Skip to comments.Rep. Tony Cornish: Schools need firearms
Posted on 12/28/2012 11:03:59 AM PST by rhema
As one of your state representatives, I back the National Rifle Association's proposal 100 percent, inasmuch as it calls for an armed guard of some type in every school.
No. I'm not an NRA pawn, and I don't take a dime from them, directly or through other channels.
It's interesting how some legislators speak to the public with what they think might be a popular response for the media. U.S. Rep. Tim Walz recently said he was shocked with the NRA's proposal to put an armed cop in each school, in what he thought would turn schools into "armed encampments."
Actually, Walz's home school district in Mankato, where he taught, has had armed cops in its schools for years, partially paid by the district. Three surrounding rural school districts also pay to have armed cops in their schools. They are accepted well by teachers, students and staff and give a measure of security.
Churches in the metro area have had uniformed cops walking through the halls in back of their sanctuaries and around classrooms full of kids for years, armed with .40-caliber Glocks and with Tasers. If churches feel comfortable protecting children with cops, shouldn't schools?
Then we heard from the education community, which claimed to have "experts" in the field of security and doesn't want "armed teachers." These alleged experts don't seem to realize that armed teachers have been allowed by state law for years in Minnesota and that some have taken advantage of it. I know there are teachers who carry while instructing.
Here's the bottom line: When a psycho pulls up out front, you have seconds to act. A camera won't do any good unless there's a gun behind it.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The proposal makes a lot of sense. An armed guard or cop at the school not only will deter crazed shooters from showing up but may suppress crime generally on the premises including drug dealing, assaults, etc. The cop doesn’t even have to be full-time for deterrent value to be effective but simply frequent but variable visits.
If guns are all evil, why do most Congresscritters have armed security at their kid’s schools?
Don't a good many schools already employ capable security at athletic (and some social) events?
Responsible security might be a good moving. Arming teachers is out of the question; 95% of them are so liberal they would never go near a firearm for any reason.
Tim Walz seems like a first class, A1 PUTZ:
Walz received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood in 2012, from the ACLU in 2011, from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2009-10, from the AFL-CIO in 2010, from the Teamsters in 2009-10, and from NOW in 2007. In recent years he has received one-digit ratings from the National Taxpayers’ Union, Citizens against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, and Freedom Works. The US Chamber of Commerce gave him a 25% rating in 2010.
” Arming teachers is out of the question; 95% of them are so liberal they would never go near a firearm for any reason.”
Not correct. There are many CCW license holders in our education establishment.
> If churches feel comfortable protecting children with cops,
> shouldn’t schools?
The bigger and most important question is, if the politicians can have armed protection in their office buildings, travel with armed bodyguards, if virtually every place these politicians go is protected by armed security with REAL machine guns and body armor, then why would they deny that same security for your kids? Also, if they can send their kids to private schools with armed security, why can’t they extend that kind of protection to the “public” schools?
The REAL answer is that they are cynical, lying, hypocritical, filthy, demonic TYRANTS who want to strip us of our liberties, MOST especially the right to self-defense, and protecting the public schools with armed security does not promote that goal.
We need to repeat their motto to every leftist and liberal we see.
“Armed security for me and mine,
Gun-free zones for thee and thine.”
There might be "many" when you look at numbers. But, when you tally percentages, I'll wager dollars to donuts they are few ... very few.