Only pansies want to ban ARs

| February 24, 2018 | 379 Comments

Every self-promoting veteran who wants to make a name for themselves is running to the media to announce their dislike of civilians ownership of AR-style rifles. The latest is Ralph Peters, a Fox News contributor, who wrote for the New York Post;

He wondered how many more children and adults will die from bullets fired from “military-grade weapons” like the AR-15 before the gun laws are changed.

“I own weapons, I hope I will always own weapons, but I don’t own weapons that are meant to kill other human beings specifically.”

Yeah, well, ALL of my weapons were specifically meant to kill human beings, with the exception of the 20-guage single-shot shotgun I was given on my 14th birthday that I still possess. All of the ammunition I have for my weapons is designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage to a human being. I don’t go out looking for human beings to shoot, otherwise you’d be reading about me in the news – but I have the right to defend myself.

There are civilians who train harder than I do these days and they are just as proficient and just as responsible with handling their weapons as I am. Just down the hill from me, there’s a civilian indoor range where they rent fully automatic weapons for use in the facility to civilians and there has yet to be an unsafe incident there. And, oh, it’s only several blocks from the local elementary school.

Being a veteran, doesn’t give you any special insight into the 2d Amendment discussion, so just stop it. So, stop being a pansy.

Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post who went out looking for veterans to disparage the idea of arming teachers;

Mary Ellen Simis, who spent 2½ years in the Army, has been teaching elementary school for 16 years in West Virginia. Simis said she wouldn’t be a teacher if she were asked to carry and train with a weapon.

“Anyone proposing to arm teachers needs to spend enough time in a classroom to understand the issues a teacher deals with on a daily basis. We already act as nurses, social workers, counselors, referees and therapists, while being tasked to prepare students for life with critical thinking skills, basic skills, social skills and everything else that a child needs to succeed. This is in a classroom of at least 22 students of varied abilities and without help of an instructional aide. … There is no way I will stay in the teaching profession if I am also asked to carry and train with a weapon because our government representatives don’t have the courage to address our country’s real issues.”

I’d like to hear what exactly, Mary did for 2 1/2 years in the Army. No one said that an an armed teacher would be drafted. She should quit teaching because she has a reading comprehension problem.

Another one who should resign is;

Ellen Lincourt, who worked as a substitute teacher after serving in the Army for seven years, said the military doesn’t just prepare soldiers for how to handle weapons but also how to coordinate on the battlefield. “It’s very hard to stay calm when people are losing it all around you,” Lincourt said.

The idea that teachers would be able to behave accordingly in a tactical situation is “nuts,” Lincourt said.

“The utter foolishness of this idea horrifies me. First, the military and police train regularly for tactical situations. Are we now expecting teachers to be Rambo?” Lincourt said. “I can literally think of a million ways this idea is going to get more people killed, rather than save a single life.”

No one is expecting teachers to write an Operation Order while under fire. School shootings last minutes not hours. All teachers need to learn is to put down a threat without hurting innocents, yeah, that requires lots of training – but teachers are used to training.

The thing is that guns are a reality in our society and our culture. There are plenty of places in the world that you can go to get away from law-abiding citizens who use their guns responsibly and you can live where only criminals have guns. Canada is nearby, so go there, you can drive. Everyday, I read news articles about home invasions in Canada – it’s a big gun-free zone.

But, please don’t tell me that I have to disarm because I scare you by simply owning a gun or two – guns I specifically bought for my own defense against human beings. Wildlife isn’t breaking in to my home.

My hunting days are well behind me, so, don’t tell me that my guns are no good for hunting. My guns are for killing people who want to kill me or my family.

Category: Guns

Comments (379)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I especially enjoyed the sentiment expressed by Teacher Mary Ellen Simis. She works, and presumably lives in, West Virginia. West Virginia is a shall issue state based upon constitutional law. I wonder if Simis is aware that many West Virginians carry. They carry near her, around her, near the children she teaches (when she’s not on strike, as now, that is) and around the children. And no one is going to mandate that teachers shall carry in schools.

  2. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    “All teachers need to learn is to put down a threat without hurting innocents, yeah, that requires lots of training – but teachers are used to training.”

    But, not firearms training, Jonn. Training to be SJW’s, yes… but those icky, big, black bangsticks that look like penises, no.

  3. Denise Williams says:

    Part of the problem-
    “We already act as nurses, social workers, counselors, referees and therapists, while being tasked to prepare students for life with critical thinking skills, basic skills, social skills and everything else that a child needs to succeed.”

    The only parts that are actually what a teacher is supposed to do are critical thinking skills and basic skills, at least as they relate to subject matter. All the rest is not and should not be the responsibility of teachers. That is what parents are supposed to do.

    Jonn, you are correct in this teacher needs some basic reading comprehension skills. No one wants all teachers to be armed. We just want those who chose to have the right to be armed, in the classroom and on campus.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      “We already act as nurses, social workers, counselors, referees and therapists, while being tasked to prepare students for life with critical thinking skills, basic skills, social skills and everything else that a child needs to succeed.”

      And I’ll take a guess that the state test scores for her school and grade group are probably in the lower 50% compared to the rest of the kids in the state.

      Sounds like the little snowflake needs to be more concerned with the Three R’s and less concerned with the stuff that the family should be taking care of.

    • Ret_25X says:

      “critical thinking skills” LMAO

      I have only met one teacher who possessed them and he taught shop.

      The rest are smart monkeys playing on a stage.

      • UpNorth says:

        That was also my experience, with maybe 3 exceptions, when I worked for a school district. That’s the number of teachers that I’d be OK with being armed in the high school I worked in.

    • desert says:

      I have said, but no one listens, that the solution is to put prayer and bible study back in schools and the workplace….if EVERYONE spoke up and demanded that, much of these atrocities would stop….We didn’t have any of it in the 50’s, but we had prayer, bible study and pledge of allegiance, not to mention AMERICAN HISTORY, so we could be PROUD of our country! All this is too complicated for airheaded liberals! imo

      • Casey says:

        We also had black people treated as 2nd-class citizens, women who were expected to stay at home, and if one managed to get (say) an advanced degree in chemistry she would be hired as a bottle washer. That’s not to mention lobotomizing gay people.

        School prayer doesn’t have anything to do with this problem, nor does the Pledge of Allegiance.

        …Excuse me while I get off your lawn now…

  4. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    I did not realize that Ralph Peters was like that. I think that Mil. officers were either not hip on why the 2A was instituted or really would not like the populace owing these type of firearms since an un armed populace would be easy to control in a coup or a dictator coming into power. The leftist media had a general or two on saying the same as Mr. Peters. I imagine that if the Colonists were un armed, I would be saying today,”Call Blimey Love A Duck, spot of tea and crumpets”. I wonder if West Point teaches the history behind the 2A.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Yeah, tell those people that I have rocks on my desk that can be used to kill people instead of being used a paperweights.

      Watch their pupils dilate and then squinch up when you say that.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        I remember a teacher throwing an eraser at a kid that was acting up. Bounced right off his head. It was the laughter of the other students that hurt the kid most and corrected his behavior. Nobody got sued or shot. Nowadays the kid would be armed with .25 automatic and the teacher would be dead.

        • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

          If you want to know how most districts are handling disciplinary problems with kids, check this site out:

          Then go check out how your local district his implementing PBIS. I’ve seen it “up close” and it’s a disaster. Disruptive kids literally run the classrooms/schools and the teachers have their hands tied when a kid acts out.

          • Sparks says:

            I think I just threw up in my mouth reading that link.

          • 26Limabeans says:

            Looks like a dog obedience training program.

            • desert says:

              Where in hell did anyone say ALL TEACHERS, you idiots are teaching when you can’t even read! Those that can handle it and desire to carry ONLY…now take your frigging pills!

          • OldSoldier54 says:

            Yep. Ten years ago, this May, I married a grade school teacher.

            It’s amazing how having a ring-side seat changes one’s perspective, because I also observed/listened to HH6 describe the “loose cannons” completely destroy the academic atmosphere in the classroom. And of course, the teachers are completely hog-tied.

            And to rub salt in the wound, the teachers are all held responsible to for why aren’t the kids learning?

            IMO, the problem is the central control, top down, authoritarian Department of Education. These over-educated idiots are so far removed from the classroom, they have no clue of the real effect their dictates have on the students and teachers.

            The result? Utter disaster.

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            Good thing I read that with an empty stomach, otherwise I would have launched my lunch all over the screen and keyboard!

        • e.conboy says:

          Does anyone remember learning to write with pen staffs which had a replaceable point which one dipped in a small bottle of ink? We were taught the art of penmanship (Palmer
          Method) utilizing a sharp pointed instrument, even did math with ink. Critical teaching > thinking > learning = fewer problems in the classroom.
          Today I see so many young adults in health care, clerical
          jobs, and fast foods service who have no idea of how to properly hold a writing instrument and whose brains are fogged by the simple task of alphabetizing a short list.
          I wonder how many of us have led the horses to water, knowing this would restore and prepare them for the journey / opportunities ahead, but…….

      • Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

        Ex-PH2 My outside weather forcaster is a large rock. When the rock is wet, I know that’s it’s raining outside. When the rock is dry, it’s not raining. FYI, 2 issues ago of my hard copy Navy Times, the Navy will be getting rid of the Combat Cameramen rate. Did not say anything about replacements though.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          That’s sad, but I was wondering when or if it would happen. What’s the point of even having the MCS rate, anyway? It’s wasted effort to keep it going. It’s not a critical rate so if anyone is in it now, he may not even be offered another enlistment, and definitely won’t get a re-up bonus.

    • Alex Voog says:

      Just WOW…. I didn’t expect Ralph Peters to roll over like a harpooned Harbor Seal. And no, teachers SHOULD NOT BE ARMED. A few strategically placed “Hall Monitors” that just happen to be range qualified, and run through periodic CQB training DOES sound like a viable and FINANCIALLY justifiable option. That said, it is almost impossible to stop a determined psycho. Too many times in recent history THEY AUTHORITIES WERE TOLD, NOTIFIED, AND WARNED about unstable persons and they dropped the ball…oh boy did they ever drop the ball.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        the psycho killer can almost always be stopped with a double-tap center upper torso and one to center upper head. That also works almost always on the evil killer.

        I think you confused “determined” with “unopposed”. Big difference.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        And -yes-, any teachers that wish to be armed should be armed, same as any othe citizen not legally sanctioned for misconduct or mental disability.

        You were not granted a veto on the liberty of others.

  5. The Other Whitey says:

    To be honest, I find myself tempted to lock & load a rifle and pistol and follow my daughter around with them all day at school. Why? Well, if the school won’t ensure that my child is protected, don’t be surprised if I do it myself.

    Of course, legal issues abound, but it’s something to be considered.

  6. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    I forgot to add on my above post that some of my liberal friends ask why you need an AR-15 for hunting with a large capacity mag so I say that hunting has nothing to do with the 2A. It is about protecting yourself from a Govt that wants to control the people. People do use it for hunting and target shooting to improve their proficency with the weapon the same as the early Colonists used their Brown Besses and Kentucky long rifles for the same reason. When I mention the reason and give the history behind it, they say a dictatorship can’t happen here and if it does, we will vote the person out of office. Well Duh, if you ain’t armed, you are shit out of luck.

  7. OWB says:

    Oooh, let me:

    Ms Simis, YOU should “carry and train with a weapon.” Is that it? You promised you would quit teaching if you were asked to do that.

    Have you quit teaching yet, Ms Simis? Oh, yeah, guess you have. AC said you are on strike. So you didn’t mean permanently? Ah, go on. Own it.

    And no, folks who strike and demand respect they have not earned are not professionals.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      No, she’s still teaching. There are 25 teachers at her school. Get this. In the US, the percentage of teachers who miss 10 or more school days is 23%. In WV, the percentage is 37%. At HER school, the percentage is 92%! Clearly, it doesn’t matter whether the teachers at that school carry: they’re rarely at work. Where in the world do the papers get these sources?

  8. LC says:

    All teachers need to learn is to put down a threat without hurting innocents, yeah, that requires lots of training – but teachers are used to training.

    Honest question – given that the sheriffs in Broward County had training (and years of experience), yet didn’t even go in to the school, do you really think we’re capable of giving teachers enough training that they’ll outperform law enforcement? Or do you feel those four sheriffs are all exceptions to a rule?

    I’m not against the idea, I just expect any minimal good it achieves from the few people who have the training and mindset necessary will be outweighed by the inevitable cases of misplaced, unsecured weapons in the classroom.

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      When there was only one BCSO deputy who didn’t go in the school, I speculated that it was a failure of his training. Today we hear there were four deputies who didn’t run to the sound of gunfire – I think we can all agree that the entire BCSO is ill-prepared. It is a failure of Sheriff Israel.

    • OWB says:

      You are mixing several distinctly different issues there, LC.

      First, it is not the SO’s responsibility to secure the school. That is the job of the school board. They failed on two fronts. They allowed a threat into the building AND once inside, they failed to neutralize the threat. It can be argued that the deputy outside may be part of the failure by allowing the bad guy inside, but depending upon the layout of the property, expecting a single guy to successfully protect the entire area is unrealistic. It was the school’s decision to have the deputy outside, as invisible as possible, in a position to be as ineffective as possible.

      Absolutely, the response posture of the deputies is on the sheriff. But what goes on at the school is on the school board.

      Whether or not school employees can be trained or not is again on the school. If they want to, they can. If they don’t, they won’t.

      • timactual says:

        It is the Sheriff’s responsibility to enforce laws and keep the peace anywhere in the county, including schools. Schools are not extraterritorial. They are not foreign territory.

        • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

          Tell that to you local school superintendent or the school board… they think that they are their own little fiefdom and that the rule of the “outside world” don’t apply to them.

        • OWB says:

          Very few school superintendents and principals see it that way. There are probably many school boards who have no idea the depth of the problem. The boards are temporary. The bureaucrats of the education industry are forever, and THEY control the schools. No, I am not letting the boards off the hook because ultimately they remain responsible whether they abdicate their authority to others or not.

      • LC says:

        Whether or not school employees can be trained or not is again on the school. If they want to, they can. If they don’t, they won’t.

        I’m fine with the concept that teachers (or anyone, for that matter) can be trained … but the question is, at what cost? What’s a reasonable estimate for training hours it’ll take to turn someone without any weapons training to not only advance on an unknown shooter in a stressful environment and accurately fire on on attacker, but also to properly maintain a weapon, secure it, etc?

        And is taking away those hours from their teaching duties the right thing to do? It seems like considerable ‘mission creep’, and that’s before we even get into the inevitable issues of accidentally unsecured weapons, criminals knowing where to find known weapons (if the teachers’ identities aren’t kept private), etc.

        Again, I’m not against it out of principle, I just haven’t yet seen something that convinces me it’s a grand strategy for solving this mess. If it moves the needle in a positive direction, great, but I’m not convinced the good won’t be countered by the bad.

        • OWB says:

          How much is your child’s life worth to you?

          I have no idea exactly what it would take for the training, and it would vary so much from state to state and district to district that there is little reason to guess.

          There is no bad from securing our schools, only good.

          There are thousands of people across the country who can figure that out in no time at all.

    • NHSparky says:

      It goes beyond that, LC.

      I hear someone opening fire, and I know I’m the only armed individual around with the potential to stop the situation before it turns into all-out carnage.

      You know my mindset? Fuck “policy”, training (or lack thereof), or anything else. Close, engage, and eliminate the threat.

      Everything else is bullshit.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        If children are in mortal danger, the armed law enforcement officer who hides outside rather than attempting to take action to safeguard and protect even a few of them is a despicable fucking coward. Far more so when it’s four of them and they still cower out of harm’s way. I wish them nothing but the absolute worst. Fuck every single one of those Broward County deputies who hid in safety while better men, one of them not even old enough to drive, sacrificed their lives to defend the innocent.

        They deserve nothing but shame, contempt, and misery for the rest of their worthless lives.

      • LC says:

        I understand that mentality. I just don’t think everyone has it – some will charge right in, some will seek cover first then try to get eyes on a target, some will cover in place and some will run.

        The thing is, you rarely know what someone will do until they’re in a situation like that. Those in the military have a mindset focused on engaging an enemy and are probably more likely to react like you do. Teachers? They think about managing, teaching and entertaining children. I’m guessing they’ll have a different profile.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Certification in the teacher’s personal weapon of choice will never make it to a job description. This is about self preservation. If in defending himself against a shooter, a teacher shoots the bad guy, great! If the shooter chooses another target b/c teachers may be armed, well, at least those kids in that school are safe. And if an armed teacher, not in immediate danger from a shooter, goes toward the gunfire and engages the shooter, that’s also great. But none of these things can happen if the lefty loons want to keep all guns out of schools all of the time.

    • rgr769 says:

      I have to hope teachers in a school have a little more attachment to preserving the lives of their students than a few random LEO’s who happen to be on patrol when one of these events goes down.

