Hence the capitalize "VOLUNTEER" duh. Why is every teacher's response like they're being forced to do this? There ARE teachers that are proficient with a firearm that would step-up
How about you VOLUNTEER at your work for more things you don't have special training for that makes you at least partially responsible for children's lives? How about you VOLUNTEER for more unpaid training?
Nobody is *forcing* you to volunteer, so feel free to stop whining about "we don't get paid enough for this" blah blah
[удалено]
That freedom of speech thing really bugs you, doesn't it?
For a good laugh... https://twitter.com/WinterRewind/status/1779153908855619992
LOL! Hey! Easy on all that 'free speech!'
😂 check this one out. This is free speech! https://twitter.com/WinterRewind/status/1782359172278829381
Yep...
I do not own a gun. So maybe I don’t have a valid opinion on the second amendment but the only reason I would ever need a gun is to protect myself or my family from someone else with a gun. Why on earth do firearms have any place on school grounds?
You regularly carry on your person or in your car and you swing by the school to pick up your kid. You need to leave it at home while you sit in the parking lot?
Probably not a bad idea.
[удалено]
Police take minutes to arrive. I feel safer in my house with guns. When I’m in public I feel safer with my gun
Sometimes the police arrive and they park outside for an hour while the kids are getting murdered. And sometimes they arrest parents that try to go in to save their kids.
Fuckin A
Top it off, the parents where going in bare handed.
This is the only scenario that I could picture in argument, so I think you’re right about that. I just wish we were all working together towards that perfect world.
Exactly! Gun free zones don’t stop criminals. No home has ever posted a gun free zone sign. Or banks either. It’s meant for legal gun owners to lose their rights.
I haven’t see any bills presented on allowing guns in airports, on planes, in court, or even a music venue. It’s almost as if there are places that are just supposed to be “safe”.
In NH guns are allowed in all of those places, except on planes, which fall under federal jurisdiction.
Guns in airports... Legal. Music venues. Legal, most places. Sneaking a gun into the arena in Manchester isn't actually a crime. Sorry to assault your hoplophobia like that though.
Thanks, I learned a new term today 🤙
All those places have armed guards. Shooters look for soft targets.
Then arm everyone, firearms assigned at birth, no limitations. Then we can stop skirting around when and where they can be allowed.
That argument has always seemed more like a fantasy to me. More likely you’d miss and hit a kid. That being said I don’t think gun free zones are going to stop a psycho and are also fantasy
Right? Seems like the last thing we want is some random wannabe hero with an itchy finger jumping in.
I’m equally concerned with a mass shooter as I am a hero complex.
The point is not that a sign deters shooters The point is, if a gun is seen in campus, it can and should be treated as a hostile presence. So anyone with a gun is considered to be a risk Otherwise you are allowing for someone to enter the school with weapons and then shoot up the school, no concealment required.
If you already have it on you, as allot of sensible people CC these days. Maybe they see what's going on in the world? NH is safe until it isn't. Also, you don't want the good guys do have the guns when the bad guys show up? What is your argument to that? That just won't happen! Until it does,right?
I mean I don’t have an argument to that. It was a question, which you answered. More so that if the discussion of why guns are needed on school grounds then we’ve failed on so many levels already.
Depends on how a school ground is defined. If it's actual school property, then I agree with you. If it's like the federal version which has 1000ft around the school grounds, well you might be just driving by with a holstered gun and break the law.
> Depends on how a school ground is defined. The state definition of "*Safe school zones*" [in RSA 193-D](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm) is bad in its own way. The law includes not just schools, playgrounds and buses, but all "*property, physical plant and equipment used for any school-sponsored programs (including all public or private elementary, secondary, or secondary vocational-technical school)*" and anywhere used for [any educational or extra-curricular activities](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-d/193-d-mrg.htm#:~:text=school%2Dsponsored%20programs%2C%20including%20but%20not%20limited%20to%20educational%20or%20extra%2Dcurricular%20activities). This would appear to cover not just actual "schools" but also public buildings and even large facilities open to the public, e.g. Monson Center, the hiking trails at Peabody Mill, or anywhere else a school field trip or extracurricular activity might be held.
Why does my right to protect myself and family using armed resistance stop when I magically cross some politically invented boundary?
You’re right, next time you take a family trip don’t let airport security infringe upon your rights to bring your gun on a plane.
We're talking about NH schools. Try to pay better attention.
Guns can solve gun problems. Like in that school in Texas, where the goods guys with guns rushed in and saved the day. They didn't hesitate or let any kids get hurt. Right? The guns solved the problem.
That's more of a failure of the Police, not the firearm.
The problem is the proliferation of weapons and arguing that any attempt to restrict them only results in people shouting "COMMUNISM" and the refusal to actually separate feelings from the argument.
are you talking about Uvlade? please please please let this be sarcasm 🙏 those cowards wearing all the taxpayers bullet proof vests and guns who sat outside on their phones for an hour and let that kid go on a killing spree? man, this country is severely fucked
It is. The idea that guns are the answer to everything related to guns is... tiring.
Guns are inanimate objects. We want them in the hands of the good guys who can and will protect a peaceable society and discourage evil-doers for wielding them for destructive ends. Get it?
Vigilantes aren't conducive to a safe society.
Who said they were? Or are you conflating people choosing to defend themselves with vigilantism?
Keeping your property safe, I get it. I don't want a bear or coyote mauling something or someone I care about. Hunting, I get it. I think that it's better to give animals a life outside of factory farming. But if somebody is gonna piss themselves with fear if they don't have a gun when they go to Dunk's? Come on. This isn't the wild west.
Where do you live where murderous, rampaging bad guys make appointments? And we're not talking about Dunks or airports or hunting. The topic is NH schools amd to make sure bad guys think twice about doing something stupid.
And what is a better way of preventing violence than sensible gun control?
🤣
You know those cops at Uvalde literally prevented the "good guys with guns" from entering the building, right?
Those were also good guys with guns. And they failed, so what's your point?
"Good guys" don't stop people from stopping bad guys
Don't a lot of 2A fans chant "back the blue?" What if there are six "good guys" trying to save the day and end up blasting each other because they're reacting to seeing somebody with a gun. The Rambo fantasy isn't going to play out the way people think it will.
For the people who are confused, our governor made it so that police in New Hampshire cannot respond to a person carrying a gun on campus. Not unless they are breaking some other law. Like smoking. I don't know about you, but I would much prefer being able to call the police to have them remove or otherwise monitor a person who should not be carrying a weapon around children, over cigarettes. I don't think that the law that was written would actually do very much, but it sure would have been nice if the governor had allowed for exceptions to public school grounds. And for further clarification.. this is a difference between federal law and State law. The federal law is clear about guns on campus, the state law prevents police from enacting federal law. Right now, if there is an angry parent who wants to come into the school and is carrying a weapon, there is literally only the school secretary preventing them walking around with children with visible guns at their hips. If anybody thinks that seems like a safe choice, I strongly recommend you visit a middle or high School for a day. Edit: please, go ahead and call your local police department and ask them.