Advertisements
Home

OHIO TEACHERS CHOSE CARRYING GUNS OVER KEEPING THEM IN A SAFE

Leave a comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

This is a wise decision that these teachers made because in an emergency you may not be able to get your gun out of the safe.

After the tragic school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some state lawmakers realized that it takes law enforcement too long to respond to an active shooter at a school. By the time police arrive (7-15 min.), most of the carnage has been done.

Therefore, they saw the need to allow school staff (teachers and faculty) to be properly trained, obtain conceal carry permits and to carry their guns with them during school hours. This would allow them to instantly respond to an active shooter and save lives.

Additionally, knowing that teachers and faculty could be armed, serves as a deterrent to would be mass shooters. They don’t want to face armed resistance until after they commit their crime.

Some have argued that it is safer for guns on school grounds be kept locked in a safe, but when asked that’s not what Ohio teachers thought.

“Why conceal guns on the body instead of in a safe? ‘It’s ultimately about putting people in place to protect the house. We hope and pray it would never be us, but at the end of the day, we have to be ready in seconds and not minutes.’” – Georgetown Exempted Village Schools Superintendent Chris Burrow in Guns in school [via mydaytondailynews.com]

21 Responses to Quote of the Day: Ohio Teachers Opt for On-Body Carry

FedUp says:

August 15, 2017 at 08:10

And in another district, select staffers can shelter in place, retrieve their weapons from their safes, and be prepared to deal with the shooter when he’s already cleaned out a couple of other classrooms. (from the linked article)…

Keeping guns in a safe during school hours is a really stupid idea that only demonstrates how little some anti-gun liberals value the safety of your children. Think about it. If an active shooter begins shooting, no one may be able to safely get to and open the safe to retrieve their gun to stop the shooter. Additionally, trying to reach and open a safe to retrieve a gun wastes valuable time that could cost the lives of more students and teachers.

READ MORE HERE

 

Advertisements

Pennsylvania NAACP Leader Speaks Out on Confederate Statues — Her Comments Might Surprise You

1 Comment

H/T Independent Journal Review.

The lame stream media will never cover this story.

An NAACP leader in Pennsylvania is speaking out against protesters tearing downConfederate monuments in the days following the violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The problem, according to Esther Lee — who helms the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania chapter of the organization — is the “senseless” unrest around the country, not the statues of Confederate leaders.

In fact, she said Tuesday that the Confederate memorials are a part of the country’s history and should stay in place, via WFMZ-TV:

You know, that’s history — that was in that point in time. You can’t eliminate what history is. So I disapprove with young people pulling down those statues.

A young woman died. Two officers were murdered in a plane crash. And all for what? Because somebody in their mind decided, ‘We don’t need to look at that anymore.’ It shouldn’t be.

Moving forward, Lee has two pieces of advice for protesters: Leave the monuments alone, and begin to pray for President Donald Trump, even — and maybe especially — if you disagree with him.

“I would pray that he would gain the strength to do what’s necessary in the job, at least for these four years,” the NAACP leader said, later encouraging Americans to “widen our circle of compassion.”

Lee’s comments came after Trump wondered aloud during a rowdy press conference if protesters would begin demanding that statues of America’s founding president, George Washington, be torn down.

By Wednesday morning, the president had his answer. A Chicago pastor has called on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to remove a statue of Washington because the nation’s first commander in chief was a slave owner.

The city of Baltimore — under the cover of night — removed several famous Confederate monuments from public property on Tuesday. Mayor Catherine Pugh said the sculptures “needed to come down” for the “safety and security of our people.”

Rush Sets off Fireworks, Reveals Who Monument-Haters Should Really Go After

1 Comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

Rush Limbaugh nails it.

 

In the aftermath hate-filled violence Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia, some on the left have resumed their quest to rid the country of statues memorializing Confederate generals and soldiers with renewed vigor, even succeeding in dragging one down themselves Monday in Durham, North Carolina, as they claim they symbolize the worst aspects of our nation’s past.

Enter the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, who exclaimed Monday night on PBS with host Charlie Rose that the Jefferson Memorial needed to come down — yes, the memorial to Thomas Jefferson, founding father, Declaration of Independence author and third president of our nation — because he owned slaves and Sharpton found that offensive, according to The Washington Times.

If you find that to be patently absurd, have no fear, for you are not alone. In fact, you are in the company of none other than the king of conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, who jokingly played out the absurdity of that thought process to its only logical conclusion, the dissolution of the Democrat Party.

“Thomas Jefferson was one of the founders of this country, and you see what this really is about here? This is about not just delegitimizing Donald Trump, and it’s not just about getting rid of him,” stated Rush during part of Tuesday’s program. “These people are on a tear to delegitimize this entire country, as part of their effort to transform it and — dare I say — overthrow it however they might try to make that happen.”

After he stated that, “These are people that cannot be mollified,” Rush continued to lay out some of the history of our nation’s founding, including the heated debate at the time regarding the — even then — controversial institution of slavery.

