Israel is also the size of New Jersey, with compulsory military service for all citizens. Finding qualified guards there would be easier than placing an armed guard in each school in rural Texas. There are 98,755 public schools in the US. And there are always going to be other soft targets. Can't arm everyone, no matter how much some would like that.

Always fun when people with know knowledge of the law try to make arguments about it.

First off, the amendments are not ranked. Freedom of speech is not more important to the right to a speedy trial. The order is irrelevant.

More importantly, the government can absolutely infringe on any constitutional right. Even ignoring the vast interpretation issues of holding the second amendment to protect modern weapons, rights are not absolute. Statutes that potentially infringe on constitutional rights are subject to strict scrutiny, generally. If a statute is related to a legitimate public concern and is the narrowest away to achieve that goal, then it can be passed. Because common sense. Only a complete putz would think freedom of speech means you can say anything anywhere at anytime, or that the right to bear arms means you could have any weapon at any time in any place. Gun free zones have repeatedly been upheld as constitutional. And of course the second Amendment is an AMENDMENT. That means we changed the constitution, and we could do so again. We've done it 34 times. The Constitution isn't a tablet from mount sinai. 

As for school free zones, the last shootings have been at a McDonalds, not a gun free zone, a church, not a gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, a private residence, not a gun free zone, at a small, not a gun free zone, the New York City subway, not a gun free zone, downtown Sacramento, not a gun free zone, a park, not a gun free zone, a high school, gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, a concert, not a gun free zone, the VTA, not a gun free zone to my knowledge, a trailer park, not a gun free zone, a Fed Ex, not a gun free zone, a private residence, not a gun free zone, an office building, not a gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, and a spa, not a gun free zone.

So, at best, abolishing gun free zones would have prevented 2 of the last 20 mass shootings.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. 

Notice that I said, "I personally don't think teachers should be forced to carry guns" and "Albeit all Israelis are conscripted into the military for two years." 

Also notice how I never advocated arming everyone. My original proposal was to replace police (who are white-supremacist or at the very least have implicit bias and are unreliable at protecting people anyway) with community defense organizations that are actually tasked with protecting people and not merely enforcing property law. 

Can the Federal government "infringe" to the scale where they follow other countries (e.g. license to bear arms). No? OK

Did you read where I said and "or zones with low arms bearing"(which is just an unintended gun free zone) and this should be discouraged/avoided. No? OK

You really believe the constuition is not written in order of importance? No? Ok

I didn't say you said either of those things. I didn't even mention teachers, I was referring to guards.

What was the point in replying to my post specifically? The only reason I even mentioned guards was to add the fact-check correction. I wasn't supporting the idea of guards in schools and mentioned earlier in this thread that I don't support the idea. I even acknowledged that Israel had conscription with the implication that it makes it easier to find qualified individuals. 

My personal thinking is more on the lines of what is outlined in this book: 

https://truthout.org/articles/examining-the-role-of-community-armed-self-defense-in-an-era-of-gun-violence/

Setting Sights takes an intersectional approach to community armed self-defense by examining Indigenous resistance in North America; women’s suffrage; Black liberation movements; LGBTQIA movements; anti-racist, poor, white movements; and anarchist organizing. The theory section features Neal Shirley, Kristian Williams, Peter Little, Chad Kautzer, J. Clark, Ashanti Alston, the Western Unit Tactical Defense Caucus, Leslie James Pickering, Gustavo Rodriguez and the North Carolina Piece Corps. The history section features Paul Avrich, Shawn Stevenson, Anti-Fascist Action UK, Helge Döhring, Gabriel Kuhn, Lamont Carter, David Cecelski, Kathleen Cleaver, Mabel Williams, Angela Davis, Akinyele Omowale Umoja, Nikki Craft, Gord Hill, Dennis Banks, Michele Rene Weston, Laura Gallery, Subcomandante Marcos, Suncere Shakur, Simón Sedillo, Mo Karnage, George Ciccariello-Maher, Dave Strano, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, Alexander Reid Ross and Ian LaVallee.

 ---

On the discussion of gun control, author Neal Shirley points out that white supremacy pervades the right-wing as well as liberal perspective of the debate. Shirley explains that many right-wingers are “notoriously racist” and National Rifle Association (NRA) literature often promotes “fear of people of color,” with NRA pamphlets hinting at an impending “race war to come.” Looking at the liberal perspective, Shirley notes, “white liberals use gun control to legislate the freedoms of communities of color,” which “give racist cops one more thing with which to harass, detain, arrest, and brutalize people of color.”

Yes, I believe the constitution is not written in order of importance, because I've studied constitutional law. Please find me one source that indicates freedoms guaranteed by an amendment that comes first is more protected. The right to not have the government lock you in prison, take all your shit, and kill you for no reason is in the fifth amendment. You think the right not to quarter soldiers is more important? "Fine, lock me in jail, take everything I owen, and put a spike through my head, but YOU BETTER NOT MAKE ME LET A SOLDIER SLEEP ON MY FOUTON!!!" LMAO. Stop embarassing yourself.

A gun free zone is a zone where it is illegal to own a firearm. There is no such thing as an unintented gun free zone. We have less low arms bearing zones than any other country, and the most gun violence. We already have more gun owners than anywhere else, so encouraging more doesn't seem to be a viable solution. And by the way, why do you think a supermarket in South Carolina, a McDonalds in fucking Chicago, or a supermarket in Tennessee are particularly low gun areas? Do you have any evidence of a correlation between low gun ownership areas and high mass shootings? Because in states where there are more guns, where you would naturally have less, "unintended gun free zones LMFAO" tend to have more mass shootings. So, stop pulling shit out of your ass.

I did not say the government could change the laws to match other countries, but they could get a lot closer. There are plenty of laws that would be constitutional, but are blocked because they are politically unpopular. Background checks have been upheld as constitutional. Justice fucking Alito wrote a decision that background checks are ok, and he ain't exactly a liberal.

You don't have any fucking idea what you're talking about, and you're embarassing yourself. 

Do you have reports/studies that show the more people legally armed in an area(zone)the more likely a mass shooting occurs and more deadly the mass shooting? No? Ok

You've already been presented with some of this data:

To quote the two studies mentioned in the Politifact link (emphasis added):

Study 1 - edworkingpaper-cover-21-476 (edworkingpapers.com)

In other words, armed guards make school shootings more likely according to this study.

Study 2 - Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980-2019 | Emergency Medicine | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

In other words, armed guards make school shootings more deadly according to this study.

I find it quite bold of you to state that we have no data showing these things when you have already been personally presented several of these studies in this very thread. At the very least, these studies indicate that the opposite hypothesis (armed guards reduce shootings and reduce deaths) is unlikely as even if you are unable to draw a causal link from this, to draw a causal link from a negative correlative link seems extremely unlikely (that is even though a and b often happen together, a doesn't necessarily lead to b, but it will be hard to argue that a prevents b given the data).