I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.

How long will it be before the first teacher accidently shoots a student.
It will happen considering how gun crazy people are south of the border.

True North Wrote in message:
How long will it be before the first teacher accidently shoots a student.
It will happen considering how gun crazy people are south of the border.


What? You don't think teachers are responsible or smart enough to
safely carry firearms. I would suggest to you that your fat buddy
in Maryland is at a higher risk to have a gun accident than a
smart, level headed properly trained teacher.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:41:27 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

How long will it be before the first teacher accidently shoots a student.
It will happen considering how gun crazy people are south of the border.

Which would you prefer, the accidental shooting of one student or the purposeful shooting of 17
students?

Are the teachers in Canada so immature that you'd call them 'gun crazy' if they carried a firearm?

On 2/26/2018 8:55 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/us/armed-teachers-states-trnd/index.html

NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/25/534230962/colorado-teachers-get-gun-training-as-first-responders

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


If Nancy Pelosi put forth the proposal, Fat Harry and the rest of
her lemmings would be slobbering all over it.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 2/26/2018 9:01 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
True North wrote:
How long will it be before the first teacher accidently shoots a student.
It will happen considering how gun crazy people are south of the border.


Bet on it. Dumbest idea ever.



You have (or had) a concealed carry permit.
I have a concealed carry permit.
Many people have a concealed carry permit.

What's the purpose of a concealed carry permit?

Last resort self-defense for yourself and/or others. Correct?

What's so different about a teacher who wants a concealed carry permit
(or already has one) ?

The difference is the teacher unions. Special authorization would be
required to be armed on public school property.

On 2/26/2018 9:13 AM, justan wrote:
John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


If Nancy Pelosi put forth the proposal, Fat Harry and the rest of
her lemmings would be slobbering all over it.



Nancy would say that the best way to protect schools is to make sure the
lawns are mowed.