      • LC says:

        Maybe so, but their reaction in that situation might be to secure their room, or get kids to safety, and not take out an active shooter. Asking someone who spends every day trying to help younger people to suddenly kill one not even in self defense, but in defense of others is .. questionable, I think.

        Sure, if they have a gun, and a gunman breaks into their room, and it’s them or the kids? I expect they’d fire. Maybe miss a lot, but fire. Asking them to do a room-to-room search, identify threats and shoot into a crowded room? That’s a harder sell.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          “Asking them to do a room-to-room search, identify threats and shoot into a crowded room?” A-ha! I think I see the roadblock here. You are equating what is expected of police with what would be expected of armed teachers. Perhaps it’s b/c that’s the way the lefty media are presenting it. I don’t know. No reasonable person would expect Mrs. McGillicuddy to go Rambo. If you know of such a prposal, please share it.

          • JacktheJarhead says:

            They are not asking them to do room clearances but to shelter in place and have an effective weapon if the monster shows up. It is also voluntary. No one is going to force someone to be armed if they don’t want to be.

          • LC says:

            You’re right, that’s definitely been a large part of my roadblock – if we’re just talking about having teachers defend a secure room, and not leave that room, I see much more merit to the idea.

            I was also worried about the rate of accidental deaths due to additional guns in schools, some of which will accidentally be misplaced or unsecured. But (with a lot of assumptions) a back of the envelope estimate shows it’ll likely be quite a bit fewer than killed in mass shootings, if armed teachers reduce casualties.

            So, I’m not against it. It won’t stop the shootings, as the people planning these sorts of things aren’t the most rational sorts, or they’ll just go for softer targets like school buses, but now the question is how much teachers will take on that role? I guess we’ll see if anything comes of this.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:


              Nothing remotely rational screws with a porcupine. They go elsewhere.

              Or “skunk” if you prefer a metaphor that can actually shoot.

              We are not asking for teachers to be Rambo, just Mr Quills.

              • USMC Steve says:

                Unless you have absolutely no survival skills, and are so weak as to be unable to defend yourself, you would be able to to the job. If someone gets into a school and I am there, frankly I don’t care how many kids they drop, but they will not shoot me. I will shoot them. My ass is on the line, I am going to bust the caps. Again, some of the teachers are just so weak as to not be up to the task, but when you are about to die, you would be amazed what you can do.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              I remember the days when guns at school were no big deal, Students who brought their rifles were either part of the school Rifle Team and those who took shotguns were either part of a Trap and Skeet Team or it was Hunting Season and they were headed to the fields after class, NO accidents because safety and responsibility were taught, individuals were held accountable, something not done with today’s snowflakes!

        • OWB says:

          You are the only one who has suggested that teachers replace the police in searching the school. Who thinks that way?

          No, what I have heard suggested here and elsewhere is that teachers and staff be allowed to protect themselves and those they are supposed to be protecting. Become SWAT? Uhmm, no.

          People I know who hold carry permits have the same mindset. They are not looking for someone to shoot but are prepared to do so in the unlikely event it becomes necessary, and only if there is no other way to neutralize the threat.

          Just like I don’t plan to ever use my fire extinguisher, but it is there should it ever be needed. I don’t walk up and down the road looking for something to spray with it either.

        • timactual says:

          Any obstacle placed in the path of a shooter is a good thing. Speed bumps don’t stop cars, but they do slow them down.

    • charles w says:

      The first officer to run in to help was an unarmed off duty Coral Springs officer. He was watering the athletic fields.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      LC, are you saying that because four deputies failed, you would fail? I would?

      That seems illogical. Some deos not equal all.

      Check ops and teachers are both Homo Sapiens Sapiens, as are all the commenter here. (Well, the non-bots…) statistically, a portioned both groups are pervs and crooks, do we ban them all from schoos?

      Are you assuming teachers are all incompetent? Morally defective? If so, they should not be teachers, eh?

      The problem here, is that -politically-, schools are a bastion of hard-left thinking, including gun bans. If anyone is allowed to carry there, and the world doesn’t end, and maybe some folks stop thugs, the the whole hard-left bastion falls apart. The Left-emperor will be buck naked, and no one will believe otherwise.

      Which is why lefties fight so hard to keep sanity and security -out- of schools. They would rather kids be -massacred-, than admit they are -wrong-

      Which is why I have so little patience for the left-bleat anymore. The Omelet making is increasingly based on very small eggs, lots and lots of small eggs. And folks are increasing noticing that little detail.

      The custodians and clerks are not teachers. Let -them- arm themselves and take the sherrif’s course on proper use. Let the teachers who have common sense arm themselves and train. Sullivan

      But stop pretending it won’t work, or that the willing and able can’t do it. Because time and again, they are and they do.

      I have -personally- been involved in professional “force on force” training of law enforcement. “Active shooter” countermeasures are not “elite forces” training. Cops -aint- supermen. The average competitive shooter is -way- ahead in marksmanship. -way- ahead.

      But accepting all that means rejecting a highly dysfunctional world view, and -that- apparently cannot be permitted.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        “Cops” not “check ops”

        No idea where “Sullivan” came from.

        Gotta scrap out this bogus keyboard… it is magnifying my typos sheesh.

      • Ret_25X says:

        You know, most of this problem circles back to the left’s constant refrain that we should “give” our children to them because (wait for it) men are too stupid to raise them and women should be too busy having sex and working for the party.

        Come, comrade, don’t you see that only the wise, all knowing, all powerful, government can solve your problems?

        Yes, the left is that stupid.

      • LC says:

        Nope, I was saying four did fail, so what’s the success rate of something like this going to look like? It’s not going to be 100%, and it’s not going to be 0%. The fact that four failed is a pretty big problem absent other numbers.

        As I said above, I have zero problem with the concept – and, if it has a net positive change on casualties in these sorts of things (balanced with the ability of our teachers to still teach, of course), then I’m all for it.

        My issue was that you had four cops with years of experience, a daily mindset of dealing with weapons and criminals, and yet .. they still did nothing. If that’s the exception and not the rule, fine. But if not, then we gain nothing positive, and risk some negative from all sorts of things. When LEOs are in the news for accidentally misplacing weapons that others find, it’s not unreasonable to expect that’ll happen with 100K armed teachers, too.

        I’d like to see numbers about what to expect, on all factors, before saying this is a net-positive plan.

        • UpNorth says:

          Well, the SRO who hid outside the building didn’t really have “years of experience, a daily mindset of dealing with weapons and criminals“. He had been a SRO for 9 years. Pretty sure the most stressful thing he’d encountered in those 9 years was the coffee pot in the teacher’s lounge being empty. The school district had bought into the whole “don’t involve the police in anything program.

          • LC says:

            I’m pretty sure he’d been in law enforcement for 33 years, no? But as I said above, a lot of my resistance to the idea was from a misunderstanding – if we’re just talking about having a teacher, hunkered down in their classroom, armed in case someone forces entry, I’ve got no major problems with it. I’d heard various people talking about having teachers respond as police (sweeping for an attacker) because they’d be on site before the police, and thus protect more lives.

            Teachers holding in a defensive position? As a matter of practicality I have no objections.

        • Mason says:

          As a street cop I demanded action from my partners and they of me. Our lives literally depend on each other.

          If you couldn’t hack it, you find another job. Where I worked (first ring ‘burb of a major city) we’d go down to two cars working after 0200 often.

          Those four that failed to act were either poorly trained or the blue falcons of the department. That another agency took the lead is reprehensible and astonishing.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          LC, none of the officers were in the problem.

          The faculty -are-. The ones with the children are directly involved. They will have one -huge- incentive to do the needful.

          If they act, they stop the attack. They certainly draw attention and fire away from the kids, right? That is a win even if it only saves one more kid.

          You keep missing the point. Self defense almost always works. Deterrent, or defending, the murdering bastards don’t get a free pass at massacre of kids. This almost always impacts their actions.

          Because they don’t know who can or will shoot their sorry asses. And all it takes is -one- willing soul to occupy the killers attention until someone can kill him.

          It doesn’t have to take away from anyone’s professional time. Believe me, some will happily volunteer their personal time, and buy whatever arm and acruterments are proper.

          Some of them are -already- well familiar with arms and proper use. I happen to be a Cowboy Action Shooting participant. Several of my fellow “Cowboys” are active or retired


          Yup. Give them some coaching and procedure from the local police, and they are good to go.

          It -aint- rocket science or “tier one” stuff.

          The one Cowboy Teacher in particular is not terribly fast, but if he has one miss all day it is a bad day. He is deliberate and thoughtful.

          Perfect candidate for this.

          He is -not- unique.

