9mm, AR-15, armed teachers, Benjamin Franklin, C.S. Lweis, Chuck Schumer, George Orwell, joe biden, Mitch McConnell, Pete Buttigieg, PLCAA, red flag laws, Rep. David Cicilline, Rep. Ruben Gallego, school security, SROs, useful idiots, Uvalde TX
‘We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.’
‘We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.’
We defund, hamstring, harass, prosecute and murder the police and are astonished and outraged when they aren’t gung ho to protect us.
‘People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.’
What happens when those rough men—and women—no longer stand ready? What happens when none can be found willing to uphold traditional standards of honor and duty? What happens when we no longer have men and women willing to put the welfare, even the lives, of others ahead of their own, when no one will run to the sound of gunfire or put their own life at risk to save others?
‘We must do it for the children.’
Whenever free men and women hear this platitude, they know whatever “it” is, the politician’s gaseous emission means “it” cannot be justified on its own merits, will steal essential liberty from individual Americans and will increase politician’s power over them. They must also: 1) check their wallet, because the politician’s hand is reaching for it, and 2) check their liberty, because the politician has already drafted the means to steal it.
‘They that would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’
This cannot be said enough: unless armed force awaits any school attacker when and where he attacks, the only unknown is how many children and teachers will be wounded or killed before the police arrive, figure out where the attacker is, and kill them, or the attacker decides he’s killed enough and commits suicide.
Unless, of course, the police decide to do nothing until the killer has had his fill of murder.
This also can’t be said enough: the police have no legal duty to protect any individual, and you can’t sue them for failing to protect you or yours.
There is no other way, no law, no narrative, no cancelation, nothing that will save lives when deterrence and security measures have failed. Only willing, armed teachers and other school staff, and many of them, can serve as the last line of defense. Anyone denying this cold, hard reality is stupid, evil, both or a politician.
I’ll not discuss in this article, in any detail, other security measures such as more effective doors and locks, video systems, School Resource Officers, former military or police officers standing guard, single entry points, metal detectors and all the rest. This article is about the last resort, about when deterrence—and there is very little throughout the nation as this is written—fails, about when a killer is coming down the hallway where your 8 year-old daughter sits, unaware, in her classroom.
When that happens, and we know beyond any doubt it does, if, despite every other possible security measure, a killer is on his way to your daughter’s classroom, do you truly want her teacher—every teacher—to be disarmed, unable to have the opportunity to save the lives of their charges, to save their own life? Does the deterrence armed teachers uniquely provide truly mean nothing to you, or does deterrence simply not exist in your reality?
This article, gentle readers, is about the people that want every teacher, every adult, every American, to be disarmed. It begins at the top:
‘In discussing how we might come together to target the problem of mental illness and school safety, we’ll get back at it next week and hope to have results,’ [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said Tuesday.
But the White House reacted negatively to McConnell’s proposals.
‘Those are two things that he does not agree on,’ White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre said on Tuesday when asked about McConnell’s proposals at the daily press briefing.
She said Biden was not interested in making schools more secure to help stop potential shooters.
‘That is not his focus obviously and when it comes to school … I know there has been a conversation about hardening schools, that is not something he believes in,’ Jean-Pierre said.
“I know there has been a conversation about hardening schools, that is not something he—President Biden–believes in.” Of course he doesn’t need to worry about such things. His family and he, our federal legislators and much of the self-imagined elite, live and work in hardened surroundings, protected by scores of agents armed with automatic weapons. What’s in it for him if he protects your children? It won’t get him any ice cream, that’s for sure.
She also dismissed proposed legislation on mental health issues, focusing instead on the ‘pandemic’ of gun violence in the United States.
‘What’s the problem here. The problem is with guns and not having legislation to really deal with an issue that is a pandemic here in this country,’ she said.
There is certainly no “pandemic” of school attacks. They remain, thankfully, rare. There are certainly parts of the country where people kill with impunity, but those are, virtually without exception, large cities ruled for decades by Democrats/Socialists/Communists, who do nothing to prosecute the predators who commit those crimes, just as the D/S/C media propaganda arm ignores those crimes. But surely our federal legislators are people of good will?
F— your prayers. They haven’t worked for the last 20 mass shootings how about passing laws that will stop these killings,’ Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., tweeted at Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Gallego also tweeted at Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas: ‘Just to be clear f— you @tedcruz you f—ing baby killer.’
Normal Americans—decent people—understand the power of prayer. People like Gallego understand only political power. Gallego isn’t the only one:
Surely Gallego and Jones are the only cruel, hateful D/S/C representatives?
Democrat Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island said a bit of the anti-gun left’s quiet part out loud in a House hearing on Thursday when he went on a rant against the constitutionally protected rights of the American people.
Cicilline and Jones, like an ever-increasing number of D/S/Cs, are saying out loud what they really think about the Constitution, about their role in ruling, and what they intend for America and Americans. It has nothing to do with justice, the rule of law, or preserving our representative republic. It has less then nothing to do with liberty. How is it we allow such people to remain in office? How about the Senate Majority leader? Surely he wants effective school security?
Days after the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Wednesday blocked a Republican-sponsored bill that would create a national clearinghouse for school safety, claiming without evidence the bill would bring ‘more guns in schools.’
But what about our Cabinet Secretaries? Surely they’re more sane and empathetic?
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Sunday on ABC’s ‘This Week’ that those blaming school shootings on a lack of security was the ‘definition of insanity.’
A man pretending to give birth in a hospital, complete with a little wrist bracelet: sure, that’s sane.
‘Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.’
Buttigieg, who is very gay, is misleading. No one is claiming a lack of security causes school attacks. A lack of security certainly provides no deterrence, and it certainly makes a killer’s attack easier and more deadly. What Buttegieg is doing is supporting Biden, who doesn’t believe in school security.
Obviously, the self-imagined hate us, hate God, Americans and America, and have no intention whatever of providing the same level of protection they enjoy for our children and teachers. But what about “police reform activists?”
During the latest episode of MSNBC’s The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross on Saturday, leftist police reform activist Brittany Packnett Cunningham claimed the recent Texas school shooting is further proof that America must abolish the police.
You can find far more of the same hatred, lunacy, and destructive policy ideas with a click of the mouse, gentle readers. What is absolutely clear is the self-imagined elite of both parties, care nothing for the lives of children and teachers. Their only concern is keeping and increasing their political power, their ability to rule you, and of course that means decreasing your individual liberty and personal safety.
They do not want a School Resource Officer in every school. Many of them, so deranged by hatred of the police and inanimate objects, do not want police officers in schools at all, and they absolutely do not want guns in schools. For many, it’s mostly a woke/racial issue. They argue police officers frighten and trigger minority children and teachers, and are somehow racist. Others are far less sane–quite a feat–arguing the mere presence of police officers and guns somehow magically despoil a pristine educational environment.
They never let a crisis go to waste, which is why after every thankfully rare school attack, their only solution is to disarm the American public. School attacks don’t occur because they’ve all but obliterated effective, in patient mental health treatment in America, because they’re defunded the police and removed SROs from schools, because they refuse to allow effective deterrence and school security, because they refuse to prosecute violent criminals, no. They occur because the Second Amendment recognizes the fundamental, unalienable right to self-defense and the right to take up arms to oppose tyranny. They occur because normal, law-abiding Americans own firearms, the bastards!
Even as our meat puppet President addresses the nation to lie about everything relating to these issues, he and the rest of the self-imagined elite mostly say they’re not after your guns. That must be why Mr. Biden not only screams for the banning of AR-15 pattern rifles, magazines of greater than five round capacity, and now, the 9mm round, and surely every handgun chambered for that round. AR-15 pattern rifles are the most popular in America, and the 9mm cartridge, and handguns chambered for it, also the most popular.
Why would Mr. Biden focus on the AR-15 or the 9mm? Because anti-liberty/gun cractivists know if they can ban any single class of firearm, it will be easier to ban another and another, and eventually, all of them. Banning the 9mm would eliminate over 50% of the handgun market.
Biden also demands the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005), lying about that too. I explained the issue in detail in PLCAA Lies: Intentions. Take the link to read the whole article.
For our purposes here, I’ll simply note every law Biden and his handlers and supporters advocate would not only have done nothing to prevent any known school attack, they would harass only the law-abiding. People planning the mass murder of children tend to have little regard for lesser laws, particularly when they’re planning to commit suicide. Why does he continually harp on repealing the PLCAA? Nothing so reveals the ultimate intention of the self-imagined elite to disarm Americans.
The law only prevents lawsuits intended to bankrupt every firearm and ammunition manufacturer. It prevent lawsuits for properly designed and manufactured products misused by third parties about who the manufacturer has no knowledge and no over who they have no control. It does not prevent lawsuits for defective products, negligence or other traditional torts. It was written, and passed by a truly bipartisan vote, because anti-liberty/gun fanatics planned to use it to sue the firearm industry into oblivion–lawfare–which is their intention now if they can repeal it.
How can people be so hateful, so ignorant? How can they so readily dismiss reality? I’ve often written on this topic.
Such people think themselves morally and intellectually superior. Because they are destined to rule over lesser beings, they recognize no law, no restraint, and the end always justifies the means. They will tell any lie, weaponize the DOJ, FBI, IRS and every other governmental agency to get their way, just as Rep. Jones promised.
In considering any gun control bill, such as “Red Flag” laws, Americans now have to ask if their government can be trusted to apply such laws uniformly and fairly? The answer, sadly, is obvious, isn’t it? Even now, some congressional Republicans are falling for D/S/C propaganda and are engaging in “talks” that can do nothing but diminish liberty. Communists have long had a term for such people: useful idiots. If–when?–they fall for it, D/S/Cs will proclaim the unconstitutional, cynical laws are bipartisan.
Because they are exalted beings, their values and policies cannot possibly be wrong. They cannot be falsified, which is why they ignore evidence, and as Biden said, believe in “truth” over facts. They construct their own reality, their own “truth,” and demand everyone else praise their reality and truths. When their policies fail—as they inevitably do—they first try gaslighting, claiming their policies didn’t fail, you’re just to stupid to see how brilliant they are. They eventually shift to blaming anyone and anything but themselves–Russia is a favorite with the American people running a close second. They argue their policies have failed because they graciously allowed Normal Americans to continue to exist to oppose them, which is why they want to abolish the First Amendment. They argue not enough money has been spent, and not enough time has been allotted for the miracles of their policies to manifest–they haven’t given it to Normals good and hard enough–which is why they want to resurrect the failed decade long “assault weapon” ban, which accomplished nothing whatever for public safety. This time, they would make it permanent, which would give them all the time they need for the policy to succeed, “success” being defined as whatever they say it is.
In short, gentle readers, such people care nothing for the dead of Uvalde, other than whatever temporary political advantage their deaths might provide. Their deaths are temporarily useful in that they hope to use gun control and feigned concern for the dead to distract the public, pre-mid term elections, from the horrible failure of their policies. They hope they can use that emotion and anguish to further their long-term goals of absolute rule over Americans. Unless they can disarm Americans, they can never impose their fanciful, totalitarian utopia. They will do nothing to aid in the establishment of effective school security because that would not benefit them politically. It would distract from their distraction. No dead children and teachers, no crisis to exploit.
They always scream anyone who opposes their efforts to steal liberty wants dead children. Am I saying that about them? Surely not all of them. Mostly, they give little thought to the lives of lesser beings. You’re just not important to them until it’s time to vote, and only then if they don’t think they can cheat enough to win without those votes. Once they’ve won you’re immediately out of sight, out of mind. I won’t go as far as Joe Biden, but the effect is the same.
And now you know, gentle readers, if you didn’t before, just how difficult it’s going to be to establish actual school security. You also know, when it comes to protecting the lives of our loved ones and ourselves, we’re on our own. We always have been.
Alan Booth said:
All correct. You and I know better than most that we are on our own.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Alan Booth:
Indeed we do.
Oh, I dunno, Mike. Today Ohio passed a law “allowing” teachers to carry in schools as long as they have at least 24 hours of advance training and yearly 8 hour refresher. The “allowing” part is that it’s left up to individual school districts to permit, or not, armed teachers. So.. to your continuing quote… the police can serve but-not-so-protect..
“…the police have no legal duty to protect any individual, and you can’t sue them for failing to protect you or yours.”
So… does that mean when a teacher is armed that THEY have a duty to protect? I mean, isn’t that the whole point of an armed teacher… to protect the kids, with their own life if necessary? To your definition, that’s more than the cops are expected to do.. right? Let’s go a little further. Is a parent within any Ohio school district obligated to know if their child’s teacher is armed? Does a parent then have the “legal” right to request an unarmed teacher for their child? Let’s also try the inverse of that. A parent prefers their child’s teacher is armed, can the parent request an armed teacher for their child? If an armed teacher fails to save even a single child is that teacher complicit by omission in that child’s demise? Heck, can a parent even refuse their child attend a school that allows armed, or even unarmed, teachers?
But wait… in the event of a real shooter, how do the police arriving on the scene, ready to jump in there to kill the gunman to save the kids (that they are not obligated to do, btw), realize that there are possible other guns carried by civilians inside that school. Kinda scary for cops knowing that any number of teachers cowering in their classrooms have their own guns drawn ready to fire away at the first sign of the door opening (is that really a cop on the other side of the door saying it’s safe?). Possible guns galore inside a school… and the cops have no target.. other than they have been trained to shoot the person the gun. (Pity the poor teacher who successfully kills a shooter, runs out of the classroom into the hallway, gun in hand waving frantically saying, “I got him! He’s in here!” Take a guess at who’s the final casualty in that event.)
Ohio has failed to address any of this, preferring to shift legal and moral responsibility to the school districts.
And this crap is starting to occur elsewhere. Sheer idiocy.
Mike McDaniel said:
These are issues I’ve been dealing with for decades. The “sheer idiocy” of which you speak is refusing to employ the only truly effective deterrence, and refusing to protect children and teachers when deterrence and “hardening” schools, which our federal government refuses to do, fail, as they have in virtually every school attack to date.
Armed teachers in the classroom have no different obligations than when they are outside their school on their own time. They have no obligation to protect individuals or the public at large. As to your argument teachers have a greater obligation than the police, nonsense. You ignore the reality that a teacher facing an imminent, deadly threat will not be worrying about esoteric arguments, but about continuing to live.
As to your arguments about parents, armed teachers deter only when no one knows who, or how many, are armed in any school district, but the fact staff are armed is widely publicized. Even if a given school in a district has no one armed, as long as that fact is not known to the public, every school benefits from deterrence. To extend your argument, should parents be able to demand the removal of SROs? Should they be able to demand an SRO accompany their child everywhere? Of course not. Should a parent not want the benefit of deterrence, and the hope their child might not die in an attack, they are free to move their child where they are less secure.
As to the red herring about police shooting teachers, deconfliction is easily accomplished, and the police are trained, they know damned well, they can’t simply shoot someone just because they have a gun in their hand. Knowing teachers are armed–and there are other steps easy to take I’ll mention here; I’ll not give killers any pointers–will lessen, not increase, the chance of blue on blue mistakes. The police absolutely are not trained to “shoot the person with the gun.” They know doing that, without an imminent threat, will put them in prison. They also have to be particularly careful in a school where children are present. They know they can’t shoot without a clean backdrop.
You misstate facts. The police have no legal obligation to protect anyone, but they have a moral obligation, and failing to do their duty can lead to termination in most agencies.
Ohio, and the few other states that allow armed teachers, have indeed addressed these issues, and more. You’re obviously unaware of the legislative record, where these, and many more, issues were weighed. It is no coincidence virtually every mass attack, in schools and out, has occurred in gun free zones, which not only fail to deter, but welcome attackers.
All of life involves risk. The greater risk is to allow children and teachers to be easy targets when we know the police can’t possibly get there in time to save their lives. Murderers know this too. If we demand perfection and zero risk, civilization falls apart, and people who could be saved, die.
Oh, good Lord.. where do I start. Mike, you’ve deflected every point I was making. But since you mention it often.. the SCOTUS decision, I believe it was back in ’05, saying that there is no Constitutional obligation on the part of law enforcement to literally “protect” anyone. Indeed the general public is not under that perception. I would not be surprised one bit if some class action suit as a result of the cops not responding “the way people think they should have responded” in Uvaldi doesn’t again land in the Supreme Court down the line. Heck, I’d be surprised if the local folks don’t literally “defund” their cop shop completely to press the point given the one time they needed them the most they failed… at least in the eyes of the local taxpayers.
So.. why doesn’t law enforcement simply state the truth to the public… “We are not obligated to protect you in spite of what it says on the squad cars… so you’all just go out and buy yourself a gun to protect yourselves.” I mean, isn’t that the whole point… 2A says you are free to own a gun, so get to it and protect yourselves because you can’t rely on anyone else to do it, least of all the cops?
Even if a teacher carries a gun in class, he/she is likely only going to protect themselves anyway.. so, parents, you send your kids to school at your own risk. For that matter maybe we should lower the age for gun possession to 10 years old.
Look, we all know cops do in fact go above and beyond and even make the ultimate sacrifice in trying to “serve and protect” based on their moral oath to do same. It’s a human thing not bound by Constitutional law. Most cases just putting on the uniform to go to work is a risk in itself. Policing needs to evolve because the mission has changed drastically across the board. The solution isn’t more guns… but given how many are “out there”, we have more guns than people.
Like the wise man said… if guns protect, then we should be the safest country in the world. Seems to me it’s going the other way.
Mike McDaniel said:
Deflected? I’ll let readers decide whether I deflected, or directly addressed your points.
Mike McDaniel said:
As I said, that’s for readers to judge.
Pig Farmer said:
Saint Doug is dancing alone on the tip of
the needle: to step in any direction is to
tumble into the abyss. O Dear! What to do!
At least for the moment I haven’t joined others who have already fallen. By the way.. is that you down there? Shall I throw you a rope, or are you feeling good where you’re at?
Pingback: Your MUST READ post of the day - The DaleyGator
Mike McDaniel said:
Thanks for the link and kind comments!
Even if Castle Rock vs Gonzalez and other relevant court decisions were overturned, there would still be no way that police could guarantee protection for any citizen. It is just physically impossible for 900,000 cops to protect 300 million private citizens from ten million criminals.
And allowing lawsuits against the police for failure to protect a victim, or failure to catch a criminal, would make matters worse. Cops would be constantly tied up in court, testifying in the lawsuits, and would never have time to patrol the streets or arrest any criminals.
My guess is that most teachers would want no part of carrying guns. But the relatively few who are willing (and qualified) should be allowed the option. The “progressive” English teacher and art teacher don’t want to carry. Fine. But that is no reason why the civics teacher (a retired LAPD SWAT sniper) and the history teacher (who was an MP in the Marines and the Army Reserve) should not be allowed to carry discreetly concealed handguns.
And an armed teacher, faced with a homicidal maniac on a shooting spree, would shoot the attacker, if not from a duty to protect the students, then out of simple self-preservation.
The comments by Democrat politicians prove that they have zero interest in protecting anyone. They actually want a lot of mass shootings, which they can use as a pretext for more draconian gun laws. And they want anti-gun laws, not to prevent crime, but to prevent resistance. It’s easier to get the dissidents into the box cars when they are unarmed.
And, if anything, the PLCAA should be expanded to include all legal businesses. No company making and/or selling a legal product should be liable for another party (whether intentionally or carelessly) misusing it.
“The comments by Democrat politicians prove that they have zero interest in protecting anyone. They actually want a lot of mass shootings, which they can use as a pretext for more draconian gun laws. And they want anti-gun laws, not to prevent crime, but to prevent resistance. It’s easier to get the dissidents into the box cars when they are unarmed”
1. What comments by what Democratic politicians (I am presuming they are all in elected office and not sitting on the sidelines) have led you to make the conclusion that that “they” want gun shootings and have conspiracy goals to stifle dissidents with draconian gun laws?
2. .Is there a plan somewhere to load dissidents into boxcars? Just curious how you got this inside scoop.
Mike McDaniel said:
Typically, when training is offered teachers, a surprising number go for it. I’m sure those numbers rise or fall depending on the location. One would expect blue state teachers to be less interested.
You’re correct that even if they wanted to–and most do–they can’t. And who would become a cop knowing they’d be fending off lawsuits every day of their lives?
Common tort law does cover all legal businesses in the manner you suggest. The PLCAA was necessary because leftists were trying to law fare gun makers out of business, and there were more than enough leftist judges who were willing to ignore the law.
Mike, Is Doug a live asshole or one you made up to argue with. I vote for real cause I don’t think you could create that big a one.
Mike McDaniel said:
Nah, I didn’t invent Doug.
Elmer Fudd said:
I see that you have finally been compelled to acknowledge that the police abdicated their responsibilities in this incident. You also make the point that after enduring 2 years of ANTIFA and BLM vilifying the police for doing their jobs, it is perfectly understandable why the police waited for over an hour before confronting the gun man.