United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One thing to keep in mind is when you look at what has been introduced in Congress, not all of the items are legislation. Sometimes, attacks on our rights can come in other ways – even if they don’t actually infringe on our rights, they hold the potential to shift the political landscape against our rights.
One such piece of legislation is S Res 110, introduced by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT). This is a resolution, which would just be voted on by the United States Senate. As such, it would not have the force of law. So why focus on this one? Because this resolution would make it far easier to attack our rights. This is not a huge stretch of the imagination. This is very real, and you can understand why by reading the text of the resolution.
Murphy, who has been very active against our Second Amendment rights, is opposed to allowing those teachers (or other school personnel) who wish to have effective tools to defend the students under their care to receive effective training on how to use those tools. He can’t argue against armed security’s potential to stop a potential tragedy after the West Freeway Church of Christ incident.
Armed attendees at that church stopped the potential mass shooting in six seconds. It is generally accepted that it took police about ten minutes to first enter Sandy Hook Elementary School, almost five minutes after the last shot was fired (per the New York Times). Roughly 600 seconds for police to arrive, and roughly 300 for the killer to do his evil (or insane) act.
For years, Murphy and other anti-Second Amendment extremists have used Sandy Hook to beat Second Amendment supporters over the head. It was a horrific event, and any person with a shred of decency or morality wants effective solutions to prevent a recurrence. For Second Amendment supporters, the morally imperative thing to do is also the right strategic move to make.
Murphy, though, has a much easier case to make, usually through the usual emotional manipulation. His argument runs along the lines of, “Teachers are there to teach, to nurture kids. How can someone do that while carrying a gun?”
Any mother who has a CCW permit can refute that nonsense. So could any teacher who has one that they use – of course, not when on school grounds – in the course of their lives. Does it make them any less capable of being a nurturing force? Second Amendment supporters know that the answer is no.
The real problem, though, given the media and political landscape, is convincing the American people that the real answer is ending gun-free zones. That is a long-term effort, and it will involve getting through the propaganda that Murphy and others will spread with the help of the media.
In the meantime, Second Amendment supporters should politely urge their Senators to oppose S Res 110. Instead, urge them to support measures like The School Violence Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2019, which would actually make a difference.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
Here’s a statistic that the Left tries to ignore and the Right seems to forget;
How many aircraft hijackings, in the USA have there been since Air Marshalls and Commercial Pilots we’re permitted to carry guns aboard their aircraft ?
Answere : NONE !!!!!! and is been 19 years and counting! How many school shootings have there been in the last 19 years ? Oh, that’s right, they are gun free zones, so there couldn’t have been any.
If you don’t like what Harold writes, it’s pretty simple…don’t read his articles.
This is true, so if we ignore things they will go away? Just asking.
That would deny the ass clowns here the ability to show their, well, asses. And, of course, their stupid little “let’s get rid of Harold!” petition.
As always, the arguments put forth by the anti-gunners are stuffed full of ASSumptions. Any time they say “studies show” or “research has shown”, you know it’s BS.
AND HAROLD REVERTS TO FORM, PROMOTING COMPROMISING “STRATEGIES” AS HE POSTED IN PREVIOUS ARTICLES! I knew his “reformation” was an act that wouldn’t last! Ok, people, know that the petition to boot this fake 2A activist from Ammoland is still active and has even more signers than the last time it was mentioned. https://chng.it/Sjs8VLz The answer to shootings in “gun free zones” is to eliminate these VICTIM DISARMAMENT ZONES. In schools, allow ALL staff who WISH TO be armed do so. Remove restrictions on school administrators from being able to report & remove students and others who are a threat,… Read more »
Agreed, but we just don’t seem to have the national will to get it done. We apparently can’t purge our society (and legislatures) of those who, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, continually scream about how “dangerous” and “reckless” it would be to install armed and capable school staff. They’re backed nearly 100% by the corrupt media. Other than preaching to the choir on this and similar pro 2A sites, we are unheard. It’s sad that what you and I view as common sense solutions are seen as outrageous by the uninformed.
@badlands – Right. Our current system and the voters are simply unable to remove the bad apples in government. Over the years they’ve changed the rules to protect themselves from accountability. It’s gonna take a different kind of ballot to effect real and meaningful change.
Battle of Athens, TN. Comes to mind.
Yes it does!
OV, that’s only because parents insist on sending their kids to socialist training centers aka public fool system.
@Gentlemen, Nothing of value is ever free, including public education.
@WB, Everything has a cost, very true!
But the stuff often labeled as “free” are the things that come with the greatest cost!
@WF, I was thinking more monetarily than philosophically, but yes.
@OV, an excellent observation.
I was hoping we could get through at least one “Harold” article without you two assholes and your entourage of sycophant morons and malcontents opening your pie holes. There aren’t two firing neurons between the lot of you.
