Posted on 09/09/2004 8:17:54 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Says school gun ban leaves nation vulnerable to Russian-type tragedy
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A gun-rights group is calling on Congress to deny funds for prosecution of violators of a federal ban on guns in school zones, saying teachers carrying weapons could prevent a terrorist attack like the one at a Russian school from occurring in the U.S.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told members of Congress in a letter that "teachers in this country are just as disarmed as the defenseless teachers in Russia," where Islamic terrorists killed hundred of innocent civilians whom they held in a school gymnasium in the town of Beslan.
Wrote Pratt: "It should be noted that ALL the school shootings that have been prematurely cut short here were ended because a responsible adult had a firearm at the school. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick of Pearl, Miss., is a notable example – he used a firearm in 1997 to stop Luke Woodham's shooting spree.
"It would be a travesty if the Gun Free School Zones Act was used to prosecute an American hero such as Joel Myrick. Please deny funding for any prosecutions that could arise under this gun ban, except for the situation where a person has the intent to criminally injure another person. Putting such language into an appropriations bill could accomplish this.
"We are in a war without boundaries. Please act now."
Pratt noted Israel relies on armed school staff and parents to protect its children, and the U.S. should do no less.
"To leave schools legally disarmed at the national level can only put the blood of future victims on your hands," Pratt wrote.
It worked for Israel, but with all the liberals in our school system there would be way too much resistance to implementing a common sense plan of having armed teachers and administrators. Even if we have our own Belsun, the liberals will just call for more gun control, more tolerance towards muslims and more appeasement. Plus I can't imagine butch dykes and girlie men trying to defend themselves, let alone someone else's children. Never happen here.
I agree with Pratt in principle on matter, but I'm afraid that a armed parents or teachers wouldn't last long against the kind of organized surprise attack by a platoon of trained killers like we saw in Russia. Still, better to die on your feet than kneeling down with your kids...
All schools need to be retrofitted with doors to the outside for every classroom. The children need to be trained and drilled as to what to do if the school is attacked by terrorists. The model needs to be that of the convoys in the North Atlantic in WWII when a Wolf Pack was encountered -- when the alarm goes off, SCATTER. All the kids go out the nearest door as fast as possible and run for it. The terrorists might get a few of them, but you would rob them of the horror and sustained visibility of rounding them all up in the gym or something.
Furthermore, local police and militia need to respond immediately and as massively as possible. No talk, no negotiations. Just hit and hit hard in an attempt to disrupt the terrorist's plans. If terrorists hit a school here like they did in Russia, we will lose children. It's just a matter of how many. A fast, overwhelming response -- like the "assault" response out of the kill zone in an ambush -- will minimize the loss of life. The terrorists' plan is based on our not doing that, on our setting up to negotiate, while, in their minds, they have already killed all the hostages and died themselves. They don't actually expect concessions; they might make a demand, but they don't expect it to be accomodated. Their goal is to inflict _terror_. The demand is to give their cause visibility; to get the bleeding hearts thinking, "gee, they must have been really wronged in some way to be _that_ desperate!" The rules are different now and we better get with the program.
When I saw what was happening in Russia, I didn't expect any of the hostages to live. It's amazing that any did and the Russians deserve credit for that. Instead, they get blame.
Just my thoughts and opinions...
Can you imagine a couple of crew-served BMG 50's and FN-FAL's for every able-bodied resident of a westernSudanese village? The genocidal Arabs wouldn't dare ride in on their camels and ponies to attack. They'd be cowering as far away as they could get.
Depends on how they are armed and trained. Radios are a heck of a weapon, if you can hold out long enough to use them. A few M-243s (or if we must old surplus M-60s) and at least one Ma-Duece per school would go a long way to repulsing most any attack, or at least slowing it up long enough to use those radios to call in the calvary.
BTW it doesn't take much training to shoot little kids in the back as they flee. They had a few terrorists trained in explosives, but that's about it.
Thanks Mr. Pratt, for at least putting it on the record.
If adult role models carried and respected weapons, fewer children might come to think of them as extraordinary objects. Something changed between 1789 and the 1990s in our country. If anything, it was our media-programmed attitudes toward firearms. Kids used to bring their guns to school before hunting or rifle practice. Bring those days back and from suburbia to the gnarliest urban setting, children would learn to view firearms as tools rather than icons of power and prestige.
And prevalent, they would serve as a deterrence against the next Islamic terror attack on an institution.
The way our liberals think and with political correctness in vogue, they would make sure the Muslim teachers would be the first to be handed guns.
What Arabs are likely to do also --- like they do in Israel, is strap bombs onto their own kids and then detonate them when they get inside with the others.
Roving camel raiders when they're unopposed; Soviet tanks when they're armed as proxies by enemies of the west; and suicide bombers when they're out-gunned and militarily impotent. In any case, a major threat to the future of the human race.
"Depends on how they are armed and trained. Radios are a heck of a weapon, if you can hold out long enough to use them. A few M-243s (or if we must old surplus M-60s) and at least one Ma-Duece per school would go a long way to repulsing most any attack, or at least slowing it up long enough to use those radios to call in the calvary. "
Class-III weapons in schools is a fantasy, unfortunately.
Aside from the logistical problem of exterior doors on upper floors, (cold weather and loitering issues)this plan, to me, appears to be the most workable.
"Wolfpack" - This is also what we have been advised, I understand, as what to do when you are the object of a
HOME INVASION.
Thank you for posting this - I wonder what the odds are, state by state, for this scenario to be possible . . .
Please: The discouraging scenario you describe may be changing now. You have written an excellent method to quickly allow for lives to be saved;
The "assault weapons" ban is likely to expire,
Concealed Carry is becoming legal in so many places,
The world has just had another huge dose of terrorism,
- Your method may be more possible now than it has ever been in the last 40-50 years.
And wasn't the "Texas Tower" sniper 1962-3? taken down by students and professors with rifles brought from their vehicles?
What do you bet we don't see so much as one replay of planes flying into buildings on Saturday? Not a glimpse of the burning twin towers. Not so much as a hint of the Twin Towers collapsing.
We can't traumatize the children, after all.
Not the real thing even?
If by that, you mean will they air coverage of a live attack, of course they will. Now even the PC liberal media would stonewall a story like that one.
I simply meant even Fox News refused to air footage of the 9/11 attacks in '02 and '03 so as not to traumatize the viewing public. I don't know about the rest, because I watch Fox almost exclusively. But if they resorted to such flagrant censorship, what do you suppose CNN, MSNBC and the like did?
I didn't realize the viewing public were such a bunch of prancing lightweights.
BTTT
I don't think they are. I believe they have political motivations for keeping the images from us, and social concerns for the same. Liberal American intellectuals are afraid of letting our emotions be stirred both because of the inevitable loss of power it will mean to them, and the potential nature of our response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.