TexasCHLforum.com

Here’s what needs to happen. Flood the phone of SecNav Ray Mabus and SecDef Carter and ask them whose side they’re. Demand the charges being brought against Lt.Cmdr White be immediately dropped. If those charges are not dropped, I will personally lead the charge to have Carter and Mabus removed from their positions.

“A Navy officer and Marine reportedly returned fire at the shooter who killed five service members in Chattanooga, Tenn., even though current policy does not permit military members to carry firearms on facilities such as those where the attack occurred.

The cold-blooded assault killed four Marines and one active-duty Navy reservist. The center’s commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, used his personal firearm to engage the shooter during the attack, according to sources quoted in the Navy Times. A report from The Washington Post said that one of the Marines killed in the shooting might have been carrying a 9 mm Glock and possibly returned fire on the shooter.

At the time, Western Journalism wrote, Lt. Cmdr. White could face disciplinary action for violating policy about possessing a weapon on the facility that was supposedly a gun-free zone.

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

"Stories of Navy personnel being charged with an offense are not true. There is still a long way to go in reviewing the facts of this tragic incident, but at this time we can confirm no service member has been charged with an offense," the Navy said in a statement posted to social media.

Jim Beaux wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

Taypo wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

#1: How many serving members of the military have ANY pistol exposure? Now, take your answer and subtract the MP's, the officers, the MI guys and the SF guys. I'll gladly stand behind putting armed guards on entrances of any federal/state/military installation, but allowing the rank and file to carry concealed is asking for trouble. In this instance, its an officer we're discussing so he, at minimum, had M9 exposure.

#2. Your comparison to a teacher not talking is also moot - that's part of the job description, or mission. A recruiter doesn't need a weapon to fulfill the mission.

We're rapidly approaching the point where we need to follow the Israeli model of troops behind armed all the time, but until that changes the law is what it is.

Jim Beaux wrote:

Taypo wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

#1: How many serving members of the military have ANY pistol exposure? Now, take your answer and subtract the MP's, the officers, the MI guys and the SF guys. I'll gladly stand behind putting armed guards on entrances of any federal/state/military installation, but allowing the rank and file to carry concealed is asking for trouble. In this instance, its an officer we're discussing so he, at minimum, had M9 exposure.

#2. Your comparison to a teacher not talking is also moot - that's part of the job description, or mission. A recruiter doesn't need a weapon to fulfill the mission.

We're rapidly approaching the point where we need to follow the Israeli model of troops behind armed all the time, but until that changes the law is what it is.

You havent provided anything but baseless rhetoric. There is no sense in engaging you. Have a good day.

Jim Beaux wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

Jumping Frog wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

Well I have thought about "situational ethics".

I consider forcing an ordinary citizen who is not otherwise disqualified to be unable to defend themselves an immoral and improper law anyway. Self defense is a God-given right and last I checked he outranks Austin. So any teacher caught carrying while otherwise not doing anything illegal would get a pass from me if I was on a jury. Jury nullification is also a time-honored principle in which ordinary citizens can rule the legislature overstepped its bounds.

And if you want top continue down that road, you could include carrying in bars and other forbidden places.

That said, I am also a practical man who has weighed the trade-off between complying with certain laws I do not agree with and avoiding the risk of having adverse legal consequences. Generally, I will comply.