This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
South Dakota Signs 'Gun In Every Classroom' Bill
South Dakota is the first state, since the Newtown tragedy, to enact a law allowing teachers to carry guns in school. As Fox News reports, Governor Dennis Daugaard signed the bill that allows school districts to arm teachers and other personnel. Unsurprisingly, the measure prompted intense debate as many feared it "could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings," and potentially put guns into untrained hands, as well as previously dismissed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan as "a marketing opportunity" for the industry to sell more guns. South Dakota, apparently, doesn't stand alone on this issue (Utah has allowed teachers to wear concealed weapons for 12 years) but as Washington pushes forward on its gun control legislation, other states including Georgia, New Hampshire, and Kansas are working on similar measures. Rep. Scott Craig - the bill's main sponsor - has received support from rural districts who do not have the funds for full-time law enforcement. While the Great Depression promised a 'chicken in every pot', our current repression appears to be heading towards a 'gun in every classroom'.
Interesting discussion of - Who are the 'Gun Guys'?
Via Fox News,
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Friday signed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in school, making his state the first to enact such a law since the Newtown shooting tragedy.
The bill was pushed by gun-rights supporters who say arming teachers could help prevent tragedies ...
...
But the measure prompted intense debate in the capital, as several representatives of school boards, school administrators and teachers opposed the bill during committee testimony last month. They said the measure could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings and put guns in the hands of people who are not adequately trained to shoot in emergency situations.
...
In South Dakota, main bill sponsor Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said earlier this week that he has received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.
South Dakota doesn't stand alone on this issue. For a dozen years, Utah has allowed teachers and others with concealed carry licenses to wear a gun in a public school.
...
The measure does not force a district to arm its teachers and would not force teachers to carry a gun.
On Monday, the South Dakota House voted 40-19 to accept the Senate version of the bill, which added a requirement that a school district must decide in a public meeting whether to arm teachers and others. Another Senate amendment allowed school district residents to push a school board's decision to a public vote.
»
- 17344 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Excellent question.
If you really believe guns and violence are a good way to resolve disputes, you should realize this question was asked and answered 150 years ago.
The side with more guys with guns "won."
Think how much easier their job would have been if they had first disarmed the populace.
South Dakota must be well shit
One day an innocent child will be killed in a US classroom...
... killed by a stray bullet shot by an armed teacher! LOl! (nope this is so sad...)
"stray" (I never like that punk)
Perfect setup, all it takes is one lone-gunman Manchurian Candidate teacher, they'll say he was "having a bad week", was "stressed out", and "overworked", "unhappy with the school administration" - all the magic phrases needed to emotionally identify with 99% of all teachers. And voila. Media blitz, gungrabber orgy, political frenzy.
Oh, but I'm just a conspiracy theorist...
The only tragedy about Newtown is that so many people believe that made for television false flag hoax event actually happened.
God I love the fucking nutjobs on this site. I couldn't make up shit this stupid if my life depended on it.
I defer to your expertise. When it comes to stupidity, it's obvious that you're no mere dabbler, you're a world class conneseur.
LOL. I'll just stand back and let you keep digging.
Your to stupid to understand the only one digging is you genius. You gun grabbers working the confusion, control and compromise angle are and have been in the sun light for some time now. The faster you dig, the more truth flushes up around you as a group. Pretty simple really, just keep digging gun grabber all in the while you expose even more to your lying, twisted ways.
"Advocates of victim disarmament in today’s American politics owe their tactics and techniques to a man whose name is becoming more and more familiar: Saul Alinsky. Hillary Clinton actually sat at his feet. Barack Hussein Obama was spoon fed his teachings. Bill Clinton was Saul’s ideological son. And you can bet that freshman Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Dem. NY) has been well versed in Alinskyism by her own mentor … Madam Hillary.
For decades gun owners have shaken their head in wonder as lie after lie from the gun grabbers results in more and more anti firearms ownership legislation. We can conservatively estimate that there are at least sixty five million gun owners in America today. That is an immense “interest group”. And yet, gun registration (and outright confiscation) schemes have never, in the entire history of our nation, loomed so ominously on the horizon.
Lunacy reigns. But it didn’t happen accidentally. We’ve arrived at the endgame of a process, a process that Saul Alinsky, if he didn’t invent it, polished, packaged, and taught with unbelievable skill and cynicism.