“And their whole argument resides on the notion that it hasn’t changed, that there still is, for all intents and purposes, slavery,” Limbaugh continued. “There still is racism. There still is bigotry.

And now it’s been joined by a bunch of Nazis and Klan members — and the Klan was all Democrats, and the segregationists in the South were all Democrats,” he added. “I’d like to ask a question about this, for those of you on the left. You want to tear down the statues of Robert E. Lee and you want to tear down, now, the Jefferson Memorial if you’re Al Sharpton …

“But you want to get rid of all of these monuments that have been erected to people and events in our nation’s past, tied to the Civil War, which you find horribly, horribly offensive and you want to get rid of all vestiges,” stated Rush.

“Well, at what point are you gonna realize that you also have to disband the Democrat Party?” he asked. “If you’re gonna really succeed and follow through to the end on this mission, you’ve got to get rid of the Democrat Party, and you have got to wipe a bunch of people out of it.”

Limbaugh proceeded to name names of prominent Democrats from the not-too-distant past who were known to be bigoted and racist, even open members of the KKK, who are nevertheless still held in high regard by some Democrats. Many had towns, roads and major institutions named after them, all of which must be summarily changed if Democrats were intellectually honest with themselves.

What Happened to CNN? 😂

Leave a comment

tomfernandez28's Blog

CNN once changed the entire news industry, but now is its biggest embarrassment. From improv pundits pretending to know what they’re talking about, to endless baseless speculation about nonsense to their race baiting, they have ruined their reputation.

Screen Shot 2017-08-21 at 11.27.41 AMScreen Shot 2017-08-21 at 11.28.38 AM

View original post

Misusing Robert E. Lee

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative HQ.

The truth about Robert E.Lee the liberals do not want told.

On April 12, 1861, the day secessionists in South Carolina bombarded Ft. Sumter to fire the shots that opened the American Civil War, then-Colonel Robert E. Lee was perhaps America’s most accomplished soldier.

Lee had served with distinction in the Mexican War, leading a reconnaissance patrol that discovered the means by which the Americans defeated the Mexicans at the battle of Cerro Gordo. He had served as Superintendent of West Point, had supervised the construction of numerous coastal fortifications, and most recently, Lee Robert E. Lee Statuecommanded the forces that captured abolitionist John Brown and the gang that had attempted to seize the government arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia and start a slave rebellion.

As America moved inexorably toward Civil War, General Winfield Scott, the highest ranking American general, and a hero of the Mexican War, told President Abraham Lincoln that he wished Lee to command the Union army. Lee, who on March 281861, had ignored an offer of command in the Confederate army was offered the command on April 18, 1861, just six days after Ft. Sumter.

Lee refused the command on the grounds that he was a Virginian and owed his first allegiance to the state he believed was a sovereign entity with the right to stay in or leave the Union as it saw fit. He would, he said, not make war on the Union, but he would defend the state of his birth.

When Virginia seceded from the Union Lee said, “I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty.”

Why would Lee choose the state of Virginia over the United States of America?

While Lee espused the paternalistic attitudes many Nineteenth Century Americans felt toward Africans, it certainly wasn’t because he believed slavery was just; he wrote in 1856, “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.

Lee wasn’t pro-slavery, he believed, as did many others of his day, that the United States of America was merely an association of sovereign states that could, if they chose, leave it or dissolve it.

That this view had been forcefully rejected by his fellow Southerner President Andrew Jackson who wrote in a proclamation rebutting an earlier move by South Carolina to nullify federal law, “I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed,” did not back in 1861 make it any less persuasive to many in the South and even some in the North.

We all know of Lee’s legendary conduct of the Civil War campaigns in defense of Virginia, his defeat at Gettysburg and his eventual surrender to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.

Were Lee’s erroneous view of the Union and the Constitution and his conduct of the Confederate armies during the Civil War all we knew about Robert E. Lee there would be little controversy in removing his statues from their places of honor.

But it isn’t what Lee did before and during the Civil War that makes him such an important figure in American history – and one that should be honored – it is what he did after the Civil War that earned him the memorials erected to his memory and a place in history that should be honored by all.

When Lee surrendered at Appomattox he also signed a parole document swearing upon his honor not to bear arms against the United States or to “tender aid to its enemies.” Lee’s surrender and his immediate parole were essential in preventing the Civil War from continuing as a destructive guerilla war that would have continued to rend the country indefinitely.

General Grant’s terms provided that all officers and men were to be pardoned, and they would be sent home with their private property – most important, the horses, which could be used for a late spring planting. Officers would keep their side arms, and Lee’s starving men would be given Union rations.

General Grant told his officers, “The war is over. The Rebels are our countrymen again.” Although scattered resistance continued for several weeks, for all practical purposes the Civil War had come to an end.*

Just six weeks after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. However, there were certain excepted classes and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Robert E. Lee was among those excepted, and there were plenty of people in the North, including members of Congress, who wanted to see him tried and executed for treason.

