The left is mocking and ridiculing the concept of putting armed police in our schools. I would like to know how they can say that it is a crazy concept. What is crazy about it? Aren’t they aware of the fact that even their own elite have called for a police presence in schools in the past? In 2000 President Clinton requested $60 million in federal aid for a program to put cops in schools.
Why would they criticize putting a police presence in our schools? Are they trying to say we can’t trust an armed police officer to protect our children? If you can’t trust our police forces then who can you trust. Do they think a police officer isn’t capable to do the job? If that is the case then why call 911 when the shooting starts? Do they think it is wrong to allow any armed presence on the school property? Then how do they propose to stop anyone who has broken that rule? The only way to stop an unauthorized person with a gun is with an authorized person with a gun. Sooner or later a gun will have to be brought to the school to stop the slaughter, and the sooner the better. So why not already have a gun there on the premises for that use?
Are they trying say that the gun free zone is the only way to protect our children? If so, then how is that stopping the lunatics now? All the massacres in recent years have happened exclusively in gun free zones. The gun free zones only keep honest citizens from carrying guns on to the property. It doesn’t stop any mass murderer, hell bent on killing someone from carrying a gun on to the property and it never will.
I have to ask how are the gun free zones enforced now? Who is stopping the weapons from being brought into the gun free zones? What are the enforcement procedures now? I can tell you it is a sign on a post. A sign like a stop sign telling you to do something or not to do something. It is the individual who enforces the rule on themselves or not. You can run the stop sign or carry the weapon and as long as no one sees you, then you can get away with the crime.
The words “gun free zone” doesn’t mean the same thing to a criminal, lunatic or mass murderer that it means to us. To us it means that we can’t carry a weapon there, to them it means it is the safest place for them to carry a gun. Gun free zones just set us up for the mass murderers. To them it is like shooting fish in a barrel. I personally do not care to be that fish in the barrel. I definitely don’t want our children to be those fish either.
What is wrong with police officers in our schools? We have armed police patrolling our streets. We have armed guards in our banks. We have armed guards in businesses all over the country. I ask you, what is the main purpose of all those armed personal? They aren’t hiding in secret, but always in plain sight and why is that? They are there for deterrent because most armed assailants will think twice when there is some alert armed protection present. The very fact that they are there stops most assaults. But if there is an assault, they are already there to help stop it before it goes too far. It is a lot easier to stop or at least slow down a massacre if you can get an armed response to the scene quicker. Quicker response time means less lives lost. Most massacres are over with by the time the police arrive on the scene. It is true that they do stop any further deaths, but they don’t stop the first assault but usually the second, third or fourth wave of assault. The death toll would be severely reduced if the armed resistance was brought to bear much quicker.
I can agree that it is impossible for one police officer to guard every door and window, but the very fact that there is one would make a world of difference. Which school do you think a mass murderer will pick for his slaughter, the “gun free zone” one or the one with a trained police officer patrolling its halls?
Are they objecting to how it will look to the students, to have an armed police officer roaming the school hallways? If you want to teach children to trust police authority then the children have to have some interactions with them. I think having a police presence would not only help stop the slaughter of children, but it would also help stop drugs in the schools. It would open up doors for the children. Those doors could lead to possible trust for authority and the doors could lead to informing on issues within the schools which can lead to stopping other criminal activities.
Are they trying to say that the presence of the police is harmful to the students because it is the students who end up in being arrested most of the time? What is wrong with that? If a student did something worth being arrested for, shouldn’t they be arrested? What lesson do we want to teach the students, the one that you can do something illegal as long as no one is looking, or that if you do something illegal then expect to be punished for it?
Are they trying to say that locked doors and cameras can do the job? It is insane how many schools keep their doors locked and have cameras already. Unless you are willing to turn our schools into prisons then locked doors and cameras are useless.
Are they saying that a single police officer doesn’t have a chance against a heavily armed assailant? That would normally be true, but if the officer was smart and trained well he could take out the assailant. Tell me what happens now when the first officer arrives on the scene of just such an assault? Would he stay in his car and wait for backup knowing that children were being shot while he sits there? I think every cop out there would try everything they could to stop the assailant no matter how dangerous it is for them. The very fact that the mass murderer realizes that the police are on the scene often, brings the coward out of the killer and they end up in shooting themselves. The very presence of the police stopped the slaughter in a many of the cases. So why wouldn’t that work earlier in the assault?
I agree that an armed police officer isn’t the ultimate answer, but it can be part of the solution. We spend fortunes on protecting our money, businesses, property and military secrets but yet we aren’t willing to spend a little more to protect our children? I can guarantee you that banning weapons will have no affect on lunatics who want to commit mass murder at our schools, or any place else for that matter.
I feel the real answer to the problem is a well armed populous. I believe if every honest responsible citizen practiced their right to bear arms, then there would be far fewer lunatics and criminals preying on the innocent in America. It would never eliminate all of them because nothing can ever do that, short of a total lock down of every citizen in America. However, arming more citizens would make a rather large dent in the crime rate.
Thank you for taking the time to read my article. Please feel free to like this article on Facebook and any of the other articles on the Georgia Conservative site (http://georgiaconservative.net/). Also please feel free to read any of the other articles among the other Conservative Fifty pages. Then please feel free to like this site or any other state site within the Conservative Fifty group. You are also welcome to comment on or share any of my articles and I thank you for taking the time to read this or any of my other many articles. Thank you again, Bertrum J Meisner Jr.
If you would like to inquire about placing an advertisement on The Georgia Conservative
please call 864-414-3920
Powered by Facebook Comments