Are you watching the NRA press conference?

It's can't be debated that the 2nd Amendment gives the citizens the right to own a gun - when it was written the times were very different, protecting your person, your family and property and yes, defending yourself against your own government - the founding fathers weren't that confident that what they set up would work/last. and it didn't, a Civil War was fought.

BUT............... while the Amendment does give citizens the right to bear arms, it doesn't say you have the right to bear ALL or ANY arms. Supreme Court has held that states can legislate restrictions on gun/arms ownership.

What happens when we start producing incredible high tech guns - guns that have guided bullets that can go down your street, turn the corner, travel cross town, and right through your cheating girlfriend's window? NRA will defend ownership of them.

Defending yourself and your family, your property - a shotgun or handgun will do the job.

Another self proclaimed genius chimes in. Why are there so many intellectuals here that don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

Wow what a pathetic attempt to defend yourself. In your case the sword would be mightier, because you don't seem to be able to form an arguement based on facts.

The meaning and origin of the saying ? The pen is mightier than the sword?
Definitions abound, but all allude to the same principle that it is more sensible to resolve a conflict by the use of words and communication rather than by physical conflict and confrontation.

This saying is attributed in this form by all sources to Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1839, from his play Richelieu.

Verbatim
? Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! - itself a nothing! -
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Caesars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! - Take away the sword -
States can be saved without it!?

The concept of communication rather than confrontation as a method of resolving conflicts has been around for many many years, but worded somewhat differently.
Here are a few examples.

Euripides 400+ BC ? The tongue is mightier than the blade.....?

Prophet Muhammad ? The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr...?

Shakespeare 1600 ?Many wearing rapiers are afraid of goosequills?

Cicero ?arms yield to persuasion?

This, is however, not a philosophy adopted by all, as the numbers of current global conflicts bear witness to. On the other side..

?Actions speak louder than words?

Terry Pratchett ? Only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp?

General MacArthur ?Whoever thinks the pen is mightier than the sword clearly has never encountered automatic weapons?

I'd say you've taken the phrase out of context to be honest. Some interesting rebuttles aswell.

Let's imagine for a moment that I support the idea of guns in schools, which I do not.

I don't understand it from a logistics standpoint.

My local school is small. As in around 100 kids per grade. The entire thing, K-12, is in a single locked-down campus. You can walk through it all and not go outside. I'm guessing that on average, it is a lot smaller school district than many in the country.

So let's say that we decided that an armed guard was the route to go. And he's there, and he's over in the wing where the kindergarten is. Way on the other side of the school, a high schooler comes in tardy, buzzing in through the only entrance they can come in. The office buzzes him in, he enters, takes his gun out, and starts firing into the nearest classroom.

How has having someone armed helped? Yes, the guard will eventually get there. But enough time will have passed that lots of kids are going to dead. And the guard may well take out the shooter out, and prevent more deaths.

But I can't see how that makes it better for the kids that got killed in the time that it took for the guard to get there.

I have considered that the idea of an armed guard being there might deter the shooter in the first place. But is that realistic? I don't know that people who go in to do a mass shooting think rationally, or if they do, have real expectations that they will come out alive and get away.

no, not realistic, they want to baby proof the world

Let's imagine for a moment that I support the idea of guns in schools, which I do not.

I don't understand it from a logistics standpoint.

My local school is small. As in around 100 kids per grade. The entire thing, K-12, is in a single locked-down campus. You can walk through it all and not go outside. I'm guessing that on average, it is a lot smaller school district than many in the country.

So let's say that we decided that an armed guard was the route to go. And he's there, and he's over in the wing where the kindergarten is. Way on the other side of the school, a high schooler comes in tardy, buzzing in through the only entrance they can come in. The office buzzes him in, he enters, takes his gun out, and starts firing into the nearest classroom.

How has having someone armed helped? Yes, the guard will eventually get there. But enough time will have passed that lots of kids are going to dead. And the guard may well take out the shooter out, and prevent more deaths.

But I can't see how that makes it better for the kids that got killed in the time that it took for the guard to get there.

I have considered that the idea of an armed guard being there might deter the shooter in the first place. But is that realistic? I don't know that people who go in to do a mass shooting think rationally, or if they do, have real expectations that they will come out alive and get away.

He/they would probably still get there faster than the other guys that would be called on the phone who would then have to drive to get there.

It's can't be debated that the 2nd Amendment gives the citizens the right to own a gun - when it was written the times were very different, protecting your person, your family and property and yes, defending yourself against your own government - the founding fathers weren't that confident that what they set up would work/last. and it didn't, a Civil War was fought.

BUT............... while the Amendment does give citizens the right to bear arms, it doesn't say you have the right to bear ALL or ANY arms. Supreme Court has held that states can legislate restrictions on gun/arms ownership.

What happens when we start producing incredible high tech guns - guns that have guided bullets that can go down your street, turn the corner, travel cross town, and right through your cheating girlfriend's window? NRA will defend ownership of them.

Defending yourself and your family, your property - a shotgun or handgun will do the job.

Agreed. But that does not mean that there is not going to be lots of deaths before he gets there.

And I say that assuming perfect conditions...that we have a real, trained cop/ex-military...not some wanna-be-cop.

Let's imagine for a moment that I support the idea of guns in schools, which I do not.

I don't understand it from a logistics standpoint.

My local school is small. As in around 100 kids per grade. The entire thing, K-12, is in a single locked-down campus. You can walk through it all and not go outside. I'm guessing that on average, it is a lot smaller school district than many in the country.

So let's say that we decided that an armed guard was the route to go. And he's there, and he's over in the wing where the kindergarten is. Way on the other side of the school, a high schooler comes in tardy, buzzing in through the only entrance they can come in. The office buzzes him in, he enters, takes his gun out, and starts firing into the nearest classroom.

How has having someone armed helped? Yes, the guard will eventually get there. But enough time will have passed that lots of kids are going to dead. And the guard may well take out the shooter out, and prevent more deaths.

But I can't see how that makes it better for the kids that got killed in the time that it took for the guard to get there.

I have considered that the idea of an armed guard being there might deter the shooter in the first place. But is that realistic? I don't know that people who go in to do a mass shooting think rationally, or if they do, have real expectations that they will come out alive and get away.

Okay, thanks.

I feel pretty strongly about what I believe. But I am also willing to listen to the other side to see if I'm missing something. I just can't see how that is a good idea.

Let's imagine for a moment that I support the idea of guns in schools, which I do not.

I don't understand it from a logistics standpoint.

My local school is small. As in around 100 kids per grade. The entire thing, K-12, is in a single locked-down campus. You can walk through it all and not go outside. I'm guessing that on average, it is a lot smaller school district than many in the country.

So let's say that we decided that an armed guard was the route to go. And he's there, and he's over in the wing where the kindergarten is. Way on the other side of the school, a high schooler comes in tardy, buzzing in through the only entrance they can come in. The office buzzes him in, he enters, takes his gun out, and starts firing into the nearest classroom.

How has having someone armed helped? Yes, the guard will eventually get there. But enough time will have passed that lots of kids are going to dead. And the guard may well take out the shooter out, and prevent more deaths.

But I can't see how that makes it better for the kids that got killed in the time that it took for the guard to get there.

I have considered that the idea of an armed guard being there might deter the shooter in the first place. But is that realistic? I don't know that people who go in to do a mass shooting think rationally, or if they do, have real expectations that they will come out alive and get away.

Funny you should say that as I have seen many cops that had terrible aim at the range.