"Because teachers are not Allowed to CARRY A GUN, their SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is removed. Now YOU need to stop pretending that is Not the topic."


 I never disagreed with you on that.  I very specifically agreed with you about the 2nd Amendment rights.

 I will not however agree that the words you used BEFORE like "Stripped" of their "Right" to "PROTECT themselves".   That is a lie, they can defend themselves.

 If you can't figure out the difference between "2nd Amendment rights" and "Defending themselves" then I don't know what to tell you.  Keep screaming about it, maybe you will figure out different words mean different things.  

 Why would anyone want to have a discussion if the wording is specifically chosen to be inaccurate from the start?

 "That is THE TOPIC, and the ability to defend themselves
Against THAT THREAT, is Stripped away from them."

 "Ability."

 I already addressed his with MnSpring.  Mixing "ability" with "Right" is either intentionally misleading or categorically wrong.  

 I agree that restricting firearms while at work from teachers limits their "Ability" to use a gun, and restricts their "Right" to bear a firearm.  

 But in order to have a discussion, not a complaint session, I would have to recognize that only the 2nd Amendment Rights are being restricted and not other Rights.  Saying that other forms of protection are "stripped" is incorrect.  Type it however you want, I won't be saying that anything more than 2nd Amendment Rights are being restricted.

 
"You pretend I'm NOT understanding they can hit them?"

 I don't know what you understand, you argue that wind power failed on power grids with no wind power, so I go with what you type here, which is why I reference Your words.

"Seeing as how you don’t believe,
Depriving a person,
of a Right.
Does not deprive them of the ability to defend themselves."

 Again you ignore that I am clarifying "right" from "ability".  You are freely mixing the two.

 A person without a gun does have the "RIGHT" to defend themselves.  They lack the "ABILITY" to do it with a firearms.  Their "RIGHT" to defend has not been stripped.


"What do you teach,
    to a person,
who has no Club, Knife, Gun.
and the aggressor HAS a Club, Knife, or Gun.

So they can defend themselves,
against someone having a
   Club, Knife, or Gun ?"

 There is a multitude of things that can be done, none as effective as using a firearm at an appropriate range or "gap" that allows the usage of a gun.  But if their "RIGHT" is stripped, they can do nothing unless they have a gun.  Their "RIGHT" is removed and as such must allow criminals to harm them and anyone around them or at a minimum act in a method that is not protective or considered "defense".

 Why is it so hard to be honest and say removing guns only removes the ability to use guns and restricts the 2nd Amendment right?  Why do we have to add all other forms of self-preservation?