That Sioux Falls paper gets it: guns will not make our schools safer. Their Saturday editorial calls on the Legislature to reject House Bill 1087, the school gunslinger bill:
...it’s time to drop the idea that safety in schools is well served by armed employees and that this is just a local control issue. As a citizenry, we do not make schools safer by having a gun in the building, and we can’t atone for the children who will be even more afraid if they know their teachers or the janitor have access to a firearm.
Instead, we must believe and offer hope that with rational security measures such as locked doors and adequate screening of guests, our children are safe to go to school. As horrifying as a school shooting is, and we hope there is never another, arming a school like a fortress asks everyone to pay a different kind of price that is unnecessary and harmful in its own ways. And it most certainly is a decision that never should be made in secret [editorial, "Guns Don't Make Schools Safer," that Sioux Falls paper, 2013.02.23].
The Senate State Affairs committee did amend out HB 1087's overreaching secrecy clause on Friday, but not without Senator Russell Olson making clear his contempt for the educators who have uniformly lined up against HB 1087. Sigh. Even if we all carried guns, Senator Olson still wouldn't respect us teachers.
"...it’s time to drop the idea that safety in schools is well served by armed employees and that this is just a local control issue."
I agree, this is not a local control issue because this is about the US and SD Constitutions, making this is a human rights issue. Those who give up their rights for the sake of safety will lose both. Sandy Hook was an example of losing both freedom and safety. Note that the Corporate media, which includes the Argus, are part of the crusade to destroy the Constitutional Republic and establish a one-world government. You can consider the gun-free school zones as examples of the establishment of totalitarian police states.
Any blowing snow and/or oppression gray skies there, Sibby?
"You can consider the gun-free school zones as examples of the establishment of totalitarian police states."
Above seems to have an oxymoronish character to it.
There's that "one world government" Bircher crap from Sibby again. Yes, it's all a sinister plot that evidently everyone knows about yet is unable to stop. How does having everyone paranoid and packing make us safer?
Stats prove the opposite, yet our legislators say, "ignore the facts, I have my opinion and it will be!" How 'bout let's ask the schools their opinion based on, oh I dunno, WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING, since they more than likely know best....our legislators? "we know what's best so just be quiet".
They are making their decisions on their own pro-gun opinions and/or flawed research (one legislator gave me a blogger's post, to show why he supports the "sentinel" bill - the blogger gave no actual research to back up his data, only based his post on pure opinion) (Cory, does actual research!!)
Before Sibby puts on the tin foil hat and "goes there", I'm not anti-gun and I'm not saying anything close to "they want to disarm all of us". I'm saying that schools are for education, period! And keeping kids and school staff safe with excellent self defense mechanisms that they are currently using is good. (and I love that they review them, change them if needed, and do common sense drills)
I just wonder (or not) why they spend all of this time and energy on the "sentinel" bill, yet nothing on making education better and stronger with the end goal being to make students of South Dakota the best educated in the country..... sigh
"make students of South Dakota the best educated in the country"
Telling students it is OK to trash Constitutional rights is not what I call the best in education. Seems logical that such anti-Constitutional agenda would be in line with communism. But when faced with the truth, the Kool Aid drinkers have no choice but to attack the messenger. What else can you fools do, if you refuse to think for yourselves?
"Telling students it is OK to trash Constitutional rights is not what I call the best in education. Seems logical that such anti-Constitutional agenda would be in line with communism. But when faced with the truth, the Kool Aid drinkers have no choice but to attack the messenger. What else can you fools do, if you refuse to think for yourselves?"
Again Steve nobody is going after your constitutional rights. This is a stupid law and we shouldn't be wasting time with it. There is no way this will make schools safer. The only one drinking the Kool-Aid is you and that comes from the blood-covered NRA. The only fool is you.
Right, Doug: It's HB 1087 that's trying to expand the police state with more guns surrounding our children.
Steve, for the umpteenth time, we are not telling kids to trash Constitutional rights. We are telling kids that every Constitutional right has limitations.
Dana! Which legislator... and which blogger, and which post?
Another thing besides trying to make schools a war zone with guns in the schools, they are wasting a lot of time and money trying to make it harder to obtain abortions.
Dana P., are you implying that Cory represents all educators and schools in the state? And by the way I am from that area that Cory implies that we are going to let the children conceal carry.
You know, Bret, from my reading of the Gun-Free Schools Act, it seems to me you could arm tjose kids, if you can show that action will increase the quality of instruction or improve academic performance. (Dang— why can't that be the standard for every school-related policy the Legislature tries to pass?)
In typing the word "improve" using the touch typing method accidentally hitting the p instead of the o is highly unlikely due to the fact that your little finger would already be upon the p. You must be search and pecking....
(Curses! Fixed! :-) )
"We are telling kids that every Constitutional right has limitations."
BS. You can't take you gun into a school and start shooting the kids is a reasonable restriction, but not allowing teachers to shoot back at those who do is a violation of the Constitutional right to bear arms in order to defend themselves and the kids that the state is indoctrinating with Marxism, Darwinism, and Freudian brainwashing...all in an effort to set up a worldwide federation.
Cory - it was Stace Nelson. I had asked, in general to the South Dakota legislature what statistics, data, or other information was being used by our politicians for them to make an informed decision on the "sentinel" bill. Within minutes, Stace Nelson responded, "Dana, let me try and retrace my steps on the data. Read it several days ago." Great!
I patiently waited for two weeks for anything. But there was never a response. At that point, I asked Mr. Nelson if he had any follow up for me (I thought two weeks was more than reasonable), and what I received for the next 30-45 minutes was a barage of condescension, demeaning, belittling, and bullying (well attempts to bully) comments from him, to include: "please excuse the fact that I am not indentured as your research assistant AND I have been too busy to research for you". wow! Sorry that as a concerned citizen of this state that I dared ask a question as to why our politicians were supporting a certain bill!!
Anyway, here is the Examiner article that he finally gave to me....It said that an avg of 14+ citizens were killed as police were responding to a mass shooting - and an avg of 2+ citizens were killed when there was an armed civilian present at a mass shooting.
http://www.examiner.com/article/analyzing-shooting-rampage-statistics-after-newport-school-shooting
I won't go into the back and forth of mine and Mr Nelson's "discussion" (I do love screen shots, though!!), but I did try to point out to him why the data was not something that could be supported on various levels. I also provided to him an actual researched project that had been done, showing that there is no evidence of any past incidents that an armed person being present has stopped a mass shooting. He didn't even acknowledge it as the belittling continued.
It was an interesting window into how decision making is made, especially on the "sentinel" bill. That is for sure!!
Bret - no, I'm not implying that Cory speaks for all educators and schools in this state.
I hate to make this simple, but I don't support this bill because most of the yahoos who would want to carry guns in school around my child are the last people I want armed around my kid. I've been hunting with a few of this type and they do stupid things with guns when they see a deer.
Guns are simply tools, they don't make us safer or smarter or better looking.
"there is no evidence of any past incidents that an armed person being present has stopped a mass shooting"
That is because of the gun-free society that UNESCO has created with the propaganda that they have spread via public education for decades now. In fact "armed person[s]" did stop the Sandy Hook "mass shooting". Unfortunately it took 10 minutes for the members of the totalitarian police state to show up.
ick, Sib. 23 degrees and freezing fog in Mitchell. You must be miserable.
Fog from Mitchell drifted south too. Sort of clearing now however. Sibby's hot air might be good for something after all.
So the only reality you two can deal with is the weather?
Large majority of teachers, even gun-owning teachers, don't want to carry their guns in school: http://www.schoolimprovement.com/voices-of-education/gun-safety-in-schools-survey-results/
Again, Sibby, you're trying to surround our children with armed "sentinels", which is the closest thing to a police state that anyone on this thread has proposed. Nuts to that.
This should go without saying, but no part of my personal or political agenda includes establishing a worldwide federation. Believe it or not, my blogging really is just about making South Dakota a better place (or keeping it from getting worse), with occasional forays into national policy and random monkeybusiness. I oppose HB 1087 (and so does that Sioux Falls paper) because it is bad policy, practically and morally.
Of course I feel sorry for those that are of the "poor me, I have a gun but someone is trying to take it away from me." Or the "the constitution is rigid and only allows us to do one thing, and that's keep buying and shooting guns until we die." Maybe its this, " the only thing keeping our children safe is the gun I'm packing, so stop messing with me, I'm right and your wrong."
All these people need religious instruction from THE CHURCH OF BILL.
This weeks sermon comes in two parts. First we will discuss "The gun totters blues." And then for the second hour at the bar it will be, "The fourteen gram bag, is it half empty or half full?"
Remember its happy hour until closing time on church night. We only break for pole dancers.
Seriously folks I have been reading these blogs for a long time now and I have never seen anyone change anyone's opinion on guns or abortion. Either you are for an elastic constitution that allows for change and modification as society changes, or you are a strict constitutionalist that wants something so hard and rigid that the only way it works is if you go back to the beginning of this country. South Dakota isn't any different then any other state in that we want everything that we can get from the US government as long as we agree with what it is. We just don't want to admit it. Guns, the hell with the feds they don't control us. Marijuana, we just cant because it is against federal law. WTF is wrong with these two comparisons?
Todays words of wisdom. Long hair short hair what the hells the difference once the heads blowed off.
If you need spiritual guidance this probably isn't your place. But if you want the truth come on down we will expand your mind and free that religious hostage held brain of yours. .08+1
From the pulpit of
The Blindman
"Again, Sibby, you're trying to surround our children with armed "sentinels", which is the closest thing to a police state that anyone on this thread has proposed."
I oppose HB1087 because no school board or sherriff should take away a teacher's constitutional right to bear arms.
"Large majority of teachers, even gun-owning teachers, don't want to carry their guns in school"
Yes, in a Democratic Communist form of government, the majority can disregard fundamental rights of the minority and set up a totalitarian police state.... [editorial note from CAH: more Sibson irrelevancy deleted. The totalitarian police state is one with armed agents of the state in every classroom.]
"The totalitarian police state is one with armed agents of the state in every classroom."
No Cory, it is one that the only gun that "can be" in the classroom is one held by the police. That is what we have now. A totalitarian state also censors speech. This issue has made it clear via testimony in committee hearings, that the public education system has set up totalitarian states, and they want to keep it that way so it can be expanded to the whole world (UN Arms Treaty). Again, the one-world government is relevant to everything.
Slavery and the 8 veils: how myth created the illuminati.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy43UEaIWXE
Nutty talk, Steve. I can as effectively fight whatever monster you imagine you are fighting by telling the police to get their guns out of my school. And no one is talking about HB 1087 (now passed by the Senate, alas) nor should be talking about it as a hedge against one-world government. That's the kind of nutty talk that shuts down practical policy discussion.