South Dakota to let schools arm teachers

[henschman]

A lot of us know how "advanced" the training most military and police get. This is one of the lies that antis use... Pretending like only gov't trained personnel are responsible enough to own guns because of their special training. In reality, mostly the ones that are shooting enthusiasts to begin with are the ones who really make sure they are really proficient. In my experience, most civilians who choose to carry a gun in public take the responsibility at least as seriously as most armed public servants.

I don't know how they do it in the Air Force, but a couple of my buddies bragged about how they shot Expert with pistol in the Army, and I KNOW they're not very good pistol shooters. It must not be too difficult of a course.

 

[jakerz]

I was in the military as well, Army infantry. There were some of us that knew what we were doing and others that didn't have a clue. However, we were all "certified" to do the job. I feel that the teachers that would carry would fall into the proficient category. My wife included. She is as avid a shooter as I am (not lately due to lack of ammo).

 

[henschman]

I agree, jakerz.

And FYI this law allows the local school boards to choose who can carry in their schools... presumably they can require whatever training they want for the people they choose to allow to be armed in their facilities. This is as it should be. This is the kind of policy that needs to be made on the local level, based on the realities in that particular area and the personnel they have.

 

[gerhard1]

A lot of us know how "advanced" the training most military and police get. This is one of the lies that antis use... Pretending like only gov't trained personnel are responsible enough to own guns because of their special training. In reality, mostly the ones that are shooting enthusiasts to begin with are the ones who really make sure they are really proficient. In my experience, most civilians who choose to carry a gun in public take the responsibility at least as seriously as most armed public servants.

I don't know how they do it in the Air Force, but a couple of my buddies bragged about how they shot Expert with pistol in the Army, and I KNOW they're not very good pistol shooters. It must not be too difficult of a course.

Your post brought this well-known video to mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

 

[SoonerP226]

I don't know how they do it in the Air Force, but a couple of my buddies bragged about how they shot Expert with pistol in the Army, and I KNOW they're not very good pistol shooters. It must not be too difficult of a course.

A late fiend of mine was in the Navy in the '50s, and they went to get qualified on the M1 Garand, the M1911, and the Thompson SMG. He said he got to shoot the Garand, but before he got to shoot the others it started raining, and they had to unass the AO before the field became impassible for the buses they were using. Guess what--he was now "qualified" on all three, despite never having shot (or even handled) two of them. (To make it even better, later in his career he pulled a stint on guard duty at Treasure Island (IIRC) carrying, you guessed it, a Thompson and a 1911 because the Navy had said he was qualified on them. Fortunately, the armorer took pity on him and showed him how to operate them...)

IMHO, if you have a carry license, it should be good anywhere. It's not like you're a fine, upstanding citizen one one side of an imaginary line, but a lead-slinging nincompoop on the other.

 

[tweetr]

If the teachers, or anyone else, can carry in public, they should be allowed to carry in schools.

ALl these people against it crack me up, just like when talking about OC they were saying it'd become to the wild west again...

Exactly right. The answer to school shootings is not to hire armed guards and it is not to train and certify certain teachers to carry weapons. These ideas are all completely wrong-headed. The answer to stupid laws is not to enact more laws! The answer is simply to remove the (unconstitutional) laws that currently exist against carry in schools! Why are schools such an attractive target for mayhem? Well, there is the shock value of children being present, of course; but as that is intrinsic to the idea of a school itself, it cannot be changed. More important, however, is the reasonable expectation that, because of restrictions against carry in schools, no armed opposition will be present! Reverse that expectation and schools become less attractive as a target.

That is the practical argument and it is sufficient. There is, however, the more compelling Constitutional and natural rights argument! That is, that any government restriction against keeping and bearing arms is both unconstitutional and violative of the natural right of man to defend himself. One does not relinquish either the Constitutional or the natural right to self defense upon entering a school! Obviously and demonstrably, laws against firearms in schools do not stop criminals from carrying firearms in schools. The argument in schools is no different from anywhere else.

Were I a teacher in Newtown, I would sue the state of Connecticut for exposing me to mortal danger by unconstitutionally preventing me from arming myself. Were I a father of children in Newtown, I would sue the state of Connecticut for exposing my children to mortal danger by unconstitutionally preventing the adults present from discharging their duty as state employees to protect my children who were present by state mandate in state-mandated facilities.

Folks, I urge you to reject vigorously the premise that a state school is in any way a zone of exception to Constitutional and natural rights! The intellectually lazy temptation is to accept the statist premise that the firearm represents the violent evil, and to accept the emotional premise that when children are present special restrictions are justified. We here in this forum ought to possess the intelligence and the moral confidence to recognize the opposite: that the firearm represents the essential and necessary defense against violent evil. Every firearms restriction ever legislated intrinsically and unalterably tips the balance of power in favor of arming the lawless. Because children are present the moral imperative to protect firearms rights, and therefore the right to defense against violence, is more, not less, absolute!

 

[skycitadel]

Every firearms restriction ever legislated intrinsically and unalterably tips the balance of power in favor of arming the lawless. Because children are present the moral imperative to protect firearms rights, and therefore the right to defense against violence, is more, not less, absolute!

agreed.

could I use that in a letter to my reps?

 

[Old Fart]

I think all this advanced training should be required for everyone before they can carry.

 

[jakerz]

I think all this advanced training should be required for everyone before they can carry.

What!? I thought that qualifying with your pistol for the license was "advanced" training.

 

[lucyreed]

That would be great for the school and much better if the teachers are well trained with guns. School shootings are naturally heartbreaking. Now, South Dakota would like to even the arena. According to reports, the state has made instructors packing heat a lawful exercise. Article resource:South Dakota Allows Teachers To Carry Guns