[Glenn E. Meyer]

Aaron and others - get off the issue of the state mandate. That's not the debate. Again.

Also, my use of 'you' is generic as compared to the individual. I apologize if that is not clear.

I should have said: If one, blah, blah.

MTT summarizes it well.

About saving yourself, most training suggests that is the prime goal. However, in the school carry debates, we cannot avoid the subtext that the carrier will be a sheepdog. That's what's suggested repeatedly, overtly or implied.

And as I said before, the training objection is thrown in my face. Thus, there is a great inconsistency.

We train to save ourselves. But when we argue for school carry - we don't necessarily say that we will flee in terror or hide. We say that we will protect others. Then, if we imply that we must imply competency.

One might argue for school carry just an extension of removing all carry bans (my view). But if we argue for doing it in schools, then in the next breath do we say we won't get involved? We hide or flee?

What argument do you present? Then if you say we get involved, do we say the Constitution supports the right to be gun clown but I won't take the step not to be such?