    • SFC D says:

      We’re not asking teachers to learn SWAT tactics and actively track and engage a shooter. We’re asking them to be proficient and confident in defending a classroom, keeping an armed intruder at bay or brought down before they can breach a locked classroom door.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        A man with a rifle bursts through the barricaded door…

        He is in a 42 inch wide killbox.


        The rifle welding terrorist runs down the hallway past your hide. You pop out and backshoot him.

        Most of these assholes run up the body count by being unopposed. They usually have sucky tactics and much sucky marksmanship.

      • LC says:

        I replied in more detail above, but that sounds completely reasonable to me. If I were in that position, I’d certainly want my weapon with me as well.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          I appreciate your willingness to consider alternatives.

          I think you do have your finger on the mindset of many teachers. Keeping the sidearms concealed, and keeping confidential the list of faculty carrying, allows the “prefer not to deal with this” sort to carry on without rubbing noses in it.

          Also tactically advantageous, from my POV.

          Again, thanks.

  9. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “[D]o you really think we’re capable of giving teachers enough training that they’ll outperform law enforcement?” Better hunker down on that. First, IF the Coward Brounty deputies were themselves targets, I have little doubt that they would have returned fire. If a school is targeted again, I would expect an armed teacher/administrator to do that. too: use their weapon. Second, using a weapon does not require much training at all. The training is on safe handling of weapons. The shooting part is 99.9% practice. The pressure of an actual shooting situation can never be replicated, only approximated.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      I will add that, unlike LE agencies, I know of no school district that mandates (or plans on mandating) that teachers be armed.

      • OWB says:

        A better argument could be made for expecting every adult to defend their little charges than is currently being made for them not even making an effort to protect them, but you are correct, no one is making it. Or, if they are, it is not being widely heard.

      • AW1Ed says:

        Texas, of course

        That means about 22% of the state’s public school districts have allowed staff to carry guns, according to Joe McKenna, director of research and education at the Texas School Safety Center at Texas State University in San Marcos.

        Here’s the model for the rest of the States.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          “Experts say it’s not clear whether such policies reduce the likelihood of school shootings or the death toll.” Really? Experts are needed? Um. Would-be shooter can go to school X where there is no LEO, no armed teachers, and no armed administrators, or he can go to school Y where, aside from the uniformed officer, any adult might suddenly end the shooter’s plan. Shooter: “I’ll take what’s behind the walls of School #1, Monte.”

          • LC says:

            I’m pretty sure the school ‘selection’ is almost always personally connected to the shooter. If there’s data contrary to this, I’m all ears, but looking back at all the cases I can think of, it was a current or former student, or someone who had family at that school.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Pop did investigations. He was good at it.

              Most crooks, thief or killer, act in fairly close proximity to their familiar places. Some do roam, but they also become familiar with a new spot, and tend to stick with it.

              Now some deliberately go elsewhere, or simply seek a place with Max opportunity and min hassle. That is a different critter.

        • rgr769 says:

          Not in Mexifornia. Moonbeam just outlawed any school personnel from possessing a firearm on school grounds, statewide, by statute. Of course, it is more of a “people’s republic” than a state.

    • Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

      2/17;, you are right about the 99.9% practice. After 37 years working on the trucks at Brink’s I still have to get my shit together. Twice a week range time now that I’m retired and I have to spend more time at home with my trigger pull.

    • LC says:

      Second, using a weapon does not require much training at all.

      Shooting a weapon at a range doesn’t require much training. Shooting a weapon at a moving target, who is also firing at you, while surrounded by friendlys is, I think, a bit of a different story.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        You had moving targets in Basic? As a rule, outside of the movies, that is, the bad guy who wants to shoot you isn’t running. If he does so, he will miss. No, the shooter may move from one target area to another, but that is not the same as engaging in a gun battle with opponents in motion.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        On second thought, after re-reading your comment, I see that it is so ridiculous that it serves only to be contrary.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          On third thought, everything that you wrote is ridiculous. You’re the “what if” guy in the classroom, the one who overlooks the rule and dwells on the rare exception. Worse, you demand that teacher respond to your discovered exception, your hypothetical.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            DING DING DING

            The left wants to argue about just how bad an idea the claim this to be

            They will -not- discuss how it works, nor how fucking easy it is to turn schools into porcupines instead of abbatoirs.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              And I have to take it back in the case of LC. As posted in several elsewheres, he is wiling to at least consider alternatives from our point of view.

              He seems a minority, though, which is sad.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      They do not have to outperform law enforcement. They neither oppose nor replace law enforcement.

      They have to outperform -one- dickhead. One who is probably untrained, or minimally so, and who will likely be in the same room or hallway, under 7 meters. The defender has a very good chance of surprising the killer.

      C’mon lefties. That was a shitty strawman.

  10. Ex-PH2 says:

    This Mary Ellen person is a wimp, if she thinks 22 students are hard to deal with.

    ‘We already act as nurses, social workers, counselors, referees and therapists, while being tasked to prepare students for life with critical thinking skills, basic skills, social skills and everything else that a child needs to succeed. This is in a classroom of at least 22 students of varied abilities and without help of an instructional aide. … ‘

    22 whole students? Yeah, okay, when I was 6.5, I was in the 2nd grade in a class of 30 students, but the teacher (Mrs. Imhoff) also had 30 students in 1st grade. The 3rd & 4th grades were managed by a SINGLE TEACHER, as were 5th & 6th grades.

    If those ladies knew how to many 60 unruly kids without anyone killing anyone else or breaking some other kid’s head on the Big Rock in the schoolyard, or pushing the kid ahead down that big old steel slide in the back yard of that 3-room school, how come this bimbo can’t even manage 22?


    • Mason says:

      Back then the kids had some respect of authority. And if they didn’t and the teacher took corrective action, the parents would back the teachers.

      Now it’s parents wanting to be their kids’ friend and defending the kid no matter what they do in school.

    • e.conboy says:

      The first year of my teaching, my class was a combined 7-8 grade of 45 very energetic youngsters. I was not their friend. We had standards of behavior and a principal who ‘advised’ them if necessary. Parents who and supported teachers and attended open house. I knew the name of every child I had during a typical day. I loved them and later, when a young man wearing his spanking new uniform came to say ‘Thank you’ before shipping out, while I was very proud to have been a part of his maturation. It was wonderful to see them again when they returned. Some couldn’t believe we would remember their names.
      Love, it is called.
      There were no unions, just our little PTA in a middle class, hard working neighborhood. I didn’t make a public statement about the fact,
      but it was where I went to school, skated on the same streets, smoked my first and last cigarette, and grew up. My first pay check was less than $300. Arriving at 7:30 am. or earlier to prepare, and usually leaving after 4:00 pm. Never heard of Dr Spock.
      ” …you’ll never get rich, digging a ditch,”… bet he never tried to do that!
      I never entertained the thought that schools may one day become battlefields, nor that a disgruntled person might one day choose to inflict injury or worse, but sadly we know now that schools are inadequately prepared to deal with this threat. Children are experimenting with drugs and other mind altering products at an alarming rate. Video games, rap music, movies and media appear to promote violence and elevate criminal activities. Lacking guidance at home from an early age, youngsters too often become anti-social and criminal. Impressed with flashing lights, shiny chrome, and loud racket,
      their goals are meaningless.
      Madeline O’Hare had her way in court. Look at the results.
      Time to get back to basics: family, school, church.
      Thank all of you for defending freedom and putting yourselves in harms’ way for the rest of us. I keep you in my prayers.

  11. AW1Ed says:

    It’s the most popular rifle in America, with some 20 million existent. The bans in New York and Maryland largely went unheeded, and no effort has been expended to enforce the new laws. So it’s one thing to pass these laws, quite another to act on them.

    “Come and take them” said some old Greek fellow. They did, and it wasn’t pretty.

  12. OWB says:

    What are we who just don’t care what you own unless you try to hurt us with it? At that point I also don’t care if it’s a ball bat, a knife, or a ball point pen, it’s an assault weapon and I hope I have something readily available to defend myself.

    • Sparks says:

      Yes OWB about bats, knives, etc. And that is the case in for instance, Great Britain. Where like Germany, home invasion and burglary are cottage industries. Home owners think it is in ‘bad form’ for an intruder to anything other than take what they want and leave without asking for tea. If they should pull out the old side by side and kill the intruder, they are going to jail with few questions asked.

  13. Stacy0311 says:

    I’ve noticed a similar trend on other “military” sites (looking at you T&P), they seem to find leftist/SJW/progressive veterans that support a certain narrative.

    I know veterans (and AD/Res/NG) are a diverse lot but strangely on that, and other sites, there isn’t much (if any) diversity

  14. Reddevil says:

    I’m all for arming teachers, but the benefit is outweighed by the risks unless you institute some simple control measures.

    First, the teacher has to be both willing and able, meaning that they would have volunteer and be able to qualify on the weapon and demonstrate that they won’t be more of a danger than the shooter.

    Second, they would have to be carefully vetted and constantly monitored. Keep in mind that school shootings, for the most part, are insider threat situations. In other words, there is a possibility that the armed teacher loses it and becomes a shooter. Simple to prevent, but you can’t discount it.

    Third, local law enforcement would have to incorporate the armed teachers into their response plans and train and rehearse those plans appropriately. Otherwise you have a very real risk of blue on blue on green- teachers shooting cops, cops shooting teachers, teachers shooting the wrong kid, teachers shooting through walls and hitting bystanders, etc.

    It will be interesting to see what happened with the sheriff deputies in Florida- was it pure cowardice, or did they literally not know what to do because there either was no plan or they were not trained in that plan?

    All in all the idea has merit, but it has to part of a bigger plan. Armed and dedicated response officers instead of school resource officers would be part of that plan. We don’t need Officer Friendly who talks to you about bullying and runs the D.A.R.E. program, but a gunslinger with body armor and a long rifle close at hand.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      Teacher’s are, usually, residents of the states in which they teach. There is nothing mystical or mystifying here. Depending upon the state (permit/no permit/may issue/shall issue) armed citizens may be numerous or few. Whether a state or a subdivision of that state allows teachers to be armed on the job is up to that state or subdivision. I would guess that most teachers, mostly being well left of center, would not only decline the chance to be armed but would oppose their peers being armed, too. I guess we’ll wait for the next school shooting event. The latest one didn’t produce enough murder victims, I guess, to move more states toward truly protecting kids.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      The benefits -far- outweigh the negatives.

      How many kids die in five minutes, assuming only a cop can respond?


      How fast can an armed person in the building get to the furthest away point in that building?

      Assuming equal marksmanship skill, and both are willing, which scenario has a tiger body count?

      Now, in scenario two, the cop arrives when it is over. Do you think that maybe, just possibly, the local CCW person is intelligent enough to put the gun away or down?

      In scenario one, how does the cop not shoot his plainclothes peer from another department who got there first? Same question in two.

      Have -you- ever been in professional force-on-force training that included shoot/no-shoot? I have. It ain’t magic.

      If that CCW person is a regular monthly competitor, the cop may come up short on marksmanship. Cops, as a whole, are -not- good shots. (There are exceptions, individuals and departments)

      Bottom line, any competent and willing human can be an effective defender at a school, given a little training and practice.

      And as to “monitoring”, how much monitoring do cops get? Not anywhere what you might imagine. And not -what- you imagine.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Crap. “Higher” not “tiger”.

      • Reddevil says:

        Great points.

        Look at this from the perspective of a school security officer:

        What is your desired outcome in a school shooting?

        Ideally, you want none of the students, staff, or faculty to. E injured, and you want the shooter alive and in custody so we can help figure out how to prevent the next one.

        How does an armed teacher help you accomplish this? Are they there to defend their class or aggressively take down the shooter.

        If they are there to defend the class, I would argue that having a hardened door that is lock at the beginning of each class would keep those kids almost as safe without any of the risk of AD, insider threat, lost weapons, stolen weapons, etc. of course one of the kids in that class could be the shooter, but to mitigate that you would have to arm every teacher.

        If the teachers role is to aggressively seek the shooter, you have just left a class leaderless and created a blue on blue threat. Also, moving tactically to engage a shooter is a world apart from shooting at a stationary range, which will require a lot more training. This also increases the planning and coordination required. Will the armed teachers coordinate their movements? Will they have commas with the police/sheriff/State police?

        It all briefs well, but there would have to be a lot more detailed planning before I would be comfortable with it

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          A screw up by a teacher would likely be far, far less bloody than another sixty seconds of unopposed massacre. Th only reason we have 17 dead instead of 70 is the shooter was incompetent and stopped on his own.

          The teachers all know each other. They know the kids. The cops are in uniform, an it is fairly easy to train “if not engaged, put the weapon away when you hear the bullhorns/sirens/etc.”.

          Better a chance, than no chance. Besides, this isnt new territory. Once the word gets out, most of them are going elsewhere. They are looking to slaughter helpless people, not get in a firefight.

          Better -any- defense, than none at all.

  15. Sparks says:

    I do not know what these two teachers did in the Army but it damned sure wasn’t Infantry. Unless they are like the teachers in Texas who have a mindset that their lives and the lives are their students are more valuable than their stance against gun violence then I wouldn’t trust them with a sling shot, much less a pistol. Such are the teachers in my state who would faint dead away at the sight of a real gun up close.

    I think the better answer is full time, armed and tactically trained school security. We will never get the teachers in this country to think like the teachers in Israel for example.

    Since Peterson made $76K per year as an SRO I am damned sure we can find qualified and trained security to keep schools safe. Without having to attempt teaching Debbie the sorely over taxed teacher, how to handle, maintain and use a weapon in a dire situation.

    If you want more dead kids, let the likes of these two teachers have a gun at school.

  16. Sapper3307 says:

    Two and half years in the service, I got more time in the PEHA!

  17. rgr769 says:

    What is so stupid about this entire AR-15 style rifle argument is it is a completely bogus dispute about cosmetic appearances. I own a Kel-Tec semi-auto rifle in .223 caliber. It doesn’t have any of the “scary” features that are completely cosmetic. No pistol grip, no flash suppressor, no bayonet stud, no telescoping stock. What it does have is a stock that folds in half, making it more compact than and AR-15 carbine. It will fit in a long back-pack when folded. It will perform, like many rifle models, exactly as an AR-15. That Kel-Tec rifle is legal in every state, even the proggie ones controlled by the D-rats. And it will still be legal, like the Ruger Mini-14 and a host of other semi-autos, even if they enact a new “assault weapon” ban like the Clinton ban the D-rats so loved. Let’s not forget this is really about disarming all of us law-abiding gun owners; it’s ultimate goal is people “control” not gun control, in the final analysis.

  18. Yef says:

    Excellent article.

    SFC Lilyea once again exceeds the standard.

    (And hopefully I don’t get banned next time I drink budlight and post)

    • Roger in Republic says:

      Yef, Bud Light? You should be banned for that alone. Next time you should try real beer. Out here we call Bud Light “Sex in a canoe” because it is Fuc^’n near water.


      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        At least he wasn’t drinking Blatt’s or Nasty Light but you’re right about Pud Light, give me some Samuel Adams, Yvengling or any good beer any day. I love me some Arrogant Bastard Ale, my moonbat Liberal Sister swears it’s named after me!

    • Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

      Budlite Yef. When I was working nights, Friday night/Saturday morning had us having a tailgate party in the companies parking lot. I liked Corona with a twist of lime, and a co worker asks me why the brewsky had to be flavored. Now forward this to the present and you can see different flavored beers up the old Wazoo. I have yet to see a NYC egg cream or pizza flavored beer though.

  19. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Forget about firearms for a moment to realize that about 30,000 people died of heroin overdose last year and that heroin is illegal. Gun bans will simply guarantee criminals lots of unarmed victims, has anyone ever seen them line up to turn their guns in after a new law was passed?

    • OWB says:

      There is plenty of heroin, or whatever is “the” thing this week, at every school in my AOR. Takes no more than 15 minutes to look around the neighborhood and discover where the kids are selling and buying the stuff. Usually it takes 5 minutes or less because it’s being done on school property.

    • Mason says:

      They’ve implemented fixes for this, at least around these parts, and that’s giving out free Narcan auto-injectors. Doesn’t do shit to solve the problem, just makes for fewer dead bodies littering the street.

  20. terrorologist says:

    So, the do gooders say “We need to ban these weapons of war”.
    Let’s look at what that might entail:
    I guess the very fist “weapon of war” was hands/fists. So let’s ban them.
    Next would be sticks and rocks. OK let’s ban them.
    Knives, out you go.
    Bows & arrows.
    Fire arms of ALL types have been used.
    Cars have been used for bombs, ban them.
    Same for trains, trucks, and now planes. Out they go.
    I would go on but I also know of a guy that used his laptop to kill another so I have to ban it also…

  21. Pat says:

    Rep Mast (R) from FL is yet another, with his wailing screed in the NYT. Progressive PJ from IAVA just about wet himself sharing this on twitter:

    “Now, as a Republican congressman from Florida, I don’t fear becoming a political casualty, either. If we act now by changing laws surrounding firearms and mental illness, we too can save lives.

