A Virginia state legislator wants a requirement for public schools to offer gun training to school officials — teachers, administrators, principals — who want to receive it.
Delegate Bob Marshall (R) told CNN this morning that he’s received e-mails from school officials who want to do this.
But CNN, however, introduced him as a GOP lawmaker whose proposal would require teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons in schools. Marshall quickly corrected the anchor.
“In Virginia, we do have police. We call them community resource officers, right now, who are in the public schools. It’s predominantly secondary schools. In Virginia, we do allow parents or relatives to go on school grounds right now with a concealed carry permit, provided you stay in the car. There have been no incidents at all that are adverse to anybody,” he said. “In 2006, the incidence of gun related crimes was 79 per 100,000. It’s now dropped to 57 per 100,000. In the same time, gun purchases have increased 73 percent.”
Marshall previously had introduced legislation to allow professors who have concealed carry permits to carry on campus in Virginia — thus giving a line of defense against assailants like the Virginia Tech shooter — but it did not pass.”
“The political elite in this city has their children in schools with armed guards. Nobody is begrudging them that. I’m thankful that they do. We just need to have the same protection that they have for themselves applying to the rest of America,” he said.
Still, anchor Alina Cho hammered the delegate with polling on gun control and played a clip of a man at the Tucson shooting that gravely wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords (D), who said he almost accidentally shot a guy who was trying to disarm shooter Jared Loughner.
“When you talk about that training, I mean, these teachers are taught to teach, not to shoot guns, and perhaps some of that training, should they choose to undergo it, would certainly help, but mistakes are made even with the best training,” Cho said.
“In the United States, in states which pass legislation requiring the issuance concealed carry permits, the incidence of crime dropped significantly in those states. So I don’t see that that’s necessarily a bad result,” Marshall said.
“You’re talking about teachers, who — and particularly in this case, if you look at Sandy Hook, who are trained to teach kids 6, 7 years old, and you’re talking about them possibly carrying concealed weapons,” Cho continued. “…What about the solution being more gun control, tighter laws on buying a gun? You know, public opinion is shifting toward that, as you saw earlier. Why not have that as the solution?”
Marshall noted that the commonwealth does have background checks, and noted that there’s a rush to buy guns not seen even after the 9/11 terror attacks.
“There is now because people are fearful that the 2nd Amendment guarantee of right of gun ownership is going to be abrogated here because of this horrible event,” he said.
And even after all the clarification by the Virginia lawmaker, Cho closed the segment by saying his proposal would arm teachers in schools.
“Some teachers,” Marshall corrected.
Also read: NRA Chief: Why Can’t You See That Armed School Guards Is a Good Idea?





The press abuses its freedoms and it destroys the lives of those whom they target when they do so–witness Richard Jewell, hero made into villain, with no great apology ever given.
Just as I do not support the NRA if it is trying to stigmatize another group that has done no great wrong in order to save it’s own freedoms, so I think that if the press wishes for denial of freedoms when bad things happen, then it is time to revisit libel law. Especially given the way bias in media near universally is of a liberal sort. If monopoly of the corporate money-making kind is bad, can not the same thing be said in the sphere of journalism, of opinion? Is the public truly served with half the populace feeling distrustful of major institutions, feeling as if they have no say, no chance of not being nearly universally mocked, both themselves and their ideals? Do we need anti-trust action of the free speech kind here? Do we need quotas? For those have all been remedies for past abuses. Why not for the press? I mean, if we are going to decide the Bill of Rights is of an advisory nature only, then let’s truly start looking at troublesome issues across the spectrum, from First Amendment to Fourteenth, Fourteenth to last.
What would have been Cho’s reaction to curtailing media coverage of certain shootings to reduce copy-cat crimes? Frothing at the mouth? Going postal with indignation?
Funny how it changes when your ox is being gored.
Why not restrict coverage of mass murders? It can’t hurt and might help. Why not rate video games for violence? That would help with those that have trouble with reality, such as TV anchors that are brainless twits.
The root of the problem is social. How many shooter come from single parent homes?
And the biggest taboo of all, How many are homosexual?
Why is the media avoiding those two questions?
Their opinion will no doubt change if someone breaks into their newsroom and starts shooting. Then they’ll think all reporters should be allowed concealed carry by law.