Alinsky’s last book, published in 1971, a year before he died, is titled “Rules For Radicals”. These tactics are the “hidden weapon” of the more sophisticated “gun control” advocates.
Here are Alinsky’s thirteen basic rules. I’ve commented on each, and how they are used by the victim disarmament crowd. The old saw, “know thine enemy”, is ably served if you first understand what your enemy has been taught. The next time you see an anti gun politician or spokesperson spouting off about “responsible gun ownership”, or “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”, or “the rights of hunters” understand that it is all deception based upon Alinsky’s tactics."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2174911/posts
PS: The solution remains what it always has been. Don't send your children to government schools in the first place. Refuse to play their game, avoid the entire issue.
A bad and overly dramatic solution to a problem that almost rarely occurs and marks us further down to the point of an increasing militaristic society. Yeah.
Self defense is not militarism.
"A policy in which military preparedness is of primary importance to a state"
Definition of militarism and exactly what this is. It is advocating a violent solution to a problem. If you feel that you need to carry/have a loaded weapon with you at all times to feel safe, there is likely something mentally wrong with you. At the very least, you are demonstrating the tendencies of someone who is a borderline paranoid schizophrenic. I've have traveled to places where you need rampant security including S. Africa, parts of India, and Brazil and I am glad that we don't generally need that here in the U.S. with relatively free movement.
No advocation of violence. Just preparedness for a possible event.
Where most intelligent folk feel a little weird when every place they go has uniformed thugs with MP5s at the ready, some feel "safe".
Go figure.
Who said anything about wanting to be around armed, uniformed people? Project much?
How's about we put all the G&A that the Gov has been buying recently to good use? What if we started forming the "Well-regulated Militia" in each town, village & hamlet that the Constitution talks about? Overhead cost: Negligible to none. Just supply the HW.
That way, the taxpayer-funded G&A is put to good use, and the Constitutions is maintained -- even if budget cuts kept on going to the point of slicing & dicing DHS and other alphabet-soup security agencies and departments. The Guard and Reserve can handle the big cities, the Militia can handle the rest.
All kidding and sarcasm aside... IS it possible for citizens to band together into an official, well-regulated, local militia?
Make sure to order enough brown shirts.
Well, when it comes to ordering brown shirts, I'm sure you'd know where to purchase them.
Yes. They're called state guards and they exist in several states.
Worked great for George Wallace.
LOL
Yep, more guns are the answer.
American's don't seem to notice that American's keep getting more and more guns and strangely, violence continues to rise despite the presence of more and more guns.
I just don't understand how that could be.
IF an armed society was a polite society, then Compton would be the safest city in America.
You don’t understand because you haven’t bothered to investigate the question.
Armed societies are less violent, and more guns does lead to less crime.
But you will never figure that out, because you are a clueless leftist anti-gun zealot.
It does not, however, lead to less gun-related crimes or a lower homicide rate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-owne...
So funny to watch cons retreat into the comfort of statistical gaming when it suits their agenda while decrying those actions elsewhere.
Yes it does, dumbfuck
http://archive.org/details/MoreGunsLessCrime
Yet another clueless leftist denying reality…
Yet another clueless conservative who can't comprehend reality:
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/50cf5c5eecad049f7a000004-1785-1...
You see that dot over in the far right corner? That's us. I'm not sure being less gun-death-happy than Mexico is something to hang your hat on. I think even a piss-drunk monkeyfucker like you could fit a line to that trend.
Oh, you're upset that includes suicides (as if those aren't a relevant data point)? Well here ya go...gun-related homicides only:
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/50cf5dcfeab8ea856300000c-1735-1...
Note: I don't advocate gun control legislation, but I don't base my thinking on bullshit inferences that feel good and fit on a bumper sticker.
Wrong again, shitforbrains. Not a “conservative” dumbass.
Is this the same business insider horseshit from Henry “Banned by the SEC for fraudulent information” Blodget?
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-56.htm
Yeah, nice source, asshat.
Glad to see you base your laughable and false beliefs on a source with no credibility. Ignorant fuck.
You absolutely do advocate gun control legislation - you’re just lying like all gun grabbers. You want scary looking guns banned, because you’re a cowardly leftist pig.
Too bad gun bans, including assault weapons bans, don’t work
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068.html
Molon labe, cocksucker.
