No_0ne

Many do, but there are several who do not have fulltime SRO's. It runs from larger metro schools with multiple officers to small, rural schools with none, and every iteration in between. In some systems, officers are shared across several campuses, others employ fulltime officers at the high school but either have no SRO's assigned to the lower grades or share an officer between two or more schools. The variations are as diverse as the schools themselves ...

Not a chance, as long as he has his twitter account ...

Not at all, just responding to the previous comment that machine guns are illegal. The 1986 act definitely had an effect, as it put an end to new stamps being issued for MG's.

The courts have been pretty consistent in prior rulings that states have the right to regulate the "bearing" of arms by their citizens, including whether or not to allow open/concealed carry. To date, no case dealing with this issue has made it to the SCOTUS, lower court rulings have mostly been "no, each state has a right to decide how it's citizens bear arms" to this question ... While the original definition of "assault rifles" (circa WWII) was clearly a rifles firing reduced caliber ammunition in full auto configuration, the term has become more amorphous since, and pretty much depends on whomever is making the argument now ... It's not, those rifles are in the hands of some citizens now, in the form of Class III weapons, requiring the federal tax stamps. SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that Congress has the right to impose taxes, and that the NFA is a tax law, not a law which outlaws machine guns. The Treasury dept. made the decision to stop issuing any new MG tax stamps in 1986, thus only those rifles made before that time can get a stamp, therefore paying the tax which makes them legal to possess. These laws and decisions have already been adjudicated and found constitutional ... If you look at the history of previous rulings by the SCOTUS on national gun laws, most of the decisions have been framed fairly narrowly, and in a consistent manner. There are, of course, one or two "head-scratchers", but you find this with most issues which have been repeatedly looked at over time. One example is "US v. Miller", of 1939, which basically ruled sawed-off shotguns illegal, the argument was whether or not such a weapon was in common usage in the military, but since the defendant died before the case got to the SCOTUS the court let stand the decision of the lower courts which mandated a barrel length of 18" or more. Most observers agree that this decision could probably be overturned in another case, but to date no case has come before the SCOTUS dealing with shotgun barrel lengths. As for the assertion that the SCOTUS "has" to one day answer the questions the OP posed, maybe. Based on the court's history regarding gun laws though, it's going to take a case which is very narrowly framed with very specific questions for the court to agree to hear it. To date, there have been no cases which fit that definition ...

I'm a bit confused. If you only go into REI (whatever that is) to browse gear to order online, how exactly do you boycott them?

Even a cursory glance at his past statements and positions would show that he has always been well-versed in this art ...

There's a lot of money to be made with all these diagnoses ...

A fun evening. I was In Fulton, Ky. when the sirens went off the first time, the tornado in Union City was on the way. Got out of there in a hurry headed home. We had 2 tornadoes, the afore-mentioned one and another that went south of us by a few miles. Power out for about 3 hours, lots of rain, but managed to dodge the worst of it this time.

Conspiracy, much?

Siege at Petersburg?

Based on accounts I've read thus far: The school routinely unlocks it's various gates into the parking/entrance areas near dismissal time to facilitate cars entering and leaving the school for student pickups. As for the actual entrance doors, I imagine that like many schools, there are a lot of students and staff using these doors throughout the day, particularly near dismissal times and it's not hard to imagine the shooter simply walking in one of the doors as another person leaves the building (just speculation on my part, maybe the doors were open at the time). Another article indicated that according to the family he was living with the shooter stood to inherit about $800k from his adoptive parents estate at age 22, indicating that the family was fairly well-off, thus money was not a problem for him. He also had some sort of fast food job during the previous year.

I'm not disputing your idea, just pointing out that in my opinion, based on many years of working for school systems, it has no chance of actual implementation. For one thing, in a typical school you will be hard pressed to find 20 teachers who would be willing to go armed. We are, after all, quite busy spreading the socialist, liberal agenda to the kids ...

I don't know the exact situation with the Florida school and it's SRO's. Having multiple officers is certainly reasonable though, as that school reportedly has an enrollment of 3300 kids (which is about 30% more than the largest high school in Tennessee) with a campus that apparently has multiple buildings (the shootings occurred in Building 12, but I don't know if that means they actually had 12 buildings on campus). I do remember seeing some initial reports that the officer in charge of that part of the campus was away, called out, or maybe off that day but as I said, I don't know the details. The statistic I quoted earlier was part of a study on school shootings that is probably about 2 years old now, maybe there are incidents of on-duty officers being present at school shootings that I'm not aware of. I do know that in Kentucky, SRO's didn't seem to be used as widely as here in Tennessee, I don't think Marshall County had one. As for the prevalence here, I'm sure that most, if not all of the larger systems and schools employ SRO's, but in the smaller systems and schools found in rural areas the use isn't nearly as common, some have no officers at all, others provide them for high schools only, and several share an officer among multiple campuses. However, my point was, it's going to be far easier to push for increased usage of SRO's on campuses in Tennessee than to advocate for armed carry by teacher's and staff, I don't think that will ever happen under any circumstances.