Just like back in the late 20th century, after a shooting in SF in a building full of lawyers. They tried to make new law making the shooting of a lawyer a specially heinous crime, on the level of shooting a police officer.
It’s always a different story when it happens to you.
I have been to quite a few buildings where many of these elite broadcasters and MSM companies record & broadcast their tripe. Most are built and manned like a fortress with armed guards, gates and security checkpoints at all entry points and key areas. However, the idea of training educated, motivated teachers in concealed carry or even uniformed officers “for the children” is way too much to ask for.
I couldn’t dream of more hypocrisy in a work of fiction.
Peace
Another point – why give celebrity status to murderers? That’s what these prison-based television programs are doing. Some low-life degenerate murders someone, and what happens next? A TV crew is there so we can see his sad story about how he was abused by daddy, or abandoned by mommy, and that’s why he turned into a low-life. I don’t discount the impact that a bad childhood can have on a person, but why must the media insist on glorifying these degenerates?
When the goal is NOT the safety of the children but the implementation of total control, then surely asking the right questions is a non-starter.
There is little doubt that every time a mass killing occurs there are those on the left who are seeing it as a ‘crisis not to be wasted’!
Of course, arming school officials, or hiring armed guards is a no brainer, but again, it is NOT about the kiddies – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/25/domestic-terrorist-bill-ayers-educator-too-exhorts-control-over-the-kiddies-addendum-to-first-they-came-for-the-kiddies-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
The media would never agree. they need the hype and maybe even want the copycats to help them with their anti-gun agenda. I just wonder if any of the victims or their families would drag them into court for encouraging the copy cats.
There is only ONE way to eliminate public school violence.
Oh, and by the way…
Larry Correia refutes the gun controllers once and for all!
Hey Pajamas People, you can stop using Israel as an example now.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/israelis-point-out-flaw-in-nra-ceos-gun-plan.html
Thanks for playing. Next….
Yes, the problems Israel faced are different than the ones we face, and it’s impossible to determine what effect any one policy in their response had, but we do know two things for certain from Israel. 1) They didn’t get reductions in school attacks by implementing gun control, and 2) increasing the number of guns in schools did not increase the number of shootings in schools. Maybe Israel isn’t a good example in support of the guns in schools policy, but it does effectively demolish your arguments against the policy.
This is fun. Any more idiotic statements you want me to beat you over the head with?
None of which changes the facts that Israeli teachers are armed, and there have been no school shootings since the early 70′s.
In fact, it’s even worse for you, since what they are guarding against are terrorists with training and planning, and we’re just talking about guarding against nutjobs bent on press immortality.
Thanks for playing, but you lose. Come back and try again when you have a good argument.
Next!
The point made by the Israeli article is about diagnostics, not the methods employed. These are different threats. Read the article. Think about who has the gun and less about the weapon.
“Israeli teachers are armed”
Not when they’re in school, they’re not. Check again.
Paper, FAIL!
The “Colonel” from the IDF (ret.) actually expects the reader to believe there is a whit of difference between an Islamic Jihadi Muslim “Terrorist” and a mentally ill murderous psycopath. Talk about splitting hairs!
As for a proper defence of schools and children, why is it that the Sidwell school is afforded the protection of 11 (yes, two squads of security plus a commander) security armed with select fire rifles and pistols, yet regular children at public schools are to be treated as fish in a barrel?!
You say, it is because the President’s children go there! True, but the security was there before they went there and will be there after they leave for their Kennedyesque compound in HI.
You my enemy, are a Tory bootlicking useless idiot.
Of course there is a difference in approach to security between the two. The problem is, and I am seeing over and over in these discussions, is we Americans tend to think too much about mechanics of the issue. Israeli approach is much more holistic. If you think about the shooter and less about the weapon, as in the Israeli approach to airport security the differences are much clearer.
A school guard is the last line of defense, not the solution. The defense of the school starts with identifying potential attackers and keeping them from getting weapons in the first place. Obviously with terrorists you go after the terror cell, with shooters like this you need to develop a profile based on past experience and find ways to keep them from attacking in the first place. Some ideas like requiring psychological background check or allowing more lattitude for involuntary confinement have been brought up.
To the guard the most important thing is identifying a threat before it gets to the door. You would be looking for different clues in the two cases. Weapons might be different. Motivations are different which could influence how a guard screens people and deals with people walking in.
