According to this teacher’s union president, armed teachers would instill fear into the hearts and minds of children and parents. Hopefully not. But here’s an interesting question: if teachers can carry in schools why should parents be prohibited from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms inside the school gates? I don’t envision a teacher – parent shoot-out or a teacher capping my kid, but I’m no more comfortable with society granting educators a “special privilege” to pack heat in school than I am with exempting cops from draconian gun laws they’re charged with enforcing. Instead of arming teachers, shouldn’t we simply repeal Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zones Act so that the States can “let” anyone who can legally carry to legally carry in school? More than that, what about a federal law (or Supreme Court ruling) banning gun ban zones? Your thoughts?
I kinda see her point
I kinda do too, but I really think folks like her are stretching it. If students fear a teacher will shoot them, then they’ll probably be scared of the teacher regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Teachers have rulers that they can (and used to) whack children with but that isn’t a concern.
Maybe if kids (and the public as a whole) weren’t having it repeatedly drummed into their heads that guns are bad and “scary” and only used by bad guy deamons and crazy people this wouldn’t be such an issue in the first place. It would simply be “common sense” being prepared to prevent or face down violence.
I see her point too and I see that her logic is flawed. So kids see on television that people get angry and pull a gun to solve the problem and your solution is to not allow teachers to have a gun in the classroom? How about instead we teach our kids that violence with a gun or otherwise is not the proper course of action when you get angry? How we teach or don’t teach people and kids to deal with their emotions is the root of the problem. The gun, knife, bat or fist is not the problem to be elmiinated.
From the looks of it, SCOTUS ain’t gonna touch the GFSZ issue with a ten foot pole.
@CA.Ben, SCOTUS already ruled on the initial GFSZ Act in the Lopez case and held it unconstitutional as written. Congress reauthorized it with some bogus language to “fix” its little problem of overreaching the Commerce Clause.
There are four Justices that would love to kick the slats out from under the Commerce Clause, led by Thomas.
The SCOTUS can only be trusted so far on the Second Amendment. I’d consider it a major victory if they (really likely Justice Anthony Kennedy as the leftist justices would likely vote they’re okay and the conservative justices vote they’re un-Constitutional) struck down the “assault weapons bans.” But it might be asking too much regarding guns in schools. The Court will only go so far unfortunately. I would prefer to leave that decision to states to decide though. If a parent really wanted to shoot someone’s kid, they’d just take a gun in and do it, or wait for the kid to come outside of the school. The idea that people carrying inside the school is predicated on the idea that someone would lose their temper and shoot someone, which is pretty unrealistic.
But supposedly the original reason we have gun free school zones is not to keep parents from carrying in schools. It was originally thought to work like the drug free school zone concept and add extra penalties for carrying and using a gun while at a school. See here http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Gun_Free_School_Zones and here http://www.ncpc.org/topics/school-safety/strategies/strategy-gun-free-school-zones . My opinion is that the gun-control crowd used this to their advantage when this was passed. Overtime the understanding of this purpose of the gun free school zone has morphed or been forgotten and now many people assume that having guns somewhere is just bad and the goal should be to eliminate them completely.
The problem with gun free school zones compared to drug free school zones is that guns provide a benefit in the school zone while drugs arguably do not. So when you eliminate the gun you also elminate the benefit.
The gun free school zone concept is a complete failure and should be repealed. Many argue the same for drug free school zones. If you want to increase the penalities while committing a crime with a gun in a school zone do that, but don’t just ban them completely. We have many examples of increased penalties for crimes based on the circumstances of the crime, This should be no different.
I could not agree more.
The GFSZA is a perfect example of an unnecessary, noble sounding law, high-jacked by anti-2A. elements and twisted to fit their agenda.
The effect of the law has been to guarantee the safety of homicidal/suicidal maniacs as they go about the murder of children, until they have sated that blood-lust and kill themselves.
Social studies education major here. If I can convince the old lady, I want to teach in a district that deigns to allow me my Constitutional rights to self defense. I wouldn’t mind seeing the GFSZA repealed. It’s always struck me as pretty arbitrary that I can be a respectable, law-abiding citizen on one side of the street and a serious, “violent”, federal felon on the other.
We should be able to have both students and teachers armed on campus. I get it, you don’t want a parent you don’t know coming on campus packing. Sort makes sense to me, but teachers need it more than ever. I could see know parents packing. A simple form, and meet and greet with the school principle is all that is needed. I know even here in California there are many law abiding, caring, good parents who care about their children’s safety. They would be willing to do guard duty, or at minimum carry while on campus.
“I get it, you don’t want a parent you don’t know coming on campus packing.”
And to this we should say: BS. The same can be said for patrons of businesses, people in the park or just any average Joe walking down the street. Carrying a gun doesn’t make them crazy murderers, that all comes from within. I prefer to not have my rights be trampled upon because someone else is batshit crazy.
AFAIK, it is legal for a CCW permit holder to CCW in school grounds.
There shouldn’t be any gun free zones at all for CHL holders. If you went to all the trouble of getting your background checked, pictures taken, fingerprinted, visiting the friendly local Sheriff’s office, you are something like 99.82% likely not to commit a gun crime going by that .18% stat I’ve heard.
According to the Gun Free Schools Act, a person who holds a valid permit issued by a police agency following a background check conducted by the police agency can carry on school property. This is one of the stipulated exceptions to the Act. Now, your state or locality might have its own prohibition on carry, but you are clear as far as the Feds are concerned.
Jim — that is true, but with an important qualifier. The exception applies IF AND ONLY IF that “qualifying” permit is issued by the state in which the school zone in question is located. A “qualifying” permit from any other state —- even an out-of-state permit recognized and honored by the state which is home to that school district —- does not qualify for the exception to the restrictions of the Federal GFSZA.
I consider that bureaucratic quirk in the law as further proof of the real intent of the GFSZA —- to further restrict, entrap, confuse, and discourage the people from keeping and bearing arms.
In Washington (state, not DC) schools are ‘gun free’, but parents with a CPL can carry while dropping off or picking up a student.
He’s Ron Burgundy and says go f@#$ yourself Washington D.C.
Here in VA, you can carry a firearm in your car on school property if you have a CCW permit, but if you leave your car while on the property, you have to leave the gun in the car.
It may sound good in principle but think of the unintended detriment it could cause IF there were even a single ND in a school anywhere. Look what the media was able to do with Newtown.
Times are scary indeed when we have to worry about one bad apple tainting the entire batch of wine. People can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that one moron’s action doesn’t represent the entire gun owning community.
That’s what my gut tells me, Logic tells me that gun free zones ANYWHERE should be nonexistent.
Consider me torn.
“People can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that one moron’s action doesn’t represent the entire gun owning community.”
Firearms stand out in that sense, as nobody would even consider all car owners/drivers to be Venice Beach boardwalk hitmen.
I meant cider.
But mixed metaphors are so entertaining!
By all means, it needs to be repealed. As far as not arming teachers, every one of you by now has been taught that parents are to be subservient to the infinite wisdom of school districts. It’s SO infinite that districts with opposite policies ARE BOTH RIGHT, and the parents wrong, no matter what their opinion.
You’re delirious if you think your taxes grants you the power to have any say over school policies or your children’s education. KNEEL, you knaves!!!
Again, these liberal/progressives are transferring their own homicidal thoughts on everybody else. If they can’t be trusted with a gun, no one can.
There is already a number of states that have teachers carrying guns in the class room like in Utah; no students killed by enraged teachers. No blood in the class rooms, just like no blood in the streets.
Of course parents should be able to carry a gun in school; people with CCL’s are demonstrably many times more law abiding than the average citizen; the school is just another place where the right to defend ones life from a human predator is just as needed as any other place one might find themselves.
Gun free zones= Homicidal maniac empowerment zones.
One can carry concealed here in Oregon on, in, and around public schools. Teachers usually can’t due to employee rules.
if i ever felt my teacher would harm me (beyond what i would deserve for a stupid action) i would leave the class and never fell comfortable around them ever again. i don’t care if they are armed with a .45 or pencils and staplers.
also if i had kids in school, the teacher having or not having a gun would not make me fell less comfortable about leaving my kid with them. if i trust them with my kid for 8 hours without my supervision, i am quite sure they are a trustable person.
The kind of political indoctrination many schools and teachers foist upon their students is very likely much more dangerous that any potential ND or other injury due to a teacher or parent in school with a firearm, and that damage goes on day after day.
i totally agree, what they are being taught can be more dangerous than a gun. if the fact that they have a tool that can move lead at 1000 fps makes them to dangerous to approach, then they need to be far far away from school kids.
on a somewhat related note of teacher entitlements and special privileges, should teachers receive the generous pensions and cadillac health care plans that are bankrupting the cities? I mean, i love teachers but some of these guys pull down a pension of 200k+ per year. teaching should be a good job, not a make-you-rich job.
I’m sorry, but where are these places where teachers are pulling $200,000 pensions? I need to switch school districts…
It’s not the teachers, it’s the administrators. The teachers still get fucked…
fair enough, its the principals, vice principals and up. . what is an “instructional coordinator”, they make 150k – not accounting for health and pension.
Aww, seriously, my edit didn’t save? I ain’t writing that long, insightful post again!
As an elementary school teacher who have almost a decade of experience teaching kids, lemme say this: plenty of kids are afraid of their teachers already, and it has NOTHING to do with guns, but everything to do with how some teachers don’t build positive relationships with their students because of _____ reason.
If a teacher has worked to build relationships of respect and genuine care for the well-being of their kids, it shouldn’t matter whether or not that teacher is armed or not.
Thanks, agree. Bad teachers do a lot more damage every day to kids self-image, and that’s not hypothetical, like the imaginary scenario in this vid.
And whats up with teacher union reps- everyone one I have met in my kids schools is a bitter old burnout. Kind of reminds me of the lady in the vid- that face hasn’t seen a lot of smiles in the many miles written there…
Children will listen to the lessons they are taught. Perspectives like this teachers are part of the indoctrination of children into believing guns are evil. If they are taught the safe handling and proper respect for firearms than this teacher’s “concerns” about children being afraid to give a wrong answer and getting shot become mute. Moreover, the real point is what she said about children are taught on TV that when someone gets mad they pull a gun. Teachers have an obligation to teach the truth and unpack the emotional propaganda that bombards their students. One of the best classes I took in high school was a critical writing class where the teacher taught us all the basic ways we are lied to and can unpack the real core primary source data so we could make up our own minds what is really best for us.
If you listen closely this emotional plea to keep guns out of school zones for the children is a perfect example of the proganda modeled for gun control in the “Preventing Gun Violence through Effective Messaging(2012; Obrien, Neffinger, Quinlan).
Just skimmed through that “Preventing Gun Violence through Effective Messaging” (2012; Obrien, Neffinger, Quinlan) you referenced in your post.
I endorse it as required “Know Your Enemy” reading. It reveals tactics of the anti-2A. assault on the RKBA that must be recognized and dealt with. It is almost as candid an admission of “How to propagandize to your advantage” as the VPC statement:
“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
Sad but true, an unarmed person can’t shoot back to defend themselves or others like children. The best gun control is the person who has the gun to shoot back to stop the killer. Being an un defending target is as bad as having to put a person down (shooting) who is set on killing themselves and others.
The teacher homicidally unstable enough to shoot someone for answering a question wrong will have the their gun in the classroom under the current rules anyway.
Yet kids don’t fear being shot by their teachers under the current rules. Because the number of teachers that are that homicidally unstable is apparently zero. With or without guns.
What a retard! Every time any state or location has allowed concealed carry people say normal conversations are going to turn deadly now because someone has the means at hand. It has NEVER happened! It’s called being a responsible adult.
“Arming teachers” is the wrong phrase, they simply need to stop disarming concealed carriers. NO ONE wants to force someone to carry a gun if they don’t wish to.
So she is saying that if kids knew teachers had guns they would be afraid of them. If this were true then all kids would be afraid of the police since they all carry guns. This makes no sense.
1st. grade teacher, Sister Agnes Anne, scared all of us little urchins. If she had been packing, we would have probably asked if she wanted to play cowboys and Indians at recess with us.
There simply is no good argument for the existence of gun-free zones.
If you do believe they should exist then your logic is broken or you are flat out lying about your real motive. If you fear people having guns in a specific place then you must fear people having guns in all places. So either you’re all messed up and actually believe a man to be perfectly fine with a gun on one side of the street yet he somehow becomes a homicidal maniac on the other side for no apparent reason or you honestly wish to blanket the nation in one gun-free zone and are just being disingenuous about your real gun-grabbing views.
In short, if you support gun-free zones you’re either stupid or a tyrant. No other options are applicable.
It’s your civic duty to be armed. You should have to show a permit if you’re stopped by a cop and don’t have a gun on you.
I was terrified of my High school junior English teacher–we all were! Her name was Mrs.Todd and her nickname was Mrs.Godd. One of the best teachers I’ve ever had. But then again, I was fortunate to go to a high school where the students respected the teachers.
The GFSZ Act was never intended to disarm teachers, police or parents. It was intended to disarm gangbangers and other assorted hoodlums in inner city schools who were armed, dangerous, and selling drugs in the halls, students who were armed and had no respect for their teachers, and other miscreants who presented an immediate threat to the safety and security of the campus, the teachers, and the students. Like that Jom Belushi movie where he plays the h.s. principle. Places like that exist–and have armed police officers and metal detectors at every accessible door. Once these dunderheads figure that out, then the objections to armed teachers, who are incredibly unlikely to fire upon any student who is not then engaged in a violent attack, should evaporate.
I was terrified of my High school junior English teacher–we all were! Her name was Mrs.Todd and her nickname was Mrs.Godd. One of the best teachers I’ve ever had. But then again, I was fortunate to go to a high school where the students respected the teachers.
The GFSZ Act was never intended to disarm teachers, police or parents. It was intended to disarm gangbangers and other assorted hoodlums in inner city schools who were armed, dangerous, and selling drugs in the halls, students who were armed and had no respect for their teachers, and other miscreants who presented an immediate threat to the safety and security of the campus, the teachers, and the students. Like that John Belushi movie where he plays the h.s. principal. Places like that exist–and have armed police officers and metal detectors at every accessible door. Once these dunderheads figure that out, then the objections to armed teachers, who are incredibly unlikely to fire upon any student who is not then engaged in a violent attack, should evaporate.
Jim Belushi.
If you can carry in a location I should be allowed to carry in that same location. My life is just as valuable as yours.
Anything else is feudalism and we kicked those people out of this country once already.
I am a little tired of hearing “Oh! You carry a gun! Better not make you mad!” People are really brainwashed on the whole words-escalate-to-violence meme.
We here understand the gun isn’t going to “go off” or turn the bearer into a maniac. But I don’t feel like forcing this opinion on the muddling masses who equate the presence of a gun with violence. It is not a misconception which is dispelled by forceful insistence. If we just got rid of GFSZs (which are as big a joke as drug-free school zones) quietly, I could carry concealed into my kids’ schools and everyone would be happy. A teacher with a CHP could carry concealed and not frighten the sheep. If a school district wanted to make a concealed only policy, that would be fine with me. I’d rather have security for the kids than a “win” for gun normalization.
“A classroom is someplace where magic happens”. Really???
I thought…oh, nevermind.
I can learn more from 10 minutes on the internet than I did from a year in a classroom. How’s that for magic?
When I started in school the teachers still had corporal punishment rights and parents backing to administer it. Some of my teachers started teaching in the 1920s-30s. When you encountered one of these battle scarred veterans you behaved. They did not need a gun to put the fear of god in us.
I think the bigger problem is anyone worrying in the USA that if they answer the question wrong they’ll be shot by an authority figure, whether this is in school or anywhere. Of course I think it’s ridiculous that a child would fear that, but I don’t have any evidence really one way or the other.
There may be an adverse reaction initially to armed parents and teachers. Soon, people will realize that CCW / CHL carriers are statistically the most safe and responsible segment of our society. Once that truth permeates, children may naturally start to wonder what other lies they have been told in the name of safety and submission (i.e. recidivist history, statism, progressivism, etc.). Therefore, statist progressives will never support firearms in schools. Freedom with firearms is simply not in their nature.
The women is an idiot.
If concealed as it should be.
Why would any child even give it a thought??
No sane kid brought up right is going to give a tinkers damn or second let alone first thought about it.
If the kid does, he/she needs some counseling to be decontrolled from their parental thought patterns.
Mommy and daddy are bringing up a future wuss.
Typical Liberal bull shit thoughts.
Granted Im from a different time and place.
We used to bring our single shot 22s or 410s to school. Leave them in the principle’s office to pick up on the way home to small game hunt. Except this one sick kid. He used to shoot at stray cats.
Today hes probably in some prison someplace.
To your question, “Instead of arming teachers, shouldn’t we simply repeal Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zones Act so that the States can “let” anyone who can legally carry to legally carry in school?”
My response:
“Absofreakinglutely!”
And you can quote me on that.
I just listened to the video clip and it seems that her argument would more logically be applied to censuring the media. After all, before the gun ban in schools kids (and parents) were not worried about their teachers carrying guns. By her statements, it’s the fault of the media that kids have that fear now.
Comments are closed.