    Most nights in Afghanistan, I wielded an M4 carbine and a .40-caliber pistol. The total barrel length of my M4 was approximately 14 inches with Trijicon ACOG sights, as well as an infrared laser. I usually carried 10 magazines stacked with 20 rounds of 5.56-millimeter ammunition each.

    My rifle was very similar to the AR-15-style semiautomatic weapon used to kill students, teachers and a coach I knew at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where I once lived.”

    • The Stranger says:

      20 round mags?
      40 caliber pistol?
      I dunno…

    • Mason says:

      He says “We used it because it was the most lethal — the best for killing our enemies.”

      No, you used it cause that’s what Uncle Sam gave you. To say it’s the best makes it sound like the only weapon in use. No grenades, JDAMs, etc. We use a lot of tools to complete the mission.

      • The Stranger says:

        And no regular troops get issued 40 caliber pistols (maybe SEALs or other special ops can carry different than issue, I don’t know). If he was carrying one while deployed , he was breaking the law. You are not allowed to carry personal weapons overseas, only what you are issued. Otherwise, I would have been packing my 1911 and not an M9.

        • rgr769 says:

          If he deployed at all, he was likely a fobbit or REMF that never left the wire. I doubt anyone who served in A-stan ever saw the old 20 round mags over there. Also, even the 75th Rangers who were issued Glocks were given the 9mm version. I smell bullshit, too.

          • The Stranger says:

            Actually, I googled him. He’s a double amputee EOD tech, apparently. However, I still gotta say that his comments about weapons that he carried over there seemed odd. 20 round magazines? I don’t know about 2010 (when he deployed), but I’ve never seen a Soldier issued one in the times I went over. 40 caliber pistol? Really? The M9 is a 9mm and the M45 is a 45 ACP. If he was carrying a 40 he was wrong.

  22. lily says:

    I don’t care how many guns you own. They won’t protect you against the Gov’t as the 2nd Amendment meant them to. If you think your gun can take out a tank then you’re a bit delusional. The 2nd Amendment was established when the Gov’t only had guns and artillery to attack the people. Now the Gov’t has a lot more than that and your gun isn’t an equalizer. If you think it is then have fun living in your fantasy world.

    • terrorologist says:

      Who said I have to take out a tank?

      • rgr769 says:

        The progs always make this counter-argument to the purpose of the 2A. They refuse to recognize that the Imperial Japanese high command was advised that if their forces ever invaded mainland USA there “would be a man with a gun behind every bush.” They also like to ignore what happened in Romania when the people rose up and took down their Communist dictator. I hope in a few weeks if the TSHTF, we’ll be the ones driving the armored vehicles, along with the assistance of AD soldiers and Marines. That is what happened in Romania, and their populace was largely unarmed at the start.

        • lily says:

          Actually what you said about the Japanese high command is a myth, just look it up on google. I would say the purpose of the 2A was shattered around WW2 too because that’s when the Gov’t got the weapons that a gun can’t defend against, such as tanks.

          • Roger in Republic says:

            Tell that to Mr Molotov of the cocktail fame. Insurgents just steal their anti tank weapons or improvise them.

          • AW1Ed says:

            “…Gov’t got the weapons that a gun can’t defend against, such as tanks.”

            I’d say a bunch of 7th century educated goat herders with AKs and RPGs would disagree, lily.

          • OldSoldier54 says:

            Also, I suggest that you change your search engine to DuckDuckGo. Google has definite Leftest DNA in their algorithms.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            And lily is wrong on this point about the warning to the Japanese high command, also. Per this article from National Geographic, Yamamoto Isoruku, the commander of the Japanese fleet, had worked in America and warned the Japanese high command of the strength of the American spirit.

            Wrong again, lily.

            Too bad, so sad.

            • lily says:

              Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

              But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.

              How do we know? We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called “the dean of Pearl Harbor historians.” Among his many books are “The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans” (1993) and the best-selling “At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor” (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is “bogus.”

              In an exchange of e-mails he said:

              Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

              We included this in an update to an Ask FactCheck item we posted May 10, debunking an error-filled “gun history lesson” circulating by e-mail.

              We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.


              • 11B-Mailclerk says:


                Yamamoto said not to make war against the USA. At all. However the e went right up to the “get canned” line trying to dissuade the “war” faction.

                Because he had seen us, from carboy marksman to enough factories to build anything we needed in absurd quantities.

                The point, he knew they could not beat -us-.

                • Christopher Kramer says:

                  Yamamoto said that in order to get America to surrender, that terms would have to be dictated in the White House. He was Harvard educated and was Naval Attache earlier in his career – he knew what America had the potential of doing if forced intoa war.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              And again, you missed the point, which is that Yamamoto was AGAINST making war on America, warned the high command against it, but went ahead with their demands anyway.


              “It’s out of the question,” he remarked in October 1940. “To fight the United States is like fighting the whole world. But it has been decided, so I will fight my best. Doubtless I will die on board the Nagato.” Almost a year later, addressing a Tokyo meeting of his old Nagaoka schoolmates on September 18, 1941, Yamamoto warned, “It is a mistake to regard Americans as luxury loving and weak. I can tell you that they are full of spirit, adventure, fight, and justice. Their thinking is scientific and well advanced…. Remember that American industry is much more developed than ours, and, unlike us, they have all the oil they want. Japan cannot vanquish the United States. Therefore we should not fight the United States.”

              Try to quit beating that dead horse, willya?

            • rgr1480 says:

              Does the article mention that Yamamoto also attended Harvard, then spent time hitch hiking around the US and Mexico …. “touristing” around (or spying?) … I recall reading it had something to do with oil production .. but can’t find the citation.

              He also attended the US Naval War College.

              And … he was a bonafide good poker player saying, “If I can keep 5,000 ideographs in my mind, it is not hard to keep in mind 52 cards.”


          • Fyrfighter says:

            Tanks were developed in WW I.. thanks for playing, try again..

            • The Other Whitey says:

              Don’t confuse her with facts! That’s mean!

              Have they developed tracks that can’t be broken and/or thrown off the roadwheels—thus immobilizing the tank—with improvised explosives? Tanks that can’t move are much easier to kill.

              • 26Limabeans says:

                I own a tracked piece of heavy equipment. Having a track come uncunted is a B-F-D.
                I imagine it really sucks with bad guys trying to kill you.
                If the 2nd amendment fails you won’t even be able to change a flat tire on the interstate without fearing for your life.

              • 26Limabeans says:

                I own a tracked piece of heavy equipment. Having a track come uncunted is a B-F-D.
                I imagine it really sucks with bad guys trying to kill you.
                If the 2nd amendment fails you won’t even be able to change a flat tire on the interstate without fearing for your life.

      • lily says:

        Since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the Gov’t, I’d say that isn’t the case anymore. Would you be afraid of someone who owned a gun when you own tanks?

        • OWB says:

          Worry, don’t worry. The choice is yours, for yourself. You don’t get to decide what the rest of us fear or don’t fear.

          Sure, point and laugh if you must. I simply don’t care.

          You might want to ponder for a bit what percentage of those tanks and whatever else it is “they” have are controlled by reserve forces. You know, the ones who live down the road from you and me. While there might be some active duty folks around willing to run over somebody else’s grandmother’s house, I seriously doubt there are very many. Meanwhile, the reserve forces? Very few, if any, of them are going to obliterate their friends and families just because they told to do so. I could see them turning on their commanders before they would their families, if such an order were even be passed along.

          • lily says:

            I know, you think it’s not important that your 2nd Amendment is really invalid in today’s age in regards to defending yourself against a tyrannical government. At most you can defend yourself against some criminals who might want to harm you.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Oh. My. God.

            How can you say anything so utterly WRONG and look at yourself in the mirror? How??

            Who the bloody Hell are YOU to say ANYTHING in the US Constitution is invalid?

            Perhaps we should start looking at that part about the description of a traitor. Were you planning to jump the fence to side with the slime that wants to overthrow the legitimate government of this nation? WERE YOU, LILY????

            How in the bloody fucking hell can you say things like that and then look at yourself in the mirror???

        • SteveC73 says:

          There is a good reason that tanks work in conjunction with infantry carrying rifles to keep other infantrymen away from the tanks. I’d definitely say that tankers are aware of and afraid of non-tanker threats. Your continued argument about tanks is not a winner.

        • timactual says:

          How many tanks do you think the government has? There are millions of guns. Tanks can’t be everywhere, and without fuel they are pretty much useless.

        • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

          Do you really think that there are people in the government that turn tanks on the public? I’m thinking that there are quite a few that are deathly afraid of what the Hell a bunch of good old boys/girls would do to them if they even remotely tried it.