Another difference is political. The public will support specific measures differently depending on if the threat is an outside political/military enemy vs a domestic lunatic. This leads to different options available. For example I doubt we will support a guard at an outside gate with a rifle but might if terrorists were infesting the country and doing the kinds of attacks Israel has to deal with.
There are probably other things we can think of. For me the issue boils down to:
- A wallpaper quick fix for the cameras is morally unacceptable. We need a serious approach
- No single idea is going to cover all of it. As with any security issue someones civil liberties are going to be infringed upon.
Alina Cho thinks the gold, silver, and cash in banks are worth guarding, but children aren’t worth guarding.
Banks are designed for security – schools are not. If banks only relied on armed guards for their security, they’re be sitting ducks. Guards in schools is just a stalling tactic – it’ll be shown for what it is at the next school shooting where the first victim is the minimum-wage security guard.
But here’s an idea – how about the fed does indeed employee properly trained (and resourced) armed guards in every public school in america … and that it be funded out of the profits of companies that make and/or sell the weapons that have made it necessary. I think that’s fair.
After all, the NRA is primarily an industry lobby group, and arming schools would otherwise just be a great big industry subsidy (both directly, because they’ll need guns, and indirectly – it is, after all, just a diversion to avoid having to actually control the guns in society).
So sure – put armed guards in schools. But either gun manufacturers and resellers pay for it, or it should be funded out of a yearly registration fee for all firearms.
America is all about responsibility, right? Maybe it’s time that the pro-gun lobby actually start to pay for some of the impacts of its policies.
Sure when the left pays for NPR/PBS, Planned Parenthood and all abortions, all welfare and medical payments for illegal immigrants so on and so forth. I think it only reasonable for the left in both Congress and lefty charities and union dues pay for those activiites that the left so loves.
In fact I think it’s a great idea: the left funds those things that they find so meaningful and the right theirs while we both pay for national defense.
You forgot to include that the left should pay for the prisons, too.
No, the right definitely gets to pay for prisons, particularly as long as asinine “three strikes” laws are on the books. Do that, and california might almost become governable again.
But I like your proposals (as much as it doesn’t affect me). I believe that a suitable scheme has been going around the internet for many years – it’s called “The United States Of Canada vs Jesusland”.
Geographic separation is the only thing that would work. Otherwise the right would just freeload. What – you think none of romney’s 47% vote for republicans? Yeah, right. That would be why he couldn’t even manage McCain’s turnout – he offended a big chunk of his own base. The ones who turned up only did so in order to keep their guns.
Techno, Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? 2nd Amendment supporters make some great points in this debate but you choose sarcasm and inane talking points. And what’s with your disdain for profits? It is the profit motive that is providing your cushy life. The waste and fraud inherent in government controlled activities are always many times any profit available to a private sector industry in a free market.
“Techno, Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? 2nd Amendment supporters make some great points in this debate but you choose sarcasm and inane talking points”
Gosh. Biased much? I think that what you’re trying to say is that you disagree with me.
“And what’s with your disdain for profits? It is the profit motive that is providing your cushy life”
I’m fine with profits, as along as the externalities are covered. And right now, the cost to america from gun violence is not being met by the people who create (and profit from) the problem. Gun manufactures make weapons that can wipe out a room full of children in a minute, but don’t take any responsibility for who gets their hands on them – in fact, they lobby extensively AGAINST controls over who gets their hands on them. Their great solution to the problem that they have created is to tell the government to give them more money – to buy their guns and pay the NRA (their industry lobby group) to train people to carry them. They’re so keen on this solution that they’re even sinking their own money into setting up a management team – call it a loss leader, or maybe just call it trying to make sure they can control whatever happens next. But YOUR well-being is nowhere on their radar.
“The waste and fraud inherent in government controlled activities are always many times any profit available to a private sector industry in a free market”
How on earth can that statement be at all relevant to the subject at hand? But hey, I can play this game if you like – point to me the government corporation that competes with the private sector to build and sell the weapons used to kill US citizens on a daily basis. I agree that it’s inane – but you brought it up.
The NRA is not coming out with their current stance to “increase profits” for any firearms dealers, rather they’re doing it because they are politically savvy and their mission is to protect the 2nd amendment by defeating any and all new gun control laws.