However, there was one man who refused to countenance such a course of action; General Ulysses S. Grant. Grant rightly understood that fulfilling the terms of his parole of Robert E. Lee were essential to healing the wounds of the Civil War.

Just two months after the surrender at Appomattox Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

“Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April ’61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April ’65.”

On October 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, he signed his Amnesty Oath, thereby complying fully with the provision of Johnson’s proclamation.

Lee’s greatest legacy is not his campaigns, which are still taught at military institutions around the world, but his contribution to national reconciliation.

Although he had ostensibly retired from the national spotlight, Lee became a voice of moderation and patient compliance. In his public letters, a number of which were reprinted in newspapers, he urged that “all should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and to restore the blessings of peace.”

Lee vowed to do “all in my power to encourage our people to set manfully to work to restore the country, to rebuild their homes and churches, to educate their children, and to remain with their states, their friends and countrymen.”

Thus, when Congress ordered the drafting of new constitutions in the former Confederate states and disgruntled southerners contemplated a boycott of the system, Lee announced that it was “the duty of the [southern] people to accept the situation fully” and that every man should not only “prepare himself to vote” but also “prepare his friends, white and colored, to vote and to vote rightly.”**

Lee’s code of conduct demanded submission to federal authority. With characteristic self-discipline, he put the past behind him and moved forward. Many southerners proved willing to follow Lee’s example and through them the United States was not only reunited, but rebuilt into the preeminent military and economic power it is today.

Erasing Robert E. Lee from history – or celebrating him as a symbol of “white nationalism” – is a grave error; not only does it distort history to suit the purposes of elements in society that Lee abhorred, it misuses one of the greatest symbols of the social compact that reunited the country after four years of brother against brother bloodshed and hatred.

George Rasley, Editor of ConservativeHQ.com served on the Indiana – Tennessee Civil War Commission. His ancestor Rep. Joseph H. DeFreese sponsored the post-Civil War legislation to readmit Tennessee to the Union and many in his family fought with distinction on the Union side in the Civil War.

The 2017 Solar Eclipse

Leave a comment

The 2017 Solar Eclipse is a big deal but you need to view it safely.

How many people will damage their eyes by improper viewing?

Baltimore’s Latest Anti-Gun Scheme Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

4 Comments

H/T Bearing Arms.

One more reason gun owners if all possible to avoid the city of Baltimore.

It’s well-known that most major American cities are outright hostile to the idea of ordinary people owning firearms. Far too many of them, when they can get away with it, restrict the right of private citizens to purchase guns.

Thanks to both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, their ability to do that is greatly reduced.

Some cities, however, are trying new ways to make it difficult to be a law-abiding gun owner in their community. They just make more things involving guns illegal.

For example, the City of Baltimore is looking to impose mandatory minimums of people who have a gun just a smidge too close to certain buildings.

The measure originally aimed to criminalize the carry or transport of a handgun, either openly or concealed, within 100 yards of a public building, park, church, school, or “other place of public assembly” with a mandatory penalty of one-year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

However, as modified last month in committee, first-time offenders would not be eligible for the mandatory sentence except in cases where the illegal handgun they possessed was used in a crime. Also, the state’s attorney’s office could use discretion in charging individuals with violations of the city ordinance should it become law, skirting the issue entirely.

“Although the legislation is stripped down, it is still bad policy for Baltimore,” said Adam Jackson, with the community group Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle. “The fact that this bill is essentially the status quo further proves that this will not solve Baltimore’s crime problem.

While it’s very true this will do nothing to solve Baltimore’s crime problem—a problem that stems more from poverty and failed economic policies over recent decades—it’s important to remember that this proposal was only about fighting crime on a rather superficial level.

While the new policy is watered-down, the original bill would turn people into criminals for simply making a poorly timed wrong turn. After all, their firearm, which was legal in one place, but one inch closer suddenly becomes a public menace.

Further, look at the places being “protected.” Public buildings, churches, parks, and schools. Are these really high-crime facilities, even by Baltimore’s standards? No, not really.

However, they are buildings that tend to be scattered throughout the community somewhat evenly, creating large pockets where guns are now forbidden. Further, while some of these locations may exist close to one another, they don’t always. From time to time, the zones created by this law may only allow a few yards for the safe transport of a firearm.

Many lawful gun owners will look at that and simply decide it’s not worth it to carry a gun. After all, they don’t want to break the law, even if they disagree with it.

This, boys and girls, is a feature, not a bug.

Unfortunately for the City of Baltimore, it’s also pointless. After all, how many criminals will look at this law and think, “I’m going to go hold up that liquor store and kill the clerk, but now I can’t take my gun. I don’t want to break the law in the process, now do I?”

Instead, as with all gun laws, the criminals will keep doing what they do and it’ll be the law abiding that will suffer for it.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: