In The Aftermath Of The Virginia Polytechnical Massacre, This Nation Must Look toward the next inevitable encore of this tragic event.
In case one is naive enough to think that we can wish this problem to vanish, I am sorry to be the bearer of the bad news of reality, but this will not only happen again, but it will increase in frequency and severity, because a “GUN FREE ZONE” is a safe place for gun wielding psychopaths.
By de Andréa
THE VIRGINIA TECH CASE UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
If there was no other reason for the framers to pen the Second Amendment than to protect our children especially while they attend school, it would be reason enough.
The alarming new details about Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho underscores the importance of a citizen’s individual right to keep and bear arms.
There were abundant warning signs that Cho posed a serious threat to the campus community, yet here he was running loose and committing mayhem. And all that seems to be on the minds of many in the media and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to exploit this horrible tragedy to erode and eventually destroy the very tool that we should be using to defend ourselves, our children, and our families.
If this case demonstrates anything, it is the ineptitude of a system that is as insane as the psychopathic mayhem it pretends to forestall. One of the symptoms of insanity is the repetitive action of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. My friend, if it doesn’t work lets try something that does.
Cho was taken to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation in December 2005 by the police, and a Montgomery County district court ruled him a danger to himself and to others. Instead of incarceration Cho for his own safety and the safety of those around him, a state doctor found his ‘insight and judgment’ to be ‘normal,’ and he was only given outpatient treatment. The system failed and this is what enabled Cho to buy a gun and commit genocide. How many other people like Cho are out there? Nobody knows, and it is because of this clear and present danger that Americans should not be browbeaten or bullied into surrendering their inalienable right to have a firearm for personal protection. In the past few days, I’ve lost count of the number of times people have asked me why Americans should have a right to buy a gun. The answer is simple. It’s because there are monsters like Cho Seung-Hui among us who are willing to kill without provocation or remorse. Police cannot always be there when they are needed, and people like Cho do not commit carnage by appointment. In 2006 attempts by the Virginia state legislature to allow legally-licensed citizens to carry on campus were stymied, with the help of a Virginia Tech spokesman. Nobody can say for sure whether an armed student or teacher could have intervened in time to save all the lives, but the probability exists and we do know what happens when they have been denied the means. This kind of thing should never happen, but it does when people are denied the means to fight back. If we learn anything from this tragedy, it is the value of the Second Amendment and self-defense, for those who value their lives and the lives of others.
The Dirty Little Secret of ‘Gun-Free School Zones
Cho was taken to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation in December 2005 by the police, and a Montgomery County district court ruled him a danger to himself and to others. Instead of incarceration Cho for his own safety and the safety of those around him, a state doctor found his ‘insight and judgment’ to be ‘normal,’ and he was only given outpatient treatment. The system failed and this is what enabled Cho to buy a gun and commit genocide. How many other people like Cho are out there? Nobody knows, and it is because of this clear and present danger that Americans should not be browbeaten or bullied into surrendering their inalienable right to have a firearm for personal protection. In the past few days, I’ve lost count of the number of times people have asked me why Americans should have a right to buy a gun. The answer is simple. It’s because there are monsters like Cho Seung-Hui among us who are willing to kill without provocation or remorse. Police cannot always be there when they are needed, and people like Cho do not commit carnage by appointment. In 2006 attempts by the Virginia state legislature to allow legally-licensed citizens to carry on campus were stymied, with the help of a Virginia Tech spokesman. Nobody can say for sure whether an armed student or teacher could have intervened in time to save all the lives, but the probability exists and we do know what happens when they have been denied the means. This kind of thing should never happen, but it does when people are denied the means to fight back. If we learn anything from this tragedy, it is the value of the Second Amendment and self-defense, for those who value their lives and the lives of others.
The Dirty Little Secret of ‘Gun-Free School Zones
By last October, there were three fatal attacks on school property in less than a week; more than 20 since February 1996 when a 14-year-old youth strolled into a junior high school in Moses Lake, Wash. and opened fire, killing two students and a teacher.
The dirty little secret of all these atrocities is that they all have something in common, they all happened in a so-called “Gun Free School Zone.” Prior to the enactment of that horribly misguided federal legislation and its state-level clones, one did not read about school massacres, because prior to Gun Free School Zones there haven’t been any since 1927 where a teacher bombed his school and killed 52. The Gun Free School Zones Act transformed the public school landscape into a free-fire zone for whackos by removing any possibility, however small, that an armed teacher, student, or private citizen might be present to intervene. As a result, monsters like Colorado’s Duane Morrison or Pennsylvania’s Charles Roberts, and a host of others have been enabled to committed mayhem, with the aid of gun control fanatics who pressured Congress and state legislatures to pass such ignorant statutes.
The exception is Luke Woodham, who shot up Mississippi’s Pearl High School in 1997 after slitting his mother’s throat. Midway through his shooting spree, Woodham encountered Vice Principal Joel Myrick, who had rushed to his car to retrieve a .45-caliber pistol. Myrick aimed the gun at Woodham’s head and held him until police arrived. You read little about Myrick’s heroism, and less about his handgun, in press reports.
After the Pennsylvania attack on an Amish school in Lancaster County, anti-gun Gov. Ed Rendell had a remarkable moment of candor when he admitted that tougher gun laws would not have stopped the gunman. “You can make all the changes you want,” Rendell said, “but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life.” His remarks were largely ignored because nobody wants to admit that Rendell is right about this, the same as they ignored Myrick and his gun. Such facts don’t fit the anti-gun agenda.
It is time to re-consider gun-free school zone laws and the zero-tolerance mentality such laws foster. Inflexible regulations aimed at keeping kids safe has actually had the opposite effect and has placed students and teachers lives in jeopardy. A teacher in Lacey, Wash. was recently suspended for having a gun in her purse. Licensed to carry, she was afraid of her estranged husband, against whom she has a domestic violence protection order, and has filed for divorce, however now she’s in trouble; victimized by her spouse and again by the law.
We can no longer afford the empty-headed Utopian illusion that such statutes keep anyone safe, because they don’t. Like all other restrictive gun control measures, this one has been a monumental failure, it is literally making our schools the most dangerous place to be, and more importantly it is literally killing our children.
I am suggesting that teachers be allowed to arm themselves, and to scrap the law that prevents that option. School massacres didn’t happen in the days when high schools had rifle teams, and when it was common to find both teachers and students with rifles or shotguns locked in their cars. That was before “gun” became a four-letter word among self-described “progressive liberals” who championed the gun-free zones that enabled these insane attacks.
If what is happening at schools today is “progress,” we might be better off – and a lot of students would still be alive – if we were back in those unenlightened days when school kids riding down country roads with .22 rifles across their bicycle handlebars alarmed no one.
In the wake of our most recent school shootings, reaction from the brain-dead gun control crowd has been pathetic. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke blustered that “we need to do something about this.” He suggested a national dialogue, as if more talk will stop suicidal maniacs.
His bunch has done enough damage already, with the help of gun-grabbing Congressional demagogues like Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and their far left colleagues, and an all-too-cooperative “mainstream” press. They gave us a law that leaves our children and their teachers vulnerable to the whims of any nut-ball looking for 15 minutes of fame because of real or imagined problems or perversions.
Restrictive gun laws do not prevent crime they only enable it, and the notion of a gun-free school zone is obviously a myth. More restrictions on law-abiding citizens will never stop people like Cho, Morrison or Roberts who proved yet again that feel-good laws have defrauded and deprived American citizens, and especially our children, of genuine safety.
OUR UNPROTECTED SCHOOLS
When are we actually going to get serious about protecting our children while in school? We seem to be very serious about unprotected sex in our schools by teaching our children to arm themselves with a condom, moreover, we teach them how to use it. But we don’t protect them from a would-be murderer with a gun. Don’t our children deserve to be safe, especially while attending a government school?
After the Columbine shootings the US Congress went into special session and passed three more Federal gun laws to prevent this from ever happing again, even though the Columbine murderers violated 17 already existing Local, State and Federal gun laws before they even entered the school building. As a matter of fact at least eight more school shootings followed almost immediately after the new gun laws that were to prevent this from ever happening again were signed into law by the President. They were still blowing on the ink.
Of course one should get the picture that at least gun laws alone, do not protect anyone from anything. Additionally we should arm the teachers with condoms, well; maybe not condoms but at least a law book. The next criminal that comes into a school with a gun and points it at one of our children, the teachers could be armed with a law book and shake it in the face of the perpetrator and say in a polite and soft but firm voice “this is against the law”, possibly even pointing out the specific law that he or she is violating, this should provide our children with at least some protection. If that doesn’t work the teacher could suggest a group hug and chant something from the Quran.
In light of the most resent shooting at Virginia Tech, and following shortly on the heels, the copy cat threats in Yuba City California , the proof that our legislators do not agree with arming our teachers with law books or something, is that they want to pass some more anti gun laws so this will never happen again. Somehow this all sounds vaguely familiar to me, oh yes they did that after the Columbine school shootings and the Amish Massacre in Pennsylvania maybe three more laws wasn’t enough. Maybe shaking a law book in the face of a would-be murderer while facing east toward Mecca all while hugging a weed will be effective; maybe not.
In the “Gun Free Zone” of Columbine High School in Jefferson County Colorado, an armed school security officer and SWAT teams stood ineptly and disgracefully by, while our school children were being systematically murdered just a few feet away inside the school library. This happened in 1999 and since then, these types of school executions have been repeated unabated too many times, what’s more, little or nothing has been done to stop these outrages attacks on our children from happening, again and again.
Following the Columbine shooting, President Bush Addressed a group of citizens, parents and State and county officials including Sheriff Dawsy and Attorney General Gonzales at the National 4H Conference center in Chevy Chase Maryland; the purpose was to discuss solutions about the lack of school security in our public school system in the aftermath of more school shootings. After all the speeches and Q and A, the real problem was not even addressed, much less any solutions suggested. A lot of rhetoric about the psychology of students wanting to commit suicide, and opening the doors of communication etcetera, all good prophylactic subjects, but none of this will prevent someone from coming into a school with a gun and blowing away our kids such as the subsequent Amish Massacre in Pennsylvania and now even though it was known that Mr. Cho at Virginia Tech was mentally disturbed enough for a judge to determine that he was a danger to himself and to others back in 2005 all this so-called prophylactic psycho analyses is obviously as useless as a turn signal on a field plow.
Not only have our schools been legislated as gun free zones by our so- called Federal Government-Protectors, but they have also been determined, not by representation of and by and for the people, but by a dictatorial process, known as “Legislation without Representation”, and in violation of Constitutional Law, to be “God Free Zones” as well.
The dirty little secret of all these atrocities is that they all have something in common, they all happened in a so-called “Gun Free School Zone.” Prior to the enactment of that horribly misguided federal legislation and its state-level clones, one did not read about school massacres, because prior to Gun Free School Zones there haven’t been any since 1927 where a teacher bombed his school and killed 52. The Gun Free School Zones Act transformed the public school landscape into a free-fire zone for whackos by removing any possibility, however small, that an armed teacher, student, or private citizen might be present to intervene. As a result, monsters like Colorado’s Duane Morrison or Pennsylvania’s Charles Roberts, and a host of others have been enabled to committed mayhem, with the aid of gun control fanatics who pressured Congress and state legislatures to pass such ignorant statutes.
The exception is Luke Woodham, who shot up Mississippi’s Pearl High School in 1997 after slitting his mother’s throat. Midway through his shooting spree, Woodham encountered Vice Principal Joel Myrick, who had rushed to his car to retrieve a .45-caliber pistol. Myrick aimed the gun at Woodham’s head and held him until police arrived. You read little about Myrick’s heroism, and less about his handgun, in press reports.
After the Pennsylvania attack on an Amish school in Lancaster County, anti-gun Gov. Ed Rendell had a remarkable moment of candor when he admitted that tougher gun laws would not have stopped the gunman. “You can make all the changes you want,” Rendell said, “but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life.” His remarks were largely ignored because nobody wants to admit that Rendell is right about this, the same as they ignored Myrick and his gun. Such facts don’t fit the anti-gun agenda.
It is time to re-consider gun-free school zone laws and the zero-tolerance mentality such laws foster. Inflexible regulations aimed at keeping kids safe has actually had the opposite effect and has placed students and teachers lives in jeopardy. A teacher in Lacey, Wash. was recently suspended for having a gun in her purse. Licensed to carry, she was afraid of her estranged husband, against whom she has a domestic violence protection order, and has filed for divorce, however now she’s in trouble; victimized by her spouse and again by the law.
We can no longer afford the empty-headed Utopian illusion that such statutes keep anyone safe, because they don’t. Like all other restrictive gun control measures, this one has been a monumental failure, it is literally making our schools the most dangerous place to be, and more importantly it is literally killing our children.
I am suggesting that teachers be allowed to arm themselves, and to scrap the law that prevents that option. School massacres didn’t happen in the days when high schools had rifle teams, and when it was common to find both teachers and students with rifles or shotguns locked in their cars. That was before “gun” became a four-letter word among self-described “progressive liberals” who championed the gun-free zones that enabled these insane attacks.
If what is happening at schools today is “progress,” we might be better off – and a lot of students would still be alive – if we were back in those unenlightened days when school kids riding down country roads with .22 rifles across their bicycle handlebars alarmed no one.
In the wake of our most recent school shootings, reaction from the brain-dead gun control crowd has been pathetic. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke blustered that “we need to do something about this.” He suggested a national dialogue, as if more talk will stop suicidal maniacs.
His bunch has done enough damage already, with the help of gun-grabbing Congressional demagogues like Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and their far left colleagues, and an all-too-cooperative “mainstream” press. They gave us a law that leaves our children and their teachers vulnerable to the whims of any nut-ball looking for 15 minutes of fame because of real or imagined problems or perversions.
Restrictive gun laws do not prevent crime they only enable it, and the notion of a gun-free school zone is obviously a myth. More restrictions on law-abiding citizens will never stop people like Cho, Morrison or Roberts who proved yet again that feel-good laws have defrauded and deprived American citizens, and especially our children, of genuine safety.
OUR UNPROTECTED SCHOOLS
When are we actually going to get serious about protecting our children while in school? We seem to be very serious about unprotected sex in our schools by teaching our children to arm themselves with a condom, moreover, we teach them how to use it. But we don’t protect them from a would-be murderer with a gun. Don’t our children deserve to be safe, especially while attending a government school?
After the Columbine shootings the US Congress went into special session and passed three more Federal gun laws to prevent this from ever happing again, even though the Columbine murderers violated 17 already existing Local, State and Federal gun laws before they even entered the school building. As a matter of fact at least eight more school shootings followed almost immediately after the new gun laws that were to prevent this from ever happening again were signed into law by the President. They were still blowing on the ink.
Of course one should get the picture that at least gun laws alone, do not protect anyone from anything. Additionally we should arm the teachers with condoms, well; maybe not condoms but at least a law book. The next criminal that comes into a school with a gun and points it at one of our children, the teachers could be armed with a law book and shake it in the face of the perpetrator and say in a polite and soft but firm voice “this is against the law”, possibly even pointing out the specific law that he or she is violating, this should provide our children with at least some protection. If that doesn’t work the teacher could suggest a group hug and chant something from the Quran.
In light of the most resent shooting at Virginia Tech, and following shortly on the heels, the copy cat threats in Yuba City California , the proof that our legislators do not agree with arming our teachers with law books or something, is that they want to pass some more anti gun laws so this will never happen again. Somehow this all sounds vaguely familiar to me, oh yes they did that after the Columbine school shootings and the Amish Massacre in Pennsylvania maybe three more laws wasn’t enough. Maybe shaking a law book in the face of a would-be murderer while facing east toward Mecca all while hugging a weed will be effective; maybe not.
In the “Gun Free Zone” of Columbine High School in Jefferson County Colorado, an armed school security officer and SWAT teams stood ineptly and disgracefully by, while our school children were being systematically murdered just a few feet away inside the school library. This happened in 1999 and since then, these types of school executions have been repeated unabated too many times, what’s more, little or nothing has been done to stop these outrages attacks on our children from happening, again and again.
Following the Columbine shooting, President Bush Addressed a group of citizens, parents and State and county officials including Sheriff Dawsy and Attorney General Gonzales at the National 4H Conference center in Chevy Chase Maryland; the purpose was to discuss solutions about the lack of school security in our public school system in the aftermath of more school shootings. After all the speeches and Q and A, the real problem was not even addressed, much less any solutions suggested. A lot of rhetoric about the psychology of students wanting to commit suicide, and opening the doors of communication etcetera, all good prophylactic subjects, but none of this will prevent someone from coming into a school with a gun and blowing away our kids such as the subsequent Amish Massacre in Pennsylvania and now even though it was known that Mr. Cho at Virginia Tech was mentally disturbed enough for a judge to determine that he was a danger to himself and to others back in 2005 all this so-called prophylactic psycho analyses is obviously as useless as a turn signal on a field plow.
Not only have our schools been legislated as gun free zones by our so- called Federal Government-Protectors, but they have also been determined, not by representation of and by and for the people, but by a dictatorial process, known as “Legislation without Representation”, and in violation of Constitutional Law, to be “God Free Zones” as well.
