I'll give you another tidbit from Scalia in Heller:
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
This of course is leading up to a defense of the notion that one of the proper purposes of the Second Amendment is for protection against governments. To wit Scalia says regarding the times in 1788 when the Constitution was being argued:
It was understood across the political spectrum [Federalist and anti Federalist] that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
.....................
That there was actual security at the Columbine and VA Tech events which might have prevented them but did not.
Yes. The more a society needs heavily armed guards at every public event, ready to shoot any crazy assault rifle carrying person the minute they make a move, the better and more secure that society is. There is no other way.
That was not beastie's argument, at first. She argues that security was there and so it did not matter if even there is trained armed personel. The premise is flawed because:
1) I never proposed that there be armed guards anywhere. I merely propose that law abiding citizens have the right to choose when and where they will be armed.
2) Security was not on the scene in each of those events, the one Columbine security guard being at lunch, etc.
3) Her solution erroneously assumes (even if the original erroneous assumption is correct) that no armed person or persons could have stopped these events and doesn't take into account the NUMEROUS and almost infinite (by comparison) events in which guns have saved lives, protected property, prevented rape, etc.
In other words, the only real nuts here are those proposing a disarmed or weaker armed law-abiding citizenry.
I suppose that the Church Handbook of Instructions mandates bishops to make sure that every meeting house has at least two people armed with automatic weapons on the lookout all the time a service is in progress?
I would merely suggest the Church allow any law abiding citizen to be armed anytime, anywhere, in a Church venue. While I do not oppose the right of the Church or other private organizations to ban guns on the premises (recall that most schools are public, not private), I strongly recommend against it, LDS Church or otherwise.
And this has to do with a discussion on the 2nd amendment how?
How many armed and law abiding citizens were there on the scene in each case? Where there any rules that discouraged any law abiding citizen from being armed? It has plenty to do with the Second Amendment.
There is a term that comes to mind when I think of a society where everyone has to go around armed all the time.
Failed state.
Anyone who knows history would think free state. Of course when you add in warlordism (such as Islam) you get a failed state. But if there is a US-like Constitution that is being upheld, the armed law abiding citizens are in a free state.