Gun ownership decreases crime.
We really are attracting the gems on this thread. Why use facts when hyperbole is so much easier?
"American's don't seem to notice that American's keep getting more and more guns and strangely, violence continues to rise despite the presence of more and more guns."
Well, that's kind of interesting statement since the murder rate has been declining in the US since it topped out in the early 1990's. Which just happens to be about the time when concealed carry laws started being passed by the states.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/236#nat1970 scroll to the bottom.
Also, outside of the ghettoes of the major cities, your chances of being murdered are minimal.
Anybody spent much time in South Dakota? I grew up about 20 miles into Minnesota from SD. The SoDaks are always good at solving problems they don't have, while ignoring all the problems they really do have.
They serve as a pretty good foil to Minnesota. SD doesn't really regulate banking or industry, so a lot of skeevy banks and credit card companies set up shop there. The threat in MN is always that if we don't let the corporates do whatever they want, they'll move to SD. No, they won't. They barely plough the roads in winter in SD. You can tell immediately when you cross the border. Their schools are awful, general standard of living is far lower. Given the choice of Minneapolis or Sioux Falls, there isn't an executive with a family who would choose Sioux Falls.
Not long ago SD made a big show of trying to outlaw abortion to force a re-visit of Roe v. Wade. Except there wasn't a clinic in SD that gave abortions anyway. Most of SD is notable for teen pregnancy, poverty, and domestic and sexual violence, like most "Red" states.
So it comes as absolutely no surprise that SD, scene of exactly no school shootings, would pass a law allowing teachers to carry guns. I'm sure those who would want to already do. They have eliminated actual law enforcement in a lot of areas of SD in order to prove their fiscal piety, but the fact is they never prosecuted domestic or sexual violence anyway, nor did they enforce their alcohol laws. Take away those things, and there aren't a lot of laws that need enforcing. Heck, they elected a state prosecutor to be Governor who was rumored to have raped an murdered a Dakota girl, and that action probably garnered him some favor in the electorate. Later, when he had moved on to claim SD's sole US House seat, he blew a stop sign doing about 90 mph on a rural road. He loved to brag about what a determined speeder he was and how gummint shouldn't tell him how to drive, but this time he killed a military Veteran on a motorcycle, and he tried to smear the guy and his family. Almost got away with it, too. He did have to resign from the House, but most SoDaks didn't hold that against him.
Hey, if you want to knock up a teenager, draw welfare, shoot holes in things and binge on meth and 3.2% beer, SoDak is where you want to be. That leaves all but about 600,000 of us Americans, thankfully.
Bill Janklow, what a Repugnicant asshole...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Janklow.jpg
I had NEVER considered moving to S. Dakota until I read that post. Taking it under advisement. For sure *I'll* never need an abortion.
swmnguy, I have seen you on the star tribune. St Cloud here. I lived in St. James for a couple of years so I understand your part of the state. People do not realize that MN is the fourth largest state and has various climates. I backed you up on a post that you made on the Star and Sickle about a month ago only because you are ZH and MN. Perhaps I was wrong to do so?
I understand how the Dakotans operate but more so ND than SD. I prefer not to do any business in ND but I can not speak for SD. Aside from the fact that they never pay their bills in ND(from my experience), what should we expect of them? You are my fellow Minnesotan but I must object.
"The threat in MN is always that if we don't let the corporates do whatever they want, they'll move to SD."
The market will provide the answer to that.
"They barely plough the roads in winter in SD."
You stretched that one a little bit neighbor. You know what it is like to live in the upper Mid-West in the winter. I own and insure a four wheel drive truck and I bet you do too. I will get to where I need to go if I really need to get there. Lock in 4X4.
"Later, when he had moved on to claim SD's sole US House seat, he blew a stop sign doing about 90 mph on a rural road. He loved to brag about what a determined speeder he was and how gummint shouldn't tell him how to drive, but this time he killed a military Veteran on a motorcycle, and he tried to smear the guy and his family. Almost got away with it, too. He did have to resign from the House, but most SoDaks didn't hold that against him."
Wow, do you have any other ephemeral vitriol you wish to spew?
"Their schools are awful, general standard of living is far lower. Given the choice of Minneapolis or Sioux Falls, there isn't an executive with a family who would choose Sioux Falls."
I can not accurately speak to any of this assertion.
"So it comes as absolutely no surprise that SD, scene of exactly no school shootings, would pass a law allowing teachers to carry guns. I'm sure those who would want to already do. They have eliminated actual law enforcement in a lot of areas of SD in order to prove their fiscal piety, but the fact is they never prosecuted domestic or sexual violence anyway, nor did they enforce their alcohol laws."
You will need to explain that because you lost not only me but everyone else as well.
"Hey, if you want to knock up a teenager, draw welfare, shoot holes in things and binge on meth and 3.2% beer, SoDak is where you want to be. That leaves all but about 600,000 of us Americans, thankfully."
You got the 3.2 thing correct for being ridiculous but I am wondering what you are talking about on the knock up a teenager thing? That sort of thing happens in every state and not just SD.
Signed,
Northern Minnesota
Years ago, I nearly married a girl from South Dakota. I spent a fair amount of time there. I grew up close enough to SD that when we were 18, we would drive across the border to 3.2% joints to get drunk and fight (Minnesota had a drinking age of 19 at the time; SD was 18 for 3.2% beer, and 21 for "strong" beer and everything else--weird). I went to a college in MN that had a lot of students from SD, and they were pretty notorious. South Dakota always had a reputation, and that reputation still holds
The second you crossed the border into SD, the roads were far worse in surface, maintenance, and seasonal upkeep (like snowplowing). That's because they didn't spend the money on them.
Living in MN, I'm sure you've heard all the threats about businesses moving to South Dakota. You can't have missed them. Many of them aren't made by the businesses themselves, but by reactionaries in state government and their media supporters. There are some businesses that do move to South Dakota, but that has had no effect on the fact that the Twiin Cities are home to more Fortune 500 companies than anyone would expect, given the metro area's smallish population.
My nasty litte tirade about a former prominent South Dakotan referred to Bill Janklow. There are many versions of his story, both positive and negative. I presented the negative. I would maintain that in most states, his negatives would have kept him out of public life, even if unprovven.
SD has always had worse problems with poverty, violence, and teen pregnancy than most of the Upper Midwest. Weird stuff seems to happen in Wisconsin, and every rural area has pockets of intense poverty and dysfunction that are culturally distinct from the poverty and dysfunction found in urban areas; that's true. But somehow the lower depths in SD seem lower than in the rest of the region.
As for the law-enforcement comments I made, I know personally of one case where a 32 year-old man impregnated a 14 year-old girl and the cops arrested the girl for being out after curfew. It wasn't an isolated incident in that community either. And the legal system refused to do even the basics to make the guy take responsibility for it. There's a similar cultural situation in Duluth, I understand from people who grew up there.
As for the passage you mention late in your response, I'm unaware of any school shooting incidents in South Dakota. The level of domestic and sexual violence, however, is pretty high. And young South Dakotans have a bad reputation regarding drunken violence. Yes, that's anecdotal, but that's what I heard and experienced growing up.
I was beiing sarcastic and snotty because this site is consistent about allowing that tone (as the StarTribune is very much not consistent). I hope the hyperbole was obvious enough.
My point was that I think this was a silly piece of posturing by the South Dakota Legislature, rather as if Minnesota had outlawed the planting of citrus groves. South Dakota has enough real issues to deal with.
I always try to keep a civil tone on the STrib site. Here, I feel more free to call it as I see it. And I certainly don't mind if people take exception to what I say. That's one the many things I prize about this site.
Thanks for commenting!
now that, i approve of
Good for SD.
Fuck you, leftist anti-gun zealots. Keep your fucking idiotic ideas like “gun free zones” to yourselves, and stop making my kids sitting ducks at school (which you’ve also fucked up, but that’s a different thread).
Fuck you, pseudo-conservative pro-gun zealots. Keep your fucking idiotic ideas like "more guns less crime" to yourselves, and stop pretending that more guns will make your kids safe.
"Fuck you, pseudo-conservative pro-gun zealots. Keep your fucking idiotic ideas like "more guns less crime" to yourselves..."
And...we have yet another completely irrational, emotional meltdown brought forward from the left...lol.
First guns...now speech...anything else you'd like to censor or ban outright? ;-)
+1 Oh, they got a list of all kinds of ways to improve our lives...
God help us...
I don't actually advocate gun control; I just don't rely on specious arguments to justify my positions.
Funny you didn't comment on the original censorship in the post above mine.
+1...I missed it.
I'm so used to leftists trying to ban every fucking thing and control everyones life...from a decent hamburger to eggs over easy to 32oz cokes to coffee to aspirin to red wine...then back tracking on 99.9% of it...I get caught up in it too.
Will you ever forgive me? ;-)
And in response, I offer you a hearty fuck you as well.
As for my politics, guess again. I'm not all that conservative. And certainly not a member of the gop (shudder). I simply think that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
Finally, from the point of view of "pretending that more guns will make your kids safe", I note with some sense of irony that whenever there is a shooting, the first people who are called are the police. Men and women who just happen to carry guns.
Fuck you cock sucking leftist shitbag, you fuck with my kids I’ll give you a faceful of hot lead, prick.
THIS is why guns are dangerous. People go from telling each other to fuck off to shooting in a very short amount of time. The great irony here is that children of firearm owners are much more likely to be inadvertently shot by their relatives or to shoot themselves while playing with Mom and Dad's weapons. It's not us unarmed liberals you have to worry about.
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Bullshit.
Leftists are far more dangerous than unlocked weapons.
And your stats are wrong.
Publius Tacitus was a roman orator. You need a name change.
I didn't do very well in Latin. What's Latin for "Fuck You?" I'm pretty sure it isn't "Uck-fay Ou-yay," but then again...I didn't do very well in Latin.
Pro-Gun voters put heat on Democratic Senators.....
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRO_GUN_DEMOCRATS?SITE=AP&SECT...
Democratic senators that Republicans are watching closely include Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Good for them! gun control is people control. don't let them win! Israel has armed teachers and they haven't one incedent of a mass shooting at a school. wonder why? Because it works.. Sandy Hook was a Hoax by the way.
god save the world from america. :/
Guess which states have the most gun deaths? The least? Guess which rule DC is the notable exception to? (source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2)
Rank(1=low | 51=high) http://www.statehealthfacts.org/images/tablesort/sort_asc.png); background-color: #fff7da; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: #999999; border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-color: #999999; padding: 5px 5px 22px; cursor: n-resize; background-position: 50% 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 United States 10.11 1. Massachusetts 3.1 2. Hawaii 3.6 3. New Jersey 4.7 4. New York 4.8 5. Connecticut 4.9 6. Rhode Island 5.0 7. New Hampshire 6.2 7. Minnesota 6.2 9. Iowa 6.3 10. Nebraska 7.3 11. Wisconsin 7.9 12. Illinois 8.1 13. California 8.3 14. Ohio 8.4 15. Maine 8.7 16. Delaware 8.9 16. Vermont 8.9 18. Washington 9.1 19. North Dakota 9.2 19. South Dakota 9.2 21. Maryland 10.2 21. Utah 10.2 23. Oregon 10.3 24. Pennsylvania 10.4 24. Virginia 10.4 26. Kansas 10.9 26. Michigan 10.9 28. Texas 11.1 29. Indiana 11.4 30. Colorado 11.5 31. North Carolina 11.7 32. Florida 12.1 33. Kentucky 12.8 34. Georgia 12.9 34. Idaho 12.9 36. Arizona 13.0 37. West Virginia 13.3 38. South Carolina 13.6 38. Missouri 13.6 40. Oklahoma 14.5 41. New Mexico 14.6 42. Alaska 14.7 43. Tennessee 15.2 44. Nevada 15.5 45. Montana 16.0 46. Arkansas 16.2 47. District of Columbia 16.6 48. Mississippi 16.8 49. Alabama 17.4 50. Louisiana 18.1 50. Wyoming 18.1 Guam NSD2 Puerto Rico 21.62 Virgin Islands 50.72
I always believed the Democrat Party miscalculated terribly on this issue. Joe "Beer Can" American loves his firearms and his party is completely tone deaf on this issue. Joe "Beer Can" knows his 2nd Amendment and what it means, not what his Party tells him it means. Joe might be able to swallow the other issues, but not when it comes to firearms. Hence, the spike in firearms ownership.
Nice to see Obama/Biden shooting their mouths and foot off! Keep up the lies, Feinsteins, the looney New Yorkers, Holder, the Chicago brat, etc. It is working out wonderfully for you.