I have been one of those " anti American indoctrinators" working to "undermine society" for the last 30+ years. During that entire time period I have worked in rural schools in Kentucky and Tennessee, the kind of places in which a lot of the students and teachers own guns, hunt, shoot, and have been raised around guns. Even in those types of schools you're not going to find very many teachers who would support going armed in schools and probably fewer parents who wish to see school personnel carrying for student protection. School administrators would be petrified at the idea, mostly due to perceptions about liability issues and potential blowback from their communities, county commissions aren't going to support funding, and even if you pass the legislation necessary to allow it I doubt many, if any systems would implement it. There is a lot of support for additional school resource officers among communities that have had these positions, as most, even if they were initially opposed have seen the many benefits a competent officer on school grounds can have on student behavior and discipline. Not from a law enforcement perspective, but in the schools I have worked in that have had SRO's, these officers have proved efficient at heading off problems before they occur, and many students are comfortable speaking with them confidentially about their concerns and problems. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, the only school shooting that has occurred with either an SRO or some other type of campus security in place and on duty was the Virginia tech incident several years ago, thus proving the efficacy of this policy. Legislators may very well move towards universal placement of SRO's in public schools (providing of course requisite funding is made available) but I don't see any type of armed carry by teachers or support staff ever happening in public K-12 schools here in Tennessee, there is basically no support for that idea anywhere that I am familiar with, this forum and others like it being the exception of course.

My guess, and that's all it is, is that the amount of coverage given to these shootings by both the mainstream media and in particular the various internet forums, blogs, social media sites, etc. have made it more likely that people, especially teens, have been motivated to perform increasingly horrific actions in a perverse attempt to "outdo" others, or to gain their few fleeting moments of fame. As a prerequisite, these many of these same people are sociopaths that have often been medicated with various drugs which may increase those tendencies. Like others, I have no idea what the solution is, it's a fact of life in the security business that the most difficult situation to deal with is the lone gunman who has no regard for life, including his own.

This works well for monopolies. Ammo companies are, of course, not monopolies, however there are a limited number of suppliers, and it's enough of a niche market that it's not likely to draw competition from larger companies looking for market share. Ammunition manufacturing has always been a high volume, low margin industry, if the volume isn't there to keep profits up then the margins have to increase. As for keeping profits up, or even increasing them, isn't that kind of the purpose of any business?

http://k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states#.WoZapXxG2po Some historical data on school shootings ( and the occasional bombing).

Point of fact, statistically the majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by those 25 and under... Yes, the Bath Township school bombing of 1927 remains by far the deadliest mass murder of school children in history. Right in the middle of "the good ole days" ...

Which means it has to be true, of course ...

Nothing new there. The reorganization will result in the creditors getting pennies on the dollar for their bonds and loans, the company will be re-formed under a different corporate structure without the billion dollars in debts of the old company. The holding company will take on new debt obligations, issue new bonds and other types of debt, and in a few years bring the whole cycle around again. Like the owners of Colt, the Cerebrus firm has mastered the art of corporate theft ...

At the rate Tesla is hemorrhaging money, that may not be true for long ...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vietnam-War-Patch-US-Air-Force-4258th-Strategic-Wing-Operation-ARC-LIGHT/362122582608?hash=item5450301a50:g:QbwAAOSwuURZ1juZ https://www.ebay.com/itm/Patch-USAF-4258th-Strategic-Wing-100-MISSIONS-YOUNG-TIGER-Task-Force-Patch/382375062751?hash=item5907546cdf:g:DwsAAOSwVLRaesdD https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=4258th+strategic+wing+patch&FORM=HDRSC2 A few more links I found in a quick search. Hopefully something in there helps.

http://www.ioffer.com/i/4258th-strategic-wing-3rd-air-division-patch-153281250 Maybe that's the one he's thinking of, I have no idea if it's authentic or not.

From a military wiki site, this might help get you going: http://military.wikia.com/wiki/307th_Bomb_Wing Relevant quotes: "The 4258th SW was established by SAC at U-Tapao on 2 June 1966 and attached to the 3d Air Division to supporting deployed Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers that deployed to Thailand from the United States to engage in combat operations over Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. The wing was assigned three maintenance squadrons and received administrative and logistics support from the 635th Combat Support Group of Pacific Air Forces. The following year, the wing added the 4258th Munitions Maintenance Squadron, which enabled it to support Boeing B-52 Stratofortress operations as well." " On 1 April 1970, the 4258th SW was discontinued and replaced by the 307th Strategic Wing which assumed its mission, personnel, and equipment on 1 February 1963.[2] The 4258th's maintenance squadrons were replaced by ones with the 307th numerical designation of the newly established wing. Each of the new units assumed the personnel, equipment, and mission of its predecessor. The 307th was the only regular Air Force SAC Wing stationed in Southeast Asia." Also this: