Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 8:15 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 7:44 pm Addendum

How much do teachers make an hour in Texas?
On average, Texas teachers make about $19 per hour. Pay typically fluctuates based on experience level, grade level, and more.

https://www.teachersoftomorrow.org/texa ... mum-salary

That $19 hourly figure is inconsistent with the average annual figures given for Houston ($60,000) and Austin ($55,000). It is consistent with the given starting salaries for teachers with BAs and 0 years experience.

Robert66 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 7:06 pm
You are also right about public education. To that end I encourage people, especially US citizens, to learn exactly what is preventing progress toward reasonable gun control. The Republican party, which surprisingly large numbers vote for, is the massive "roadblock" in the way of gun law reform. Obama and Biden proposed reasonable legislative change post-Sandy Hook, and they were voted down in Congress by 6 votes. Today Biden would need the support of 10 Republicans, a snowflakes chance in hell you might say.

Does this mean Republican voters are bad people, or merely gullible, accepting the lies they are fed? I say the latter, In 2000, 38% of Republicans surveyed believed gun rights were more important than gun control. By 2019 that figure had reached 80%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ince-2017/

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 8:24 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 8:15 pm
That $19 hourly figure is inconsistent with the average annual figures given for Houston ($60,000) and Austin ($55,000). It is consistent with the given starting salaries for teachers with BAs and 0 years experience.

It is perfectly consistent with the figures given in the article, with a start at 33,600.

Where did you dream up your numbers?
Is there city "loading" due to it being more expensive to live in Houston and Austin?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 8:57 pm If teachers are expected to be armed, capable and willing to take out intruders without hesitation, then $60k too may prove to be nowhere near enough.

You started this thread as a disgraceful provocation based on lies. While you are having your change of heart, why not admit this?

Amend­ment II

A well regu­lated Mili­tia, being neces­sary to the secur­ity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling in a New York gun rights case that will likely expand the scope of protec­tions the Second Amend­ment affords indi­vidual gun owners who want to carry a gun outside of their resid­ences. The biggest ques­tion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Asso­ci­ation v. Bruen may not be whether a major­ity of justices strike down the state’s century-old hand­gun licens­ing require­ment but how far that major­ity goes in signal­ing that other licens­ing meas­ures created by govern­ment offi­cials are now consti­tu­tion­ally suspect..........

he current Supreme Court is far more conser­vat­ive and far more friendly to gun rights than the one that first recog­nized a personal right to bear arms under the Second Amend­ment in District Columbia v. Heller in 2008. Or the Supreme Court that acknow­ledged two years later in McDon­ald v. Chicago that such protec­tions apply to state laws and regu­la­tions as well. Gone since then is Justice Ruth Bader Gins­burg, a foe of expan­ded gun rights. In her place is Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose view of the Second Amend­ment is viewed by many as even more expans­ive than that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of Heller.

For many years after the Heller and McDon­ald decisions, Justice Clar­ence Thomas, an extreme gun rights supporter, urged his colleagues on the Court over and over again to accept more Second Amend­ment chal­lenges to exist­ing gun laws. He wanted the Supreme Court to use the newly recog­nized “personal” right under the Second Amend­ment to sweep away regu­la­tions restrict­ing the posses­sion and use of fire­arms. And for many years, until the arrival of the three justices nomin­ated by Pres­id­ent Donald Trump, Thomas’s colleagues rejec­ted those attempts.........

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 9:35 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 8:57 pm If teachers are expected to be armed, capable and willing to take out intruders without hesitation, then $60k too may prove to be nowhere near enough.

I expect any teachers willing and capable of taking on that role would receive some additional salary.

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 9:19 pm

Robert66 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 7:06 pm
You are also right about public education. To that end I encourage people, especially US citizens, to learn exactly what is preventing progress toward reasonable gun control. The Republican party, which surprisingly large numbers vote for, is the massive "roadblock" in the way of gun law reform. Obama and Biden proposed reasonable legislative change post-Sandy Hook, and they were voted down in Congress by 6 votes. Today Biden would need the support of 10 Republicans, a snowflakes chance in hell you might say.

Does this mean Republican voters are bad people, or merely gullible, accepting the lies they are fed? I say the latter, In 2000, 38% of Republicans surveyed believed gun rights were more important than gun control. By 2019 that figure had reached 80%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ince-2017/

The more that crime, riots, "defund police," prosecutors who refuse to prosecute, and other consequences of lefty ideology increase, the more important gun rights appear to many people.

While some Repubs do indeed oppose "reasonable" gun control measures, such as universal background checks, most support them --- 82%, according to your own source (compared to 91% of Dems). They do oppose the other two "control" measures widely advocated, namely, limiting magazine size and banning "assault weapons." That is likely because neither of those is "reasonable," if that is taken to mean they will have a measurable impact on mass shootings. They won't. Another proposal being floated in the wake of the Buffalo and Texas shootings is to restrict sale of rifles to persons 21 or older, because both of those shooters were 18 years old. Two US federal appeals courts have already struck down such laws in other states.

The trouble is, none of the proposed "do something" remedies is "reasonable," if that is taken to mean "effective." They are merely grandstanding.

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑December 14th, 2012, 7:21 pm First the Second:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I could not watch the news this morning save for only one story: 27 people, 20 of which were children between 5-10 years old were gunned down by a lone gunman who also killed his mother who was teaching the children at the time. THE PROVOCATION: Gun control advocates can now celebrate {cynicism intentional}. Again they will start to call for more draconian anti-gun laws to protect the public - But will this really protect the public? Australia after a similar incident some years ago outlawed all guns. THE LIE: And then the crime rate went up so high they had to rescind the law. In the USA with many millions of guns already in the hands of the public a gun ban would cause, to use an old saying: "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

So how can 'we the people' be protected from the lone mad gunman determined to kill? We can not be protected completely, both guns and for that matter life itself is dangerous. Recently a lone swordsman dispatched a bunch of people in Japan and don't forget terrorist bombers who kill many more with no guns at all. So what do we do? If we took the Second Amendment literally and allowed the the right of the people to bear arms, this mass murder scenario would end. If enough of the 'well armed militia' was in fact armed the public would no longer be subjected to mass murderers; they could be stopped before their carnage was complete. To quote a somewhat controversial politician of years past" "A well armed society is a polite society" -G. Gordon Liddy

Robert66 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 7:06 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 4:46 am

Robert66 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 4:01 am

Belindi wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 3:47 am

That 18 year old would be a hard nut to crack. However if I had the public ear as does the minister at the church I'd teach that the fellowship of the congregation makes each individual stronger to act for the good of all. Then I'd teach how social control that includes non-gun ownership is safer for all individuals. I'd then propose that our little congregation make public via the local press and social media that we support non-gun ownership. I'd encourage dialogue between minister and members of the congregation in the knowledge that my mentor Jesus of Nazareth is already an icon of goodness for the congregation . I'd throw open the doors of dialogue to emergency room medics, and ministers of other sects and denominations.

If I were a school headmaster, or a tutor of student teachers I'd teach similarly, and show where true courage is.

In short, public education is the answer. To ensure the general public are educated about gun control needs individuals who, ideally already influential, will be brave enough to raise their heads above the parapet.

Are you kidding? The pastor has a loaded pistol strapped under his cassock! The public ear is hearing (in some places) that teachers should also be armed. The headmaster is hiding in their office, and Jesus aint been seen for some time - if he did return he would probably have to rethink the "turn the other cheek" idea.

Your objection is justified. I doubt if I personally would have the courage to be that sort of pastor. There was one. Martin Luther King who was that sort of pastor within living memory. Don't people in church pray for the courage to do right? The buck has to start somewhere.

You are right Belindi. Most churchgoers are doing what is right. The pastor I mentioned was likely of an evangelic church, and these evangelic churches should be ashamed of their opposition to gun law reform.

You are also right about public education. To that end I encourage people, especially US citizens, to learn exactly what is preventing progress toward reasonable gun control. The Republican party, which surprisingly large numbers vote for, is the massive "roadblock" in the way of gun law reform. Obama and Biden proposed reasonable legislative change post-Sandy Hook, and they were voted down in Congress by 6 votes. Today Biden would need the support of 10 Republicans, a snowflakes chance in hell you might say.

Does this mean Republican voters are bad people, or merely gullible, accepting the lies they are fed? I say the latter, In 2000, 38% of Republicans surveyed believed gun rights were more important than gun control. By 2019 that figure had reached 80%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ince-2017/

The Republican party has been molded by sinister forces, with many thousands of deaths resulting.

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 9:26 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 8:24 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 8:15 pm
That $19 hourly figure is inconsistent with the average annual figures given for Houston ($60,000) and Austin ($55,000). It is consistent with the given starting salaries for teachers with BAs and 0 years experience.

It is perfectly consistent with the figures given in the article, with a start at 33,600.

Starting salaries are not average salaries.

Where did you dream up your numbers?
Is there city "loading" due to it being more expensive to live in Houston and Austin?

They are from your link: "Additionally, Texas teachers working in Houston earn $60,000 on average, while those in Austin may earn $55,000 on average."

Belindi wrote: ↑June 4th, 2022, 5:14 am Being gullible or ignorant despite being a cause of bad behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour even if you have not been to a good school and even if you had bad parents.

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 4th, 2022, 9:58 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑June 4th, 2022, 5:14 am Being gullible or ignorant despite being a cause of bad behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour even if you have not been to a good school and even if you had bad parents.

I fully agree. But would you agree that also holds for "the poor"? Most lefties would not.

Hundreds of news stories have been written during the past month reporting on the 100-year anniversary of one of the darkest events in world history, a two-year killing spree that claimed the lives of an estimated 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians.

Virtually none of these news stories, however, bothered to mention why the Armenians were defenseless against their rulers in the then-Ottoman Empire: because the Ottomans had disarmed them — the same tool that would enable the Nazis, two decades later, to enslave and then slaughter European Jewry.........Ottoman law made it a crime to possess a firearm without government permission. The Armenians, as British traveler H.F.B. Lynch wrote in 1901, were "rigorously prohibited from possessing firearms."

In Germany, the process started in a far more innocuous fashion. Political turmoil in the Weimar Republic between Communist and Nazi extremists led to the enactment of firearms restrictions requiring citizens to obtain government permission, under arbitrary standards, to obtain firearms. Of course, only law-abiding citizens bothered to do so.

At the end of 1931, firearm registration was imposed. And just over a year later, in 1933, Adolf Hitler seized power. The Nazis immediately used the registration records to disarm and crush the Social Democrats and other political opponents that they castigated as "enemies of the state." The era of concentration camps had begun.

The Jews' turn came in the fall of 1938, when the Nazis turned up the heat on the Jewish community, seizing economic assets and working to expel them from the country.

The seeds of the Holocaust were being planted. Police in Berlin and throughout Germany ordered all Jews to turn in their firearms. Thanks to registration records, they knew who they were. Many lined up at police stations to surrender their guns; those who didn't had their houses ransacked and were arrested.

Once the Jews were disarmed, the trap was set. Kristallnacht, or the Night of the Broken Glass, erupted. Storm trooper thugs vandalized Jewish homes and stores and torched synagogues. Jews were beaten and murdered. Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, decreed that gun possession by a Jew was punishable by 20 years in a concentration camp. Some 20,000 Jewish men were incarcerated.

Then war came, and by 1942 the "final solution of the Jewish question." Jews were searched for arms one last time and then deported to the death camps. Six million were murdered.

The Armenian genocide and the Holocaust are not the only instances in which brutal despots have disarmed their victims and then murdered them.

Similar tactics were used in Stalin's Russia, Idi Amin's Uganda, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Americans need to keep such events in mind the next time Washington seeks to limit gun ownership rights — or seeks to require gun registration. One cannot argue with history.

Stephen P. Halbrook is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif., and author of the book, "Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and 'Enemies of the State' " (The Independent Institute). Readers may write him at The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 10:11 pm If I was a teacher I would change to a safer profession. No amount of money would be enough.