Skip to comments.The Federal Government is Guilty Accomplice in School Shooting in Newtown Connecticut
Posted on 12/16/2012 5:34:24 AM PST by marktwain
This shooting is yet another tragic example of the failed, grotesque insistence on helpless victim zones where any crazed gunman can be assured of a large number of disarmed, undefended, helpless victims, all crammed into one place, where he can kill many children before an armed defender arrives from elsewhere. It is disturbing and sick that the federal government so hates the right of the American people to bear arms, and so hates their natural right to self defense, that the government insists on making them helpless, disarmed victims for anyone who cares to kill them. And in this case, all of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by the Federal Government, by force of law and threat of prison, to ensure that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care.
That makes the Federal Government complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder, by forcibly disarming (with the very real threat of prison) all the teachers, all the staff, and any parent who may have been on school property. That stupid law guaranteed the shooters would meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such an attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at oathkeepers.org ...
Exactly right. The Federal Government is to blame for the entire incident for failure to encourage armed teachers/administrators and leaving our children defenseless. Right on...
So, here is a question. Since the scene of the crime would be troubling, to say the least, would any of the LEO’s that were involved in securing and investigating be dis-allowed from having firearms in the future if they seek counseling? Seems that I heard or read that is the case for vets who are labeled with PTSD. Why would not the LEO’s be treated the same if they suffer some form of PTSD after this? What about any firemen or EMT’s? Just wonderin’.
Helping keep mankind warm for 65 years.
It goes to show how erring on the side of caution is a terribly inadequate problem-solving process.
This is what I have been saying all along. The State of Connecticut and the Federal Government by having the strict gun control laws assumed the responsibility of protecting the teachers and innocent children. The State and Federal lawmakers that passed these laws are responsible for the carnage, not the gun makers, for it was the lawmakers that created the situation for evil to murder the innocent children without any resistance. This is just logical, plain and simple. Why can’t the masses see this?
I’m for school marshals. Plain clothed and ready to handle a situation like the one in Connecticut.
The schools in our county have signs; “This is a gun free zone”, nothing like advertising that everyone there is unprotected.
Not a bad idea. About $400/student - 3% to 4% of total spend. Everyone on board for raising taxes to make them available? If not then where to get the money from?
I'd like to see a suit for their failing their fiduciary duties.
Not only that but this link from the Gateway Pundit plays a big part as well.
Over the past 50 years we have basically stopped hospitalizing the insane.
Uh, at Sandy Hook that would be $280,000/yr. I think they can find a part-time armed guard for less than that.
armed staff, not a bad idea....
thinking of being the first housewife on my street to own one ! I’m home during the day, an a girlfriend had her front door broken down while she was home - intruder ran when he saw her!
“World Peace, Baby”.....
This shooting is yet another tragic example of the failed, grotesque insistence on helpless victim zones where any crazed gunman can be assured of a large number of disarmed,
I like to compare this school incident to a police station. You do not see gunmen invading police station to shoot up all the cops. Why? All the cops have weapons to shoot back with. End of story.
You get what you pay for. If you can get a well armed guard that can handle someone with a Bushmaster with taped together 30 round magazines, then get them. That person will still need to live near the community to work in the school Perhaps a retired police officer in the area? Should each local district make that decision and come up with the funds? What about poor districts?
Im for school marshals. Plain clothed and ready to handle a situation like the one in Connecticut.
Just train the teachers to defend themselves and their students.
In the future I would not be surprised if we find that this was another government like “Fast and Furious” planned carnage for the purpose of eliminating guns in America.
More guns in the hands of people willing to defend themselves is probably the best deterrent for crime there is.
But back to the insanity problem.
Not to lock these(mentally ill)people up or at the very least get them help while making sure they can’t do harm to anyone else should not be rocket science.
If you are a bad guy which school would you attack from the below:
1. A school in the United States where by law there are no weapons in some states?
2. A school in Israel where many of the personnel are armed with pistols and rifles to protect the students?
In my local school district that would be $600,000 a year for a district with 1500 students and 3 school buildings. There are 43 teacher aides on the payroll. Cut a couple from each building and you can pay for a guard.
I call on schools in my line of business. Many have a security desk in the front manned by what looks like retired citizens looking for some extra cash. Their responsibility is to make sure you sign in when visiting the school - great security measure.
Why not man the security desk with a real armed security guard? The only thing lacking is the will of the government run schools to do it.
the absentee dad is a guilty accomplice, out living “married” to his affair partner leaving mom holding the bag of a mentally ill son.
they would have been hiding behind the doors and calling the cops. just let the teachers get trained and be armed
I’d like to see a suit for their failing their fiduciary duties.
Me too! However I’m afraid that would result in the politicians putting an armed guard in every school room in America.
I would rather see teachers trained and proficient in weapon use as part of their education.
I think that is a better option than arming teachers who often come into close physical contact with their students. Also if you want a teacher you want a teacher - not a teacher who is trained to engage an armed assailant in a firefight with a room full of children. Something could be said about have a well armed and trained citizenry, but we live in a country of specialists including our law enforcement personal. Even those dedicated to full-time learning on how to respond are vulnerable in these situations (the police officer at the Sikh temple who got shot for example).
Armed Pilots Program
We only have to look at the incredibly successful armed pilots program that continues today.
When proposed, liberals imagined it would result in shootouts at 30,000 feet and distracted pilots who would cause crash after crash.
Liberals were wrong -— AGAIN.
Just like they were wrong in every state that passed concealed carry.
Just like they were wrong in every state that passed the Castle Doctrine.
Here is a solution that costs way, way less than that. Some training, a weapon, done.
Well yes. But people taking meds that cause rage or suicidal urges must be kept away from guns and cars until they are better.
Trouble is Chuck like we just pointed out on the tv thread Chuck no bullets in many of these guns even in Israel.
The solution that will be arrived at will be to hire more government employees as security guards. And they will be unionized. This can be done quickly. It will satisfy those who just want to feel like they are participating. It will help unemployment ( not really, but that’s how it will be portrayed). It will help create more Democrat voters. This will be the solution they arrive at. Gun control doesn’t create any new government jobs. Finally, the Democrats will love it because it doesn’t actually solve the problem, so they can keep complaining about guns. Everything will be the same, except we will have more unionized government employees who vote Democrat.
Yes, and the CT people would never agree that no-gun zones are a safety threat. No common sense there
From what I have read most recently, the mother dumped the father, not the other way around—if you have seen a story that the marriage busted up over an affair, I’d be interested in a link. The only things that I have seen indicating that the father had hooked up with some one else were very early when the media had the father living in NJ.
I do agree that the divorce was almost certainly a contributing factor, but I would hesitate to dump the entire responsibility for the divorce on the father.
And...when was the last time there was a mass-shooting in a gun store?
The problem is most teachers are nut-job leftists who hate guns and would be the last people on earth to voluntarily submit to gun training and carrying.
The reality is hired armed protection is likely the only way this will work.
Perhaps you are thinking of the maternal step-grandfather, who was a principal in the school district who seems to have dumped his first wife for a school nurse?
“the absentee dad is a guilty accomplice, out living married to his affair partner leaving mom holding the bag of a mentally ill son.”
My advice to you is to ‘Judge not, lest you be judged’. You do not know the situation.
Was the shooter NOT a legal adult?
murder suicide at gun store/shooting range
One more time
I am not saying it was a mass shooting, your comment just jogged my mind about a weird instance I was familiar with. Still what a loony tune doing it there; those guys there are tough
If the teachers were allowed to carry, there would be little cost. They should be professionally trained but there are numerous places where they can get good training.
Also, many towns have volunteer fire departments. The costs are minimal. How about the same setup with a couple of on site armed volunteers (properly trained and deputized, of course). Perhaps there should be an off duty or retired (or even an active) policeman in charge? That would give some defense in depth. The school could provide the radios and lunch and the volunteers would provide their own (approved) weaponry and time.
This isn't rocket science, but there are a lot of laws, lawyers, and politicians in the way.