If the Government Will Not Protect Us, Who Will?

“THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Dec. 27, 2012) — [Editor’s Note:  As most of our readers are aware, The Post & Email does not normally cover violent crime because of its over-saturation in the mainstream media and the preponderance of government corruption, which is our main focus.  However, in the wake of the Sandy Hook atrocity and ensuing debate over Second Amendment rights and children’s safety, we feel it important to present reasonable discussion on whether or not further precautions are necessary to prevent a similar future tragedy in American schools.]

On December 14, 2006, exactly six years before the deadly attack on a Connecticut elementary school which claimed a total of 28 lives, 20 of them children, a Nevada state senator advocated for teachers to be able to carry a firearm in school after receiving proper training in order to prevent school gun violence.

It appears that Bob Beers is no longer in the Nevada Senate or General Assembly, which meets every other year, but is now a councilman for the city of Las Vegas.  At the time he was quoted in the aforementioned article, there had been “several incidents of gun violence” within the Clark County School District.

The Arizona attorney general is now advocating the appointment of a faculty member to undergo firearms and emergency management training in order to have access to a firearm on school property in the event of an emergency.  Arizona had employed “school resource officers” which budget cuts have reduced.

One state legislator prefers restoring funding for the resource officers over arming educators and “making situations worse.”  An Arizona sheriff wants to both arm teachers and restore the resource officers, doing away with the “safe school zone” policy.

A Texas congressman, Louis Gohmert, believes that if Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochstrung had had a firearm, the tremendous loss of life which ensued could have been prevented.  At present, the states of Utah, Kansas and Indiana allow teachers to bring firearms onto school property.  Free training was offered to Utah educators by a private organization, the Utah Shooting Sports Council, on Thursday.

The USSC states that certain prevalent crimes in Utah can be prevented when people carry handguns for protection.  On its website, the group says that “We represent the citizens of Utah who safely and legally own and use firearms, exercising rights guaranteed under both the United States and Utah constitutions.”

The Texas town of Harrold implemented a measure which allows teachers to carry guns in schools in order to “protect our children.”

A town in Colorado formed a volunteer posse ten years ago for the general protection of the community and became active in acting as security for the local school and after-school activities.  Well-known writer Michelle Malkin quoted a member of the posse as having told her, “Posse patrols have become a visible, accepted part of our community” and work with local law enforcement to prevent school violence.  Her contact continued, “What is the matter with the rest of the country? Where are concerned parents and citizens willing to carve out some time to provide similar security?”

In Ohio, the Buckeye Firearms Foundation is offering a $1,000 course at no charge to 24 selected participants.

Some schools have security cameras and a front door “which can be opened only from inside the office, after a person identifies himself and destination to a staff member.”  The state of Maine has installed double sets of doors in its schools and supports “stronger connections and strong relationships.”  Some schools in the Northeast have chosen to place armed officers in all of its 14 schools.  At the opposite end of the country, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa offered gift cards worth between $100 and $200 for every gun voluntarily turned in to police by members of the public.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is urging Obama to promote stricter gun control by making it “number one” on his second-term agenda.  Obama had traveled to Newtown two days after the shootings occurred and said in an interfaith address that “Surely we can do better than this.”

One writer has referred to the Sandy Hook incident as an “evil” act of terrorism.  Article I, Section 15 of the Connecticut constitution states that “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”  The state of Connecticut does not recognize gun permits from any other state in the country, although the opposite is not the case.  Anyone who has “been confined by court order” for a mental-illness issue in the one-year period prior to applying for a permit cannot obtain one.  The ownership of assault weapons is limited in Connecticut to those granted a “certificate of possession.”  The AR-15, which was reportedly used by the Sandy Hook perpetrator, is on the list of banned assault weapons.

The state of Illinois has had a ban on concealed-carry lifted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals with the participation of the Second Amendment Foundation.  The ruling allows the Illinois legislature six months to pass a law which respects the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and upholding the right of a citizen to “bear” arms outside of his home.  The city of Chicago counted 24 gun-related deaths of schoolchildren during the 2010-2011 academic year.  Illinois has had very strict gun laws, and Chicago’s crime rate exceeds that of New York City and Los Angeles.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie opposes the idea of armed guards in schools, suggesting that there are “other ways” to improve student safety.  However, he did not say what those “other ways” might be.

At times, an armed person has stopped a robbery or other crime simply by making his firearm known to the perpetrator.  One researcher reported that as many as 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by legal gun owners.

According to Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;…”  After illegal aliens have been allowed to cross the borders with Canada and Mexico with impunity, then steal from, maim, and murder U.S. citizens, some states, including Arizona, have passed their own immigration laws.  Americans on the border with Mexico have taken measures to protect themselves and their property which include an organized volunteer presence.

Some congressional Democrats have asked for $200,000,000 to fund a federal firearm buyback program following the tragedy of Sandy Hook, while Sen. Dianne Feinstein is seeking to enact legislation which will require federal registration of firearms by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which played a part in the failed Fast & Furious gunrunning program over which putative Attorney General Eric Holder was found to be in contempt of Congress for withholding documents along with Obama.

The left-leaning media has ridiculed those who do not believe that stricter gun laws are a solution.  On Friday, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre spoke at a press conference during which he laid out a plan to place armed security guards in every public school with the help of his organization.  Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal called LaPierre’s idea “sadly and shamefully inadequate.”  Blumenthal said he is seeking “sensible, commonsense measures” to the problem of violent school attacks.  Connecticut Senator-Elect Christopher Murphy, a former congressman from the Fifth District, labeled LaPierre’s proposal “revolting.”

When school resumes after the Christmas break, the Sandy Hook PTA is working to make the children feel “safe” in a new school, contending that “Children deserve a safe environment in which to learn.”  “Copycat threats” made following the December 14 attack have been likened to “terrorism.”

Is government the answer to keeping children safe, or is it the problem?  Are we capable of self-governing, or do we rely on others for our safety?

In the early days of the nation, the maintaining of a paid army was viewed unfavorably, with the Founders “preferring instead the model of a citizen army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense.” The colonies “required” able-bodied “white adult men to possess firearms and ammunition” (page 1).

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

According to a Yale University professor in colonial history, “No good understanding of American government today is possible without a knowledge of its colonial roots. A most significant contribution to U. S. constitutional history was made by Connecticut, 1639-1789.”

According to author Clayton E. Cramer, the Connecticut colony’s 1650 mandate read:

That all persons that are above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms…”

and maintain his musket in a state of “continuall readines” [sic] or pay a fine.

Colonial Connecticut and the other original colonies “maintained its separate militia establishment, and each concentrated on the problems of protecting or extending its own frontiers…”

In the Massachusetts colony, children were required to obtain instruction in firearms use (page 4).  Prior to the American Revolution, the militia was “an important social institution, necessary to provide defense and public safety.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been acting as an adviser to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, considers modern militias “extremist groups,” calling them “the paramilitary arm of the Patriot movement.”  While claiming that “Tea Parties” do not constitute “extremist groups,” the SPLC, which assisted in assembling the Sovereign Citizen training program in 2011, says that they are “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.”

Does the media bear blame for the increased gun violence in recent years?  Are those who attack defenseless schoolchildren terrorists?

On May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, who was killed in the Columbine High School attack perpetrated by two students, testified to a congressional committee, in part:

Men and women are three part beings: we have a body, and we have a soul, and we have a spirit … And I believe we fail to recognize that third element, that really does need to be recognized by the legislative bodies of this country, that’s been ignored for so long. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries, and we know this is a historic fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We’ve refused to honor God, and in doing so we opened the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tradgedy occurs, politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that continue to erode away our personal and private liberties.

We don’t need more restrictive laws. Erik and Dylan would not have been stopped by more gun laws or metal detectors. No amount of laws can stop someone who spends months of planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key, and there is a spiritual awakening that is taking place that will not be squelched. We don’t need more religion, we don’t need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage, we do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people’s basic needs are being ignored. We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgement that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God.