If they really wanted to make a fortune for gun-makers they’d increase the perception that new laws are coming by playing along with the media and administration for awhile. Every time the public fears new laws guns and accessories fly off the shelf by the tens of millions. Do you know how hard it is to find a semi-auto rifle in a gun store in America today? They’ve been flying off the shelves since the election and dramatically faster after Sandy Hook. Shortly after the shooting I had to wait in line an hour before the store in my hometown opened to buy one of their last 3 AR-15 M4 carbine rifles. The line behind me was 20 people long. Standard capacity (30 rnd) magazines are going for something like $80 online and have been sold out of stores for weeks.
Whatever money gun producers might make from arming guards is peanuts compared to what they make every time the Democrats and media start talking about new gun control laws. The NRA is trying to shift the discussion away from that because that’s their job, why they exist, why so many millions of Americans are members. If they just wanted money for gun manufacturers they’d be fanning the flames of the ignorant gun grabbers instead of trying to quench them. If the NRA had their way no politician would have a snowball’s chance in hell of going after any guns, and without the periodic waves of purchases from people fearing new restrictions gun manufacturers would actually make less money. The NRA is a civil rights organization empowered by millions of concerned citizens, not some evil corporate scheme as the left likes to pretend because they can’t stand the truth that so many Americans really care so deeply about our rights.
“If they really wanted to make a fortune for gun-makers they’d increase the perception that new laws are coming by playing along with the media and administration for awhile”
I’m sorry, but … are you in touch with reality AT ALL?
Gun sales and background check spikes – before and after both obama victories.
Jeeze. Who do you reckon’s been telling people that obama’s going to take everyone’s guns? The tooth fairy?
What about the solution being more gun control, tighter laws on buying a gun? You know, public opinion is shifting toward that, as you saw earlier. Why not have that as the solution?
Because it doesn’t work you twit.
Looks like you’ll need to arm fire fighters as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/24/fire-trap-gunman-dead-after-killing-2-firefighters-at-scene-western-ny-blaze/
Let’s see how long it takes the NRA to propose it. Anything at all to prevent “law-abiding citizens” from having to stop and reload every few shots – an unacceptable infringement, to be sure.
-Law abiding people need hi cap mags because the bad guys have them. How can i defend my two sons against an MS13 with his fast n furious AK without enough firepower to overcome him?what if there are multiple threats? U can choose to be a sitting duck; I want to have a fighting chance.
So … you carry around an M60? Seriously?
No, really – since you brought it up. I assume that by your chest-puffing that you go about armed at all times. So what is this “firepower” that you think you need in case the khmer rouge comes a-knocking?
Well he’d certainly have access to it in the home, and could potentially carry it around in the trunk of his car in most states. Riots, natural disasters, etc do make for situations where having something like that in the home or business has helped dissuade the opportunistic in the past.
He also makes a very valid point that if this administration wants to talk about gun control, they should start by releasing all those documents related to their deliberate arming of the Mexican drug cartels that they now claim “executive privilege” on. Obama actively helps cover up the deliberate arming of criminal organizations by his administration, then tears up over sandy hook, where’s the tears for those dead children in Mexico, facilitated by his own ATF? Where’s the justice for them? Coming totally clean with that should be a starting point for any discussion of gun control.
I agree with you about the ATF fubar, but it’s not a prerequisite to making the US a more secure place, any more than bush admitting that he either lied (or was lied to) about WMD in iraq is a prerequisite (lots and LOTS of civilians killed by US weapons there). Nor, for that matter, is it a prerequisite for the bush administration to fess up about its own gun walking policy.
tt?
No, dipsh*t, they should have uncoupled his atlas from his axis by the means of a fall stopped by a length of rope back in 1981.
The Sandy Hook shooter had 20 minutes. Twenty minutes. Perhaps in a future case the pause to reload might be important, but it wasn’t this time.
You don’t think anyone might have noticed the pauses in firing, and responded appropriately? There were, apparently, people who were willing to try – but they simply never had a had a chance.
Twenty minutes.
Actually, no. It was somewhere between 11 and 14 minutes, probably closer to 11 according to the police radio transcripts.
You do know that the guy who attacked those firefighters was a convicted felon right? That story actually makes an excellent case against gun control, showing that despite laws to the contrary the criminal will be armed.
No, it’s an argument in favor of actually implementing the laws that folks here like to claim exist – that there are no “gun show loopholes”, for example.
“Delegate Bob Marshall (R) told CNN this morning that he’s received e-mails from school officials who want to do this”
I hope those school officials realise that they’ll be strung up by the media if one of their teacher ever makes a bad call, and odds are (given the more or less constant open season against teachers on the right these days) it’ll be Fox leading the charge … depending on the victim, of course.
The NRA doesn’t actually think this is a good idea. They’re not that daft. It’s just a stalling tactic until a more amenable president comes along, and it’ll sell a bunch of guns.
Again, tool, when you disarm every mexican/latino gang member and deport them;disarm every black gang member and lock them up;disarm and lock up every criminal for a long, long time if they have ever used a gun in any crime (past and current);lock up any person with a mental issue that is deemed violent; lock up or deport every illegal immigrant and seal the southern border; apply with prejudice the three strikes rule eveywhere; and make it a law that any crime that is perpetrated on an innocent person who was relieved of their personnal weapon that a member of Congress who voted for this un-Constitutional law be put in jail and made to pay restitution to that harmed, then I might let you take my guns. Until then….cold, dead hands applies with extreme prejudice.
Your arguments here and elsewhere on the issue are dated and stale and made irrelevant by the facts. Years ago when the notion of liberalizing or enacting the concealed carry permit issuance process such that the average citizen could seek eligibility was advanced the media responded negatively. “It will turn the states into one big gunfight at the OK corral” was a statement often heard. The NRA was vilified for their support just as you do so now. NRA spokesmen were portrayed as crackpots by the press and TV media just as now. Well, the states went ahead anyway. Concealed Carry became the norm across all the nation as even the dimmest bulbs noticed a marked decrease in violent crimes in their respective states. Florida, where folks were getting tired of being attacked on the highway as they departed the Miami airport, was a leading example of early enactment and significant decreases in violent assaults. State after state fell in line with similar legislation as the positive results were noted and voters demanded action. NRA membership swelled. Most Democrats ran from the issue like it was the plague. And the media types sucked their thumbs. Sorry, but you are hardly cutting-edge techno.
“Making a bad call” is something concealed handgun carriers fear, whether teachers or not. No one wants to spend 10 or 20 years in prison because of a mistake. That is why so many of the people with legal concealed handguns train and study the law and tactics far beyond what the state requires. Most of the people I know would not draw a weapon until it is obvious that a felony is in progress. You seem to think they’re trigger happy and will shoot an innocent. I think they’ll hesitate until an innocent or two gets hurt before they draw.
May I segue here from the excellent article by J.D. Tuccille presently posted? In his well researched essay he states that European non-compliance with gun registration is due to a remembrance of governments, ubiquitous and deadly. But I think there is a deeper reason people want to be armed i.e. self defense. In the moment what you decide is necessary for self defense is beyond the ken of legislatures. And what’s more if you don’t have the right to defend you and yours from deadly force what rights to do you have? The right to choose from 1007 micro brews of beer?
Anyone with more than ten brain cells should know that criminals/low-life degenerates will ALWAYS find a way to obtain weapons. If the gun-control nutjobs get their way, all citizens in this country would be stripped of their personal guns. What will that leave us? A horde of criminals who would willingly open fire on anyone who gets in their way, with no fear of recourse by their victims. The sheer stupidity of some humans never ceases to amaze me.
Besides, it isn’t a stretch to think that the lunatic nutjob in Connecticut may have thought twice about attacking the school if he thought that there might be armed personnel on the campus. We may never know but it is worth considering…
I write from France.
In my country, nobody is authorised to carry a gun. Even when you drive to a shooting range, your guns have to be pulled apart and carried in a sealed box, the ammunition in another, etc…
Even inside your house, self defense is subject to so ridiculous laws that it is nearly impossible: i.e. you cannot use any strength superior to the one used against you. Which means that if somebody attacks you with a knife, you cannot use a gun to strike back. Which means also that if several thugs attack you bare handed, you are to react with your bare hands, etc…And these CRAZY laws are very, very much enforced by the courts. Many a person who , facing a major danger to herself or her family, decided to use her hutting gun inside their house, has been put in jail.
The result of this situation is this:
- even in your home, there is NO legal way to protect ourself or your family but calling the police, whose shortest response is at the very least fifteen minutes.
- in the street, you are exposed to be attacked by anyone who feels like having some fun and, unless yo are a karate black belt, can be beaten to death as have several dozens of law abiding citizens these last years, with the increasing street violence we have known with uncontroled immigration, etc…
As a result, french citizens live today in fear, especially in big cities. Thugs, in the contrary, feel abolutely immune and they are the only ones who can get guns, because of the intense smuggling from Eastern European countries ( Roumania, ex- Yougoslavia, etc..) and from Africa after the recent war in Libya. And their guns are rather on the Kalashnikov side than on the .22 caliber pop-gun !…
So my point is this: the government will NEVER be able to protect you the way you can do it yourself. It might even not be WILLING to do so, because frightened citizens are easier to manipulate . This is something we French have learned the hard way…
And of course, the leftist governments have always been eager to reduce our self-defense capacity and to make us even more dependant on the State.
You Americans, you are the last people on Earth who have this privilège to be free citizens because you are armed citizens. Do not let the State deprive you ofnthat.
Please excuse my faulty english.
Hear, hear! That’s when Piers Morgan can go take his stupid meddling and go home if likes being defenseless so much. It’s soft tyranny. Thugs and hoodlums do all the dirty work and gov’t bureaucrats enjoy power over a cowed people without having to make any effort or take any risk of getting hurt. That’s why left/liberals tacitly let thugs run looses; it’s makes their desires easy to achieve and they don’t have to be responsible for anything– the ideal left/liberal solution. Take away guns and provide some protection when (yawn) you feel like it (and demand lots of job security and pensions to do it). Easy as pie.
What a frightening post. I can see it happening here. It’s a progression of liberal thinking. After all, it’ wouldn’t be fair to use a gun against a knife or a knife against multiple assailants using just their fists. And after all robbers have their rights too, don’t they? Just because they broke into your house in the middle of the night doesn’t give you the right to hurt them. They’re probably just trying to feed their families,
Not sure of the current status, but I think NYC had a “must retreat” law at one time..
Well put sir.
An armed populace might have been able to fight off the Nazis and Communists.
Well said, sir, and your English is quite passable, better than my French, for certain. Your voice of experience carries tremendous credibility.
Gun control: Bannning guns so that enemies of leftists can’t defend themselves– good job CNN!
It’ll take an honest to God terrorist attack on one of our schools for the stupid lefties to get the idea that armed guards ain’t such a bad idea. Until then they’ll use whatever leverage the Conn. shooting gives them to ban something – and they don’t care what that something is. 30 round clips – ‘assault rifles’ – whatever those are – and everything else they can cram into a few bills. This isn’t about gun control – its about population control. Face it – they are determined to take control of this country lock-stock & barrel and they can’t do that when y’all have your guns and bibles to cling to.
Never mind that the school where Obummer’s kids (and other politicians too) go to have half a dozen or so ARMED guards. I wonder why that is such a great idea for THEIR kids but not for OURS? I’m sure Obummer would tell you how precious his kids are to him – but thats exactly how I feel about my kids and grandkids.
Hypocrisy reins supreme with these politicians. They ain’t smart enough to pour piss from a boot even when the instructions are clearly printed on the heel but they are oh so quick to tell us whats good for us. Just never mind whats good for them – thats different – they’re special.
Good post Jean-Paul. I read the same thing is happening in the UK.
But as I read I began to wonder why governments care if and how we defend ourselves, really why is it so big on their agenda? It occurs to me that making the citizen dependent on the state for their very life steals the most basic sovereignty that we have as human beings. Depriving us of this most fundamental right makes us ‘wards of the state’ in the most basic way possible. Attacked, we are to scatter like sheep, bleating, “Help us, help us, we can’t exist without you.” In the last “Bourne” movie I had to close my eyes during the mass shooting in the laboratory. I don’t want that to ever be me!!
We as individuals are sovereign unto ourselves, in everyway, and the people at large are the sovereign source of political power: the people “allow” the government, the government does not, NOT, “allow” the people!
Remember for some couple of decades we were told by the “experts” that if mugged, if in a house being broken into… don’t resist, don’t resist. Remember that? But the passengers on Flt. 93 didn’t follow that advice. What if… what if…
We aren’t talking about gun rights but the basic right of a human being to live, to resist lethal attack. How did all this get to be forgotten?
Anything that allows increased self-reliance the left doesn’t like. Guns, big time, “stand your ground laws” as well, anything. Also private automobiles. Private cars have been on the hit list for decades, but the moment to restrict their use and availability hasn’t come yet as it has with guns.
For those who are biblically inclined:
Luke 22:36
“…But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”
At the time, a sword was the finest offensive weapon available to a soldier, which is equivalent then of a military rifle today.
Life is valuable, it is our obligation to defend it to our utmost ability. Those who are over intellectual have the luxury of supposing not, and they usually change their minds when confronded by evil. Evilness, though, denies the value of life.
We have an obligation to defend against those people who are bent on murder, rape, or kidnapping, with any means necessary, including military arms.
Ms. Cho brought up the the red herring about the armed citizen “almost” shooting the wrong person at the Giffords shooting. This is the new big lie propagated by big media for the anti-self defense lobby. The reason that he didn’t pull the trigger is that followed one of the four cardinal rules of gun safety — know your target and what is beyond it. There was no almost here. Nick Meli at the Clachamas Mall shooting wouldn’t take a shot for the same reason but he still stopped the shooter. There was no almost at the Giffords shooting. I am more afraid of being in the vicinity of the NYPD when they arrive to help because they don’t the four safety rules. They shot nine civilians at the Empire State building shooting.
What is being proposed here is the common citizen acting as a guarantor of the general security of the community! In addition to doing whatever he or se normaly does. There is a word for this sort of thing, begins with “m”, might even be in the Second Amendment.
As a general rule, a community that decides it will rely on professionals *only* to ensure everything it needs is a community in for a shock, especially should those professionals ever turn on that community for higher pay, status, unrestrained authority, etc. But even should that not happen, a community that will not play an active part in its own welfare and safety is one ill-suited to maintaining a Republic. It is but a renter of liberty, not an owner.
I argue that citizen ownership of arms has a dual benefit for a Republic. It aids in the security of the common whole and the individual, and it serves as a useful check on potential tyranny. Now, as to the second, there is no *immediate* need but, also as a general rule, you go to war with the citizen arms you have, not the ones you can’t get. Considering the vast resources available, worldwide, to allow for a boot to stomp on the human face, forever, should conditions ever align themselves sufficiently, this is a not inconsequential consideration. Also as to the second, I find it impossible to reconcile the views of naysayers, who scoff at the idea of citizens somehow being able to do much against the modern armed state, with their other often-held view, which is that it is folly for the American nation to engage in wars in, say, Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, because the peasants there armed with Kalishnikovs will make anything other than a quagmire impossible. But the educated American, on the other hand, will be nothing but feckless. No. It’s one or the other. Either it is noble for the Communist or Jihadi to have a gun in his hands and ignoble for the American, or it is in fact noble for the American common man to have arms–an indication of the maturity and responsibility and general common good-sense of the yeoman American, and a sign that in America, that the people are worthy of the greatest freedoms–votes, speech, guns, sovereignty. The whole shebang.
Some good info/statistics here in debating this issue. http://tinyurl.com/6wgmau8 From the second page, “Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).”
I do not hear anything about the abortions performed each day or even every month or even per year. How about these numbers for a real perspective!
How about the children killed by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and every place we have a empire base?
How many children are killed in auto accidents each day, and every year?
This is just taking advantage of a horrible tragedy for a gun grab. What is needed is more attention is more freedom, and not less!
I have one major reservation about arming teachers…we are effectively arming union thugs. One only needs to look at the abuses of the Fraternal Order of Police to see how dangerous it is to allow union members to walk around armed.
A lot of good work has gone into weakening unions. We don’t need to panic and back track. If these teachers are serious about protecting kids, they will gladly do so without being a member of a socialist, anti-American group. But since most public teachers don’t place American principles as important, I highly doubt that any will offer to protect children at a risk to themselves.
Just like abstinence is the only protection that works against STD’s, home schooling is the only adequate defense against school violence and liberalism in your children. People need to wake up.
Wow. Well THAT’S probably the most ignorant thing that anyone has posted here.
Google the names – Victoria Soto, Mary Sherlach, Dawn Hochsprung. All of them died trying to protect their students.
Go read Superintendent Janet Robinson’s comments about “incredible acts of heroism”.
The problem isn’t that teachers don’t care for their students. The problem is that they shouldn’t be needing to put themselves in the way of gunmen to protect those students.
And this is why I think teachers need to be very careful about being suckered into buying the NRA’s line. They will be hung out to dry the next time there is a shooting – be if for not preventing it, for shooting and missing, for shooting the wrong person, maybe even for shooting the right person.
Please refer to the source for your information regarding the “NRA’s line”. It seems that the NRA is making the intelligent point of advocating for armed guards and not teachers per se. Meanwhile the MSM is advocating for reduced size magazines. In other words the ghoulish suggestion of “lowering the bag limit”. Get your facts straight and don’t go off “half-cocked”….it tends to make one appear as an uninformed blowhard.
Merry Christmas
Wow. You just swept straight past the bit where Eric slimed teachers who gave their lives to protect children and decided instead that I was the bad guy.
Any why? Because you didn’t see the comments from Todd Rathner.
I’m not going to try posting a link, it’ll just end up in moderation. So google this title: “NRA lobbyist says arm teachers” and click on the link to AmericaNowNews. I’ll quote some of it for you:
—
Rathner is described as an NRA board member and former lobbyist for the NRA in Arizona.
Rather, whose wife is a pre-school teacher, says an armed teacher would have been able to defend themselves in Sandy Hook School.
“Why should she be in a defenseless victim zone and not be able to defend herself,” he says. “Why should she be a sitting duck when some nut tries to break in and tried to shoot the place up.”
…
Rathner says that’s why teachers, who volunteer and with proper training, should be armed.
“Why should they have to run and hide? Why can’t they stay and fight?” he says.
And while we’re on the subject – have you noticed the title of this thread?
Let us have a comparison here on this topic! Which is more dangerous to life?
Planned Parenthood Did One Abortion Every 95 Seconds—As Many in One Year as Live In Cincinnati By Terence P. Jeffrey April 8, 2011
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthood-did-one-abortion-every-95-seconds-many-one-year-live-cincinnati
My sister is a teacher. She’s taking a concealed carry class this January. More power to her.
I think this is just another example of someone over simpifying a serious societal problem. I am a retired teacher and I would have strongly objected to any mandated class on gun use to “protect”the children. Teachers are trained to participate in fire drills and know how to conduct a safe and orderly exit from the school.If a teacher anticipates a problem with a child’s parent, he or she will make arangements to handle it privately and without disrupting the whole school. For years there have been child custody arguments which have been handled in this manner.The p[roblem of mass killing should be thoroughly discussed by mental health professionals and police and legal professionals. The civil rights of one person should not dictate the course to be followed. Politicians should forget trying to appease everyoneand stand up for the rights of all their constituents. The responsibility of parents should not be overlooked either. Caring for someone who is mentally ill can be an enormous burden.
I don’t see the connection here. How is mandated gun training a violation of civil rights? Learning to safely handle, clear, secure and even shoot (if needed) is no different a breach of ethics than fire extinguisher training. Active shooter response training is no more a break in civil rights than fire drills.
Certainly if one has an objection to firearms, they needn’t learn to shoot, but they should know how to properly secure a dropped gun. Also, just like fire drills, every classroom needs to know how to effectively respond to an active shooter. Just as every school has people trained in fire extinguishers, there should be ones who are trained in and have safe access to firearms.
Having the training and tools to respond to realistic emergencies has been proven to save lives. Since installing proper fire safety equipment in schools with the training that goes with it, when was the last time we had a large fire in a school that has killed a lot of children? Isn’t about time to think in the same terms as gun safety?
I can see nothing wrong with forcing ALL teachers to take firearms training,or with forcing a percentage of them to conceal carry one in every school. It wouldn’t be right for children under a certain teacher’s care to be put at risk just because said teacher “didn’t think it was right to ever use a gun”,wouldn’t own one,let alone bring it to work, and shunned classes on gun handling. Especially in a high school, an attitude like that in a teacher would soon become common knowledge, and that “morally superior” teacher’s classroom might be targeted if and when one of the boys decided to act out a sociopathic fantasy. Then,those students would pay with their lives for their teacher’s “strong views”. That would be unconscionable. It might be better, for the sake of the students’ safety in these violent times,to bar strongly “anti-gun” people from the teaching profession except as substitute teachers,who’d be forbidden,on pain of dismissal,to criticize for being armed those teachers who DO conceal carry guns.