@moe, What’s it to you?
I’m patiently awaiting the mass Treason trials in congress and legislatures across the several states of the nation.
Typical Harlod Bravo Sierra.
Remember Out of the Ashes series by Bill Johnstone. Ben Raines and company were fighting Cannibals. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Uber Elitists like Gates have a taste for human flesh.
@USA – I know you cannot allow anything to slide by without making knee jerk conspiracy assumptions – however I utterly fail to understand how this is in any way connected to cannibalism. Even for you this is quite a stretch.
I agree that Harold has resorted to “fuddisms” in the past, but who here has not? I grew up in the 1980s listening to men in the community spew fudd and it was a slippery slope that led us to all out gun bans across the nation. Hopefully Harold learns we can no longer compromise with an enemy that wants total disarmament of the masses. We must be offensive from this era forward. We must demand enforcement of Article VI by SCOTUS if we wish to prevent bloodshed. Someday the guns of this free nation will be jackbooted against the… Read more »
Why are there always comments against the author (Harold) ? I like his articles. What did he do wrong?
Because Harold is writing for the wrong publication as a capitulating Fudd,he might be more at home for a publication such as Negotiating Rights Away or the Democratic Underground.
Not one inch.
CFG, The problem that most of the readers have with his articles is subtle. He sounds reasonable and calm, but if you consider what he suggests, it always boils down to a slow retreat on principles that are not up for negotiation. His argument is that you give a little rather than lose a lot. The problem is that defense doesn’t win, offense does. If your soccer team only defends its goal, which team wins? That is the essence of the argument.
Davein F) That is it exactly! It is a seductive philosophy, to willingly lose a little to avoid losing even more. I bought it for years when I was young and stupid. But over decades one cannot help but see that it is a losing strategy. The Native Americans did it, and we ended up pushing them completely off the continent. One can only give up so much ground before its all gone!
To quote George Carlin: “Move over you. First down in Ohio. Midwest to go!”
@DiF – You’ve hit the nail on the head there. On the other hand, some here claim that accepting small victories rather than holding out for currently impossible goals is WRONG. Right now this is a political fight, and I for one hope it stays that way. At its heart politics is the art of the possible. There are times one cannot win, so must minimize the loss and if possible make it a pyric victory for the opposition. Then when we can win, we must – whether it be small bites or large. Better to score a field goal… Read more »
I’m a truck driver.
Thanks.
And you now know one driver.
>;)
Dave, as a former soccer coach, I would add that if, as a foundation of your defense, the other team gets NO shots on your goal they CAN’T beat you! Then your offensive strategy is to take advantage of the frustration you’ve created and pounce on the mistake(s). You only need one goal to WIN!
@Gindy – and that is where this entire analogy breaks down. We scored that goal when the 2nd was written a couple hundred years ago. Still fighting that fight, and if we are not careful they will amend the constitution to remove the 2nd, instead of just continuing to ignore it. If insisting on a sports analogy this is more like 1000-hole golf between two terrible players who have no idea what they are doing. Either player can shoot 10x par on a hole and fall a little behind, but at any point either player could get a lucky shot… Read more »
wjat they fail to comprehend is that even if they manage to erase or remove that pesky Second, the RIGHT that bit of verbiage defines and protects will yet remain. Even one session of the Supreme Court declared our right to arms predates governmen, does not derive from goverment, is not dependent upon government. Further, that RIGHT is given us by the God who made us and put us here. So changing some flyspecks on sheepskin will, in reality, change nothing. Which they will learn when they try what George Three the Kid King tried… he issued an order to… Read more »
@Fin – I totally agree with everything you said! There must always be a strategy to win! Big or small! However a thorough trouncing is demoralizing and embarrassing! My analogy was that all sides must be defended strongly to eliminate the small cracks that eventually lead to a breach of the dam and the eventual trouncing that comes with it. The reason we’re in this mess with our children’s/grandchildren’s future at risk is that complacency has won the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Generations of comfortable living has brought that complacency front and center. And like the lion that lies in… Read more »
Defeatist again. Do you fully understand just how difficult it is to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified? Impossibly so. They talk about that to frighten you into complacency, they shake it at the harolds to scare them into compliance, but they NEVER will do it, it is far too difficult. It will be an end run try around via a Constitutional Convention wherein they get to rewrite everything, not just the one issue. OFC they will SAY it will be single issue to get the Con-Con, but then once they get it, ALL is on the table. It is the… Read more »
@Knute Knute, And the people running a Constitutional Convention would be the assholes in government at the time. Does anyone trust the current crop of politicians.
@Oldvet – Yes but even chess is a poor analogy. Chess is simple by comparison with far fewer pieces involved. In chess a piece removed from the board stays removed. In this fight they introduce a new AWB in congress every year along with equally despicable offerings at state and local levels. There is also no defined end point. As @Tionico says even if they were miraculously able to remove the 2nd – the right to arms remains. At that point it would be difficult to organize, train and effectively arm any resistance within the highly-surveilled police state which is… Read more »
@OV – you’ve won time! Time to frustrate, time to strategize, time to strike! I’ll personally take a strong defensive team into battle every time. It’s monumental to overcome and it creates mistakes if the other team is heavy on the offense and very little defense. And most coaches will admit that most victories are simply brought about by the other team’s mistakes.
But a strong defense is never what the harolds advocate for. Instead their idea is to try to delay the other team, so they score later rather than sooner. THAT is the defeatist, loser attitude.
If your sole focus is on slowing the other team down, you guarantee their victory!
naught naught is no win.
This is what the focus should be, rather than the “art of the possible”. While that is one way of looking at it, it is the defeatist, negative viewpoint. Too easy to stagnate at: “Oh, well. gains aren’t possible yet. Maybe later.” The positive view would be more like: Where are they they weakest? Should we attack their left flank, their right, or take it straight at the center hard? And when they have the ball, as our opponents have since at least 1968, the focus should NOT be on limiting their gains, but on taking back the ball. Defense… Read more »
@Knute Knute – I don’t disagree at all and in my first comment I didn’t advocate a defeatist strategy as part the overall game plan. (Maybe it came across as such.) There cannot be a win without an offense strategy but there also cannot be a win without an absolute defensive plan and everyone must be on the same page! I’m with everything you said!! My personal strategy is to observe and know what weakness is available. In this case their weakness is, in my opinion, their boldness and brashness, thinking that they have this thing won! And judging from… Read more »
@Knute Knute – The art of the possible has brought us “mother-may-I” cards in most states. A negative in many ways, but far better than what previously existed in many of those states. Believe there are also over 15 states which have embraced constitutional carry. AWB of 1994 was allowed to expire and did so with nary a whimper. Yes there have been many losses, but since the 90’s we have been slowly shifting in the right direction. There are many threats at this point, along with many opportunities. We need to defend against those threats, while capitalizing on opportunites.… Read more »
@CFG
anymore questions?
Because some of these comments are not based on reality, and some are outright wrong. I read this article and I do not see anything about any compromise, but even when Harold is right they attack and degenerate him. I’ve been reading about gun control for over 40 years and some of these posters are down right full of bravo sierra. Don’t get me wrong they mean well and their heart is in the right place, they just get the facts wrong. Harold and the NRA are their wiping boys. None of them are getting any of their editorials posted… Read more »
the compromise in Harold’s piece is that such a “resolution” isn’t harmful. Well, it IS.. because it “justifies” our lawmakers taking a position that is counter to our “Supreme Law of the Land”. If the poohbahs REALLY want “the security of a free state” to include “the security of our schools” there IS ony one solution short of turning our schools into prisons (and even that has been tried and found wanting) That solution is nothing other than to allow THE PEOPLE (that is, the responsible adults who are there daily) to carry about upon their persons that one tool… Read more »
KenW, Perhaps if you commented directly on the comments that you have issues with, a useful discussion could happen. Specifics are always useful as is the name of the person that you are replying to.
Because there is a subset of regular readers who think that every problem can be solved (and they believe they are always right) with only one tool: a hammer. Example: I’ve spent a lot of time “getting to know the enemy”. And there are a fair amount of people who support gun control simply because they are told to, or are easily swayed. When Harrold attempts to help us identify and sway these people back, the subset on this board comes out, insisting only hammers are the solution. As if anyone who supports any gun control is hardcore about it,… Read more »
Because there is a group of morons here* who dislike HH’s articles for various reasons. Instead of just ignoring him and his articles, they would rather engage the “cancel culture,” intolerance and even a stupid little petition to have HH expelled to the deepest recesses of the known universe. They are no better than the leftists and progressives that infringe on our rights.
* Will Flatt and his bunch of lickspittle, sycophantic,moronic assholes who haven’t got two working neurons between them.
@wjd, that from a mole that has no friends or neurons.
Harold,
that resolution was dated march 19, 2019
It’s still active in the current legislative session.
“Teachers are there to teach, to nurture kids. How can someone do that while carrying a gun?” Same way the Moms and Dads of those same kids can go shopping, banking, to church, buy fuel or building materials, eat at a restaurant, go for coffee, drive to the next town, walk the dog, ride their bike, “while carrying a gun”. The hunk of iron is NOT what they are doing, It is no more a part of their teaching, nurturing, loving, the kids than what shoes they wear, or the colour of their shirt. Stop focussing on and demonising the… Read more »