          The repercussions of an out of control government using the military to control/suppress the population would make the storming of the Bastille look like a tea party.

          • OWB says:

            It does explain why the general population took notice when a bunch of bureaucrats ordered up caches of weapons and ammo.

            Wonder where all stuff is now? Yeah, I do have concerns about that.

          • lily says:

            Apparently the founding fathers did and that’s why they created the 2nd Amendment. Little did they know that tanks would be invented. Now it’s you and your gun vs the Gov’t and it’s tank, not including all that other stuff.

            • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

              And there are ways of disabling a tank, Lily… go watch “Saving Private Ryan” to get a clue… libtard.

            • OWB says:

              I’ll take those odds because it’s not a single firearm against a single tank. There would be literally millions of people with firearms and millions more with disabling devices that would stop that tank in it’s tracks, assuming they could even find someone who would drive a tank against fellow Americans.

              • lily says:

                That’s the line of thought that interest me. It’s like saying we don’t need to worry about Gov’t tyranny using the military against the citizens anymore. Apparently the founding fathers back in the 18th century didn’t see it that way at the time. But today it’s probably as you say. So you think the 2nd Amendment is only good for defense against criminals since obviously we don’t need to worry about the military attacking us?

            • JACK SHIT says:

              Lily does not know me.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          “…afraid of someone who owned tanks….”
          Um, I guess lily’s never heard of that guy who stole a tank from an Army Reserve center in the 19990s, went on a rampage with it through several neighborhoods, got it hung up on the 1/2-ton traffic dividers on the LA Freeway and refused to come out of the tank when the CHPs opene the hatch, so the CHPs shot him through the hatch door opening.

          That was a rather strange display of how easy it is to take out a tank driver.

          • NHSparky says:

            That was San Diego in 1995, the 805 and 163 Freeways, and I was stationed on a boat out of Point Loma, and watched that whole shitshow go down on local TV.

            But yeah, once dipshit ran out of fuel, he was shot in pretty short order.

          • lily says:

            Yeah you’re going to use your 2nd Amendment gun to take out all the Gov’t tanks and other stuff.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              What the hell are you talking about? What kind of lunatic place are you coming from?

              Did you even READ what I said, Lily? Did you? I don’t think you did. You are so far off base that you are not going to find your way back.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Probably not. Very few people would be stupid enough to start that direct jackboot shit here, thus the whole “tanks” routine is kinda lame to bring up.

        • Sparks says:

          and the last time I saw tanks rolling into my town was…NEVER!

        • Mason says:

          It’s worth noting that you can, legally, buy/own a tank under US law.

          But my wife won’t let me. 🙁 I tried to explain that nobody is going to mess with the house with a freaking tank on the front lawn. Didn’t work.

          • lily says:

            Can you own all the modern stuff on the M1 Abrams such as the reactive armor and 50 cal?

            • OWB says:

              Who cares? Just having a tank in the front yard would be great.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Lily, believe it or not, anything on a tank can be legally purchased with enough money and paperwork

              The vehicle is an off road tractor. Minimal paperwork

              Armor is metal. No paper

              The guns fall into several category. The machineries are title II (aka class III) and require transfer tax and significant paperwork.

              The main gun is a “destructive device”, more tax and much more paper.

              The explosive amin gun ammo is individually DD. Paper and money. The inert sabot rounds are just ammo. (Need to check this)

              Explosive/reactive armor requires whatever explosive permits are needed for bulk boomstuff. Tax and paper.

              Did you know there are folks that collect tanks? Some get rented to Hollywood.

              So if you really want to be a backyard tanker, it takes time, money, paperwork, and a good lawyer.

              If you don’t mind inert weapons, it’s just money and time.

    • Jack says:

      Oh good, Lily’s here to enlighten us all on modern tank warfare and tactics.

      OK, go ahead we’re all here listening…

      • rgr769 says:

        Progs just don’t know you or your cousin Jack Shit. Therefore, you won’t get a response, just like he had none for my Romania example.

      • lily says:

        My point is your 2nd Amendment gun isn’t going to stop a tyrannical Gov’t that unleashes all it’s modern battlefield equipment on you.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          An Armed Populace will not quietly march itself into boxcars, either. Despite their lack of tanks, aircraft and Artillery, the French and Polish Underground Resistances gave the Germans a LOT of heartburn during WWII, ditto with the Filipinos versus their Japanese occupiers.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          -because- we won’t give them up, it will never go that far. The theoretical dictators would not last long, nor would those who obeyed the unlawful orders.

          You are making a very shaky assumption about the loyalty of the tankers, eh?

          “Fire on our own people? Fuck you, sir!” Would just be the beginning…

          • lily says:

            So we don’t need the 2nd Amendment to stand up to a tyrannical Gov’t because the troops will refuse to attack the citizens? That’s fascinating, thanks for pointing that out. Or do we need it more to stand up the non-military side such as FBI, ATF, cops, etc…?

            • JACK SHIT says:

              You don’t know me, Lily.

            • OWB says:

              You are the one insisting that what we are supposed to fear is the TANK!!! We simply pointed out the difficulty of getting someone who can drive a tank to shoot on American and smash their houses willy nilly.

              Several of us pointed out that bureaucrats armed with all the stuff they have acquired in the past 10-15 years would be another discussion.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Lily, just go hide in your corner right now, you damned coward.

          Who the hell are you to preach to any of us? Do you have any idea how far off track you are? I no longer think you’re an American from what you’re posting here.

          If you want to just curl up and die, do it some place else. You’re an embarrassment.

        • FatCircles0311 says:

          Cavemen in Afghanistan can do it. I’m sure Americans could as well. You are pretty clueless.

        • dusty1 says:

          Lily, The American population doesn’t have to worry about it’s Government unleashing it’s armies on it’s people.
          What’s far more probable is a planned, provoked or as promised nuclear exchange with a foreign power killing many Americans.
          As for the assault rifle question, I predict Trump will do little or nothing until the next election when promises will be made, that’s if Trump wants to run again but from here it looks like his race is run.
          These mass shootings are going to f?ck it up for law abiding gun owners in the U.S.A just as they did in Australia but at least the U.S.A has the second amendment so civilian firearm ownership in some form will always be.

    • Roger in Republic says:

      Actually the cannons used by the Continental Army were borrowed or rented from civilians in the various militias. Of course some were captured from the British army and later the Continental congress voted money to purchase artillery pieces from France and others. The founders made no bones about what constituted an Arm because whatever the citizen had was OK. It was not until the NFA any arm was defined as dangerous instrument. Even those were legal if the regulation in place were followed. IE, tax stamps and class III vetting.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Two things, Lily

      One, assymetrical/guerilla Warfare can be very effective with a little bit of imagination. Rifles can’t destroy or disable tanks, but there’s other ways of doing that. Not saying that it’s easy, but it can be done.

      Two, your argument assumes that the whole US military would side with the tyrannical government in violation of their Oaths. Can you really guarantee that our side wouldn’t have aircraft, armor, and other cool toys?

      Obviously such a civil war would be a horrific bloody nightmare, but asserting that the government would effortlessly steamroll armed citizens is an exercise in fantasy. It would be bad, but for BOTH sides. And for the potentially-tyrannical government, the cost would—and should—outweigh any potential gains. That is what they call “deterrence.”

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Tankers get out occasionally.

      When not expecting trouble, they drive with the hatches open, and usually with their head and shoulders out.

      Their fuel folks, ammo folks, mechanics, and cooks are -not- in tanks.

      Their families are also accessible, if things -really- go to shit.

      Have you read -anything- on modern guerrilla warfare?

      Free folks don’t have to -conquer- their own country. They just have to render it ungovernable and dysfunctional. And essentially, just refuse to quit. Tyrants have to crush and conquer. The free just have to survive and -not quit- .

      Ruthless helps.

    • OldSoldier54 says:

      Lily: The rifle is used to suppress the infantry cover. This leaves the tank as a sitting duck. Perfect for field expedient napalm/molotov cocktails onto the engine compartment. Shoot the crew as they try to bail.

      Like fish in a barrel.

      More difficult would be fixed/rotary wing armored gun ships, IMO.

      A little engineering creativity, understanding that you WILL take casualties – it’s the price of doing business – most things can be overcome.

  23. OldSoldier54 says:

    LTC Peters needs to get a clue. Miss Lincourt, also needs to beg, borrow, or buy a clue.

    • rgr769 says:

      Peters’ military career was served primarily as a REMF, as a military intelligence officer and Area Specialist Officer. He never served in combat or a time of war. His gun control policy advice is about as credible that of our favorite Army LTC, “Master” Bateman. Gun savvy he is not. He was suspended by Fox for publically calling 0bama a “pussy.” So, as a talking head, one has to wonder about his judgment, even though that is an accurate characterization.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      ARe you saying, rgr769, that he is a clone of one Bersserkelyite commie slackwit who no longer gets to haunt these hallowed halls?

      Hmmmm….. I may not know a lot about guns, but I’m certainly not averse to anyone owning them.

      • rgr769 says:

        Naw. Peters is more of a neocon who spent most of his career gaming how to fight commies. The Berserkeley slackwit is a crypto commie/proglodyte. Also, Peters writes books; the slackwit can barely read them.

  24. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    This tank business is quite silly. If the shit ever hit the fan again, it would be utterly and completely devastating, thanks to drones, electric grids, generators, reservoirs, private aircraft and on and on and on.

  25. Duane says:

    I personally love all the military veterans that now all of a sudden are subject matter experts – especially the ones that do the “I served 8 years in combat” routine. I served 30 years, and there are quite a few of the people that I worked with and knew that I walked across the street when they were starting their cars because their stupidity scared me. Just because you served doesn’t suddenly make you an expert of all things related to weapons! Even better is the ones that still haven’t hit 30 and are experts – they haven’t even began to live and work, but now they are going to tell everyone how it works. I’m 57 and I’m STILL learning things every day, so how does that work?

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      “Just because you served doesn’t suddenly make you an expert of all things related to weapons.” No shit, Duane. Who asserted otherwise?

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        “I’m 57 and I’m STILL learning things every day, so how does that work?” It works b/c you are not yet dead and not comatose. There, you just learned another something.

    • OWB says:

      Those of us who were supervisors pretty much were experts in our fields because, you know, that was our job. Was I an expert in in all things related to weapons? Hardly, and don’t claim to be. There were a few things about which I knew quite a lot and even taught them to others. Have forgotten most of it.

      Maybe you were referring to folks other than the commenters here? Even so, I’d put the collective expertise of those who post and comment here in competition with just about any group of folks anywhere. Between what we know and who we know that know more than we do, we know a lot of stuff.

      • timactual says:

        “Those of us who were supervisors pretty much were experts in our fields because, you know, that was our job.”

        Oh Lordee! I sincerely hope that was irony, because it is the best laugh I have had all day. Thank you.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      So, Duane,

      You are an expert to whom we should listen, thus your point is bullshit


      You are not any sort of authority, just a bullshitter we should ignore.

      Ok. Got it.

  26. Ex-PH2 says:

    Tanks, huh? Must be some personal phobia that hasn’t been dealt with.

    A good, heavy duty net made of dental floss could easily gum up the tracks on any tank, any time, any place. Piece of cake.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      I remember being taught in Combat Engineer AIT that triple strand Concertina Wire will stop any vehicle. It wraps up in the tracks and road wheels, wraps up the tires and axles of a wheeled vehicle bringing either to an abrupt halt.

      • The Stranger says:

        Yeah, basically the wire binds up the road wheels and burns out the transmission, turning a tank into a 60 ton paperweight/short range artillery piece. By the way, does an Abrams have a coax machine gun? I forget.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I think you’d only need a couple of Bosuns Mates with niddy-noddies (rope spinners) and a couple of assistants to coil the stuff up neatly.

  27. Ex-PH2 says:

    In my view, the biggest mistake that these loud, attention-seeking shouters are making is that they were like this:


    Canadians can own ARs for fucks sake!
    I prefer VZ58 and Mini-30 also…. We dont have to register them and can hunt with them too. I have a VZ58 folder, as my truck gun. All within P.R.Kanada

  29. Pecos Phil says:

    ” Wildlife isn’t breaking in to my home.” Wildlife is breaking into someones home ( a little dated article )

  30. NHSparky says:

    Dear Lily,


    (Get the fucking point?)

  31. A Proud Infidel®™ says:


    Liberals pols who only want more control over a populace are like these crocodiles versus electric eels and they view us Gun Owners as the eels, predators tend to avoid armed prey like a cougar avoids preying on porcupines.

  32. FatCircles0311 says:

    Peters is a swamp thing. The 2nd amendment’s purpose is to give citizens a fighting chance to fight back and kill tyrants. Trying to pussy foot around the core premise of that civil right is beyond disingenuous. It’s exactly why it was written as it was “shall not be infringed” to prevent the government from dictating what is used against them. Peters can self immolate. That guy is the swamp.

  33. lily says:

    After thinking about the title of this thread I was thinking “only pansies want to ban grenades, grenade launchers, tow missiles, stinger missiles, fully armed tanks, apaches, cobras and things like that”. Who wants to play with the small stuff? I would like to go shoot a grenade launcher.

  34. Frank says:

    Teachers are paid to take on the role of being parent to a child, hopefully in order to teach the child useful stuff. The Latin phrase is “in Loco Parentheses.”
    For a teacher to refuse to protect that child effectively is as shameful as a parent abandoning their children to predators. Those teachers need not be hired.

  35. OWB says:

    And in related news, the Coward Brounty Sheriff considers that his leadership skills are “amazing.” Well, actually, we ARE amazed by them, but in his case it is not a good thing.

    You know it is crazy time when I agree with Jake Tapper on something or think he did a good job.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      Israel needed to step down the day it was reported that Peterson stayed outside during the shooting. He FAILED as a leader… the four deputies that stayed outside while others went into Harm’s Way to confront the threat are a REFLECTION of Israel’s LACK OF LEADERSHIP.

      The interview reminded me of when Cankles McPantsuit went in front of Congress:

      • The Other Whitey says:

        Fuck the Cowards of Broward.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran, R-Pasco County, sent a letter to Scott on Sunday asking the governor to suspend Israel. A day earlier, State Rep. Bill Hager, R-Boca Raton, urged Scott to relieve Israel from his duties for “neglect of duty and incompetence,” the Palm Beach Post reported.

        I guess Democrats don’t have a problem with Israel.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      It’s strange, isn’t it? When you see someone who leans so heavily one way, do a double take over something like that sheriff’s response?

      This one got me, too: Israel said on “16 of those cases,” his deputies did everything right and in the five years he had been sheriff, he’d taken the department to a “new level.”

      Yes, he certainly did – he took his department to a whole new level of utter incompetence. The Holy Cow! rose right up in front of me over that remark by the sheriff.

      I think it’s time for comfy chair, hot tea and cookies and a good book.

    • Mason says:

      Weren’t these the people just a few days ago calling for Wray’s resignation since his office didn’t follow up on tips?

      I’m not one to usually suggest that the man at the top resign for the acts of their street-level subordinates. It’s usually a politically expedient scapegoat.

      This guy, however, shows no real remorse for the actions of his department. Sheriff office politics can be complex, but this guy comes off as a pompous ass. I’m sure morale at the department was not high. I enjoy how he says he’d have been first in if he’d had the chance. He was first at something; going on CNN and demanding congress do something. .

      • OWB says:

        He had every opportunity to be the first in, it looks like. So why wasn’t he? Any sane sheriff would have hustled over to the scene. So why didn’t he show us some of that amazing leadership by leading his deputies into the school?

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          I doubt the sherif could have gotten into his gun belt, out of his office building, and into his car before the event was over. And that assumes he heard the first call on a scanner or somesuch.

          He is an office-critter, not a first responder.

          Now, where my political ire may be directed, would be the reports that department was “diverting” some or most offenders out of the “criminal” system, becasue “too many” were gong to jail. If this was indeed explicitly ethnically biased, a has been alleged, then all the more he has to go.

          You cant let violet barbarians run loose unopposed, or the whole system collapses. And enforcement by skin color is prohibited under amendment 14. I do not care one whit for Jim Crow, and eradicating it wherever it pops its ugly head is a societal necessity.

        • Mason says:

          I guarantee he was rushing over there at top speed. Had to get in front of the cameras in the media staging area. No tragedy should go unexploited for a politician.

          He thought he was going to be a national hero. He just cannot believe people are questioning him and his dept.

    • OldSoldier54 says:

      HO. LEE. Crap!!

      Another knob polishing political whore in uniform.

  36. David says:

    I disagree on one minor point: All of my guns were designed to, as accurately as possible, put a projectile on target. The choice of projectiles, their consequent lethality, and most importantly THE SELECTION OF TARGETS, is all my responsibility. They may kill quite efficiently… but until I make that decision for better or worse, they are all inert chunks of machinery.

  37. IDC SARC says:

    “Only pansies want to ban ARs”

    In my experience yes, irrational pansies at that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *