McCullough plans to introduce legislation that would give school
teachers and administrators the right to carry firearms in school. Under
current law in Oklahoma, it is a felony to possess a gun on school
property.
...
And McCullough explained to KOKH’s Marisa Mendelson that parents
shouldn’t worry because teachers would required to get the same type of
Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) certification that police officers have.
So this isn't a 'teachers with carry permits can carry' bill, it's a 'Take LE CLEET training and then you can carry in school' bill.
I just love this objection:
Oklahoma parent Tom Jones, however, wasn’t comforted by McCullough’s assurances.
“I don’t believe that’s the answer, I really don’t,” Jones insisted.
“I’d have to ask, how are you going to screen the teachers? How do you
know you don’t have a mentally ill person?”
Um, because they've already been through the teacher screening? And if that's not good enough for you, how much more screening should teachers have before they're in the classroom in the first place?
I like this better, personally:
Republican state Sen. Ralph Shortey is also on board with McCullough’s plan, but he said that he would allow any teacher with a concealed-carry permit to bring firearms into the school without additional training.
“When citizens have the liberty to protect themselves, they will do so, and they will do so responsibly,” Shortey told The Oklahoman.
You'll note, if you read the comments, that the place is infested with socialists, democrats and gun bigots; piles of invective, and not much else.
2 comments:
Does Mr. Jones think that a murderously insane teacher who wants to kill his child will stop because they can't legally bring the gun to school?
I seriously, seriously don't understand the thought process these people seem to have.
(Is the idea maybe that the teacher is only a little crazy-in-a-dangerous-way and is at that magical middle place where they'd have to have the gun already with them to be a threat to his kid, but at the same time all the screening already done would let them through?
Does he not realize that they barely screen police for mental issues?)
There's a simple thought experiment which usually pisses statists off no end;
supposedly (according to all stripes of statists including the mini-statists) because humans are bad, we need a state to keep us from diving straight into a Hobbesian war of all upon all.
Clearly, if we were all good, then even to the Hobbesians, there would be no need for a state.
But what if we were all absolutely evil?
The state would still comprise individual humans, all of whom would be absolutely evil. What purpose would that body of absolutely evil individuals serve?
as most of us are neither absolutely good, nor absolutely evil, but a mixture of the two, the statists fool themselves that somehow those who work for the state are blessed with divine virtue, annointed with magical statist pixie dust and produce shite which smells of roses.
But given the nature of the state; a monopolist of violent coercion, with powers to legally steal (tax), just what sort of individual is that going to attract?
add to that, the problems of monopoly, coupled with the observable traits we all share - we'd all prefer to earn more money rather than less money, and we'd all prefer to do less work to get it rather than more work, the state will always move in the trend of increasing its sphere of influence, absorbing more money and doing less work for it.
Post a Comment