Watch a video "THE DAY THEY KICKED GOD OUT OF THE SCHOOLS
While they are obviously not gun free, they are however, for the most part legally or illegally legislated to be God free. One cannot help but wonder however, in both cases, if this has something to do with the real problem of protecting our school children. Franklin Graham made the statement the he believed these school attacks are an attack by Satan on our children; I am inclined to believe he is right. Where God is absent Satan rules…
Possibly we would do better at protecting our children from these killers than trusting in our Federal Protectors, by carrying a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. If these cowardly murdering sons of Satan won’t pay any attention to God’s word in one hand then shoot them with the gun in the other before they kill our children.
We can pass more anti-gun laws, we can attempt to raise the self-esteem of our children, we can self police our media not to sensationalize these outrages crimes, we can psychoanalyze our society to try to understand why warm fuzzy people go bad, and on and on. But in doing so, we will not stop these murderers from massacring our children. While some of these studies could be honorable endeavors, none address the problem, or offer any solution to the problem of protecting our children from these psychopathic killers and predators.
Interestingly enough a solution has been found and is already in place, Israel, for example, has for many years, armed not only its security guards and principles, but also teachers in the classrooms. Thailand is another country which has successfully armed their school personnel. Everywhere that this type of protection has been tried, it has been successful, yes even in the U.S. In 1995 the State of Utah, armed not only teachers, principles and security guards with concealed weapons, (pistols) but even parents, picking up their children from school are also armed. They have not kept this a secret in their State and as a result for the eleven years that Utah has had this program, they have not experienced any murders or any kind of gun related problems in their schools.
Even without a program of this type in place, as mentioned before, a random defence by Principal Joel Myrick in a Mississippi school in 1997 thwarted an attack after several people were already shot at pearl high school. Principal Myrick retrieved his semi automatic 45 from the trunk of his car nearly a quarter mile from his school, and managed to stop the perpetrator on his way to Pearl Junior High before the maniac could continue his rampage. Within a few days of the Pearl school shooting, an armed citizen stopped another attack in an Edinboro, Pennsylvania school. There are many such successful cases reported in schools throughout the U.S. One cannot help but think, what if Principal Myrick had been able to carry his gun instead of having to retrieve it from his car, or better yet, if at least some of the teachers were armed, there may be a few more innocent people alive today, in that one incident alone.
This type of program will of course be met with enormous opposition by the few hug a weed pacifists in our society, that would rather all sit around wondering why we just can’t all learn to get along with our warm fuzzy psychopathic murderers, and just try to understand why they might want to kill our children or whether their parents were mean to them, or maybe we as a community have done something to provoke this behavior. This is of course, sort of what we have been doing for years and I think we can honestly say—it is not working very well. Maybe it is time to try something that has already been proven to work even in our own country, as well as others.
Some may say, well how about just arming school principals and security guards? Unless we can have a principal or a security guard in every classroom, it would be useless, let’s not forget that Columbine had an armed security guard who cowered along with the disorganized S.W.A.T. team worrying more about, the political ramifications of shooting children that were shooting other children, than storming the place and putting a stop to these murders. No, every teacher, in every classroom, must be trained and armed. [The investigation of the Columbine fiasco by the way, is still on going]
THE BOTTOM LINE: Schools are magnets for psychopathic killers because it is a pretty safe bet that there will be not be any significant resistance in a “Gun Free Zone” against anyone bent on killing helpless children. Once a program of armed school personnel is in place, as in the State of Utah, a perpetrator would likely be intimidated enough not to carry out his intent of murder and mayhem in a school classroom. If our Federal Government had only one job, it would be, according to our Constitution, to protect the citizens of this country from a foreign invasion. Interestingly the Constitution does not stipulate where, or what kind of foreign invasion, or by whom. Whether it is at the boarder by a foreign nation, or at the threshold of our schools by a psychopathic killer, our Federal and State Governments have a responsibility to protect, and prevent our young citizens from having to live everyday in fear of death or great bodily harm just to get an education.
If I were a Parent of a young child entering a government school or any school for that matter, for the first time today, the first question I would ask is… What kind of protection program does this school have in place for my child’s safety, if let’s say, a would-be kidnaper or murderer would enter this school and point a gun at my child’s head? I doubt at present, any school in my State could even come close to offering a satisfactory answer to that question. Then I would have to say… I am sorry then, I cannot place my child in this school. If even a minority of parents would do that, I can guarantee something would be done. What do you think??? I would like to hear from some teachers as well as parents.
On a personal note: I even carry my gun to church and no body knows, so not even the pacifists anti gun people are bothered. They don’t even know that they are being protected by a Bible in one hand, and a gun in the other…
de Andréa
Possibly we would do better at protecting our children from these killers than trusting in our Federal Protectors, by carrying a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. If these cowardly murdering sons of Satan won’t pay any attention to God’s word in one hand then shoot them with the gun in the other before they kill our children.
We can pass more anti-gun laws, we can attempt to raise the self-esteem of our children, we can self police our media not to sensationalize these outrages crimes, we can psychoanalyze our society to try to understand why warm fuzzy people go bad, and on and on. But in doing so, we will not stop these murderers from massacring our children. While some of these studies could be honorable endeavors, none address the problem, or offer any solution to the problem of protecting our children from these psychopathic killers and predators.
Interestingly enough a solution has been found and is already in place, Israel, for example, has for many years, armed not only its security guards and principles, but also teachers in the classrooms. Thailand is another country which has successfully armed their school personnel. Everywhere that this type of protection has been tried, it has been successful, yes even in the U.S. In 1995 the State of Utah, armed not only teachers, principles and security guards with concealed weapons, (pistols) but even parents, picking up their children from school are also armed. They have not kept this a secret in their State and as a result for the eleven years that Utah has had this program, they have not experienced any murders or any kind of gun related problems in their schools.
Even without a program of this type in place, as mentioned before, a random defence by Principal Joel Myrick in a Mississippi school in 1997 thwarted an attack after several people were already shot at pearl high school. Principal Myrick retrieved his semi automatic 45 from the trunk of his car nearly a quarter mile from his school, and managed to stop the perpetrator on his way to Pearl Junior High before the maniac could continue his rampage. Within a few days of the Pearl school shooting, an armed citizen stopped another attack in an Edinboro, Pennsylvania school. There are many such successful cases reported in schools throughout the U.S. One cannot help but think, what if Principal Myrick had been able to carry his gun instead of having to retrieve it from his car, or better yet, if at least some of the teachers were armed, there may be a few more innocent people alive today, in that one incident alone.
This type of program will of course be met with enormous opposition by the few hug a weed pacifists in our society, that would rather all sit around wondering why we just can’t all learn to get along with our warm fuzzy psychopathic murderers, and just try to understand why they might want to kill our children or whether their parents were mean to them, or maybe we as a community have done something to provoke this behavior. This is of course, sort of what we have been doing for years and I think we can honestly say—it is not working very well. Maybe it is time to try something that has already been proven to work even in our own country, as well as others.
Some may say, well how about just arming school principals and security guards? Unless we can have a principal or a security guard in every classroom, it would be useless, let’s not forget that Columbine had an armed security guard who cowered along with the disorganized S.W.A.T. team worrying more about, the political ramifications of shooting children that were shooting other children, than storming the place and putting a stop to these murders. No, every teacher, in every classroom, must be trained and armed. [The investigation of the Columbine fiasco by the way, is still on going]
THE BOTTOM LINE: Schools are magnets for psychopathic killers because it is a pretty safe bet that there will be not be any significant resistance in a “Gun Free Zone” against anyone bent on killing helpless children. Once a program of armed school personnel is in place, as in the State of Utah, a perpetrator would likely be intimidated enough not to carry out his intent of murder and mayhem in a school classroom. If our Federal Government had only one job, it would be, according to our Constitution, to protect the citizens of this country from a foreign invasion. Interestingly the Constitution does not stipulate where, or what kind of foreign invasion, or by whom. Whether it is at the boarder by a foreign nation, or at the threshold of our schools by a psychopathic killer, our Federal and State Governments have a responsibility to protect, and prevent our young citizens from having to live everyday in fear of death or great bodily harm just to get an education.
If I were a Parent of a young child entering a government school or any school for that matter, for the first time today, the first question I would ask is… What kind of protection program does this school have in place for my child’s safety, if let’s say, a would-be kidnaper or murderer would enter this school and point a gun at my child’s head? I doubt at present, any school in my State could even come close to offering a satisfactory answer to that question. Then I would have to say… I am sorry then, I cannot place my child in this school. If even a minority of parents would do that, I can guarantee something would be done. What do you think??? I would like to hear from some teachers as well as parents.
On a personal note: I even carry my gun to church and no body knows, so not even the pacifists anti gun people are bothered. They don’t even know that they are being protected by a Bible in one hand, and a gun in the other…
de Andréa
Posts
1 comment:
Here's an idea: the "ARMED STUDENT" t-shirt. I came up with it after reading what one Virginia Tech official said last summer: that there would never be guns on campus and how that would make VT a "safe" place.
Post a Comment