Murphy Blocking Cruz School Security Bill Says It All

Gun Lock Control AdobeStock_95690334
Murphy Blocking Cruz School Security Bill Says It All. IMG AdobeStock_95690334

United States Senate – -( The next time some anti-Second Amendment extremist claims that those of us who object to gun control aren’t trying to prevent school shootings, the objection of Senator Chris Murphy to Ted Cruz’s School Security Enhancement Act should be thrown in their face.

Second Amendment supporters are all too aware of how anti-Second Amendment extremists weaponize mass shootings in general and mass shootings at schools in particular against our rights. Cruz’s legislation would allow current Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant programs to be used to improve the security at schools.

This sort of thing is – or should be – a no-brainer all around. Who doesn’t want safe schools? Chris Murphy, for one, it seems. What could he find so objectionable about Cruz’s legislation, which doesn’t even permit the use of the grants to arm teachers or train them?

We can quibble whether or not Cruz should have allowed the grants to be used to arm teachers. On the one hand, arming teachers does generate controversy (a voluntary program really shouldn’t, but we’re not in an ideal world). On the other hand, if Murphy won’t even support measures to improve school security that don’t involve guns… what do we have to gain by taking armed teachers off the table? That can be discussed later.

The topic for now, must be Murphy’s decision to object to even bringing such a measure up for debate. This is a no-lose proposition for Second Amendment supporters, especially if we make a lot of noise about it now. If we are seen working on efforts to deter, prevent, or mitigate mass shootings – including efforts that don’t involve guns – we have a chance to head off attacks.

As has been discussed on these pages earlier, Murphy has pushed legislation that would prohibit any sort of federal funding for law enforcement in schools. In other words, what he is proposing would actually make repeats of Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde not only much more likely to happen but also to rack up the kind of body counts that force us into a major action in defense of our rights.

Why would he remove something that could deter or mitigate attacks? That is a question we’d see him asked if the vast majority of media outlets were honest. We don’t have that world today, so much of it could end up needing to be done by Second Amendment supporters at town meetings. Those in Connecticut should press Murphy on this and demand an explanation.

Remember the time it took for cops to arrive at Sandy Hook? It was ten minutes – 600 seconds. The long periods of inaction by law enforcement at Parkland and Uvalde also should be kept in mind. Murphy’s past track record of smearing Second Amendment supporters means he has forfeited any claim to receiving the benefit of the doubt from Second Amendment supporters on this matter as well.

One final thing: Working to prevent school shootings with legislative proposals like what Senator Cruz proposed is not being a “Fudd.” The fact is, we should be trying to head off these shootings – it’s in our interest to do so, just look at the aftermath of Parkland.

Second Amendment supporters have a chance to immunize themselves to some degree from attacks in the wake of the next school shooting. If they can seize this chance, it will help efforts to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box.

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,, and other national websites.Harold Hutchison

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I have read no one who says that protecting children is a FUDD response. I’d wager many ammoland readers would have charged past police in Uvalde to “do something” since police were unwilling. (Assuming they could get past the 300 police without getting arrested or shot first.) If willingness to use my AR in defense of children makes me a FUDD, I will proudly embrace my new FUDD status. In many ways preventing school shooters is the opposite of a fudd concern. fudds think that no matter how many children are murdered, antis will only pursue semiautos, “sniper rifles”, and… Read more »


I was at a loss when I read the Fudd comment in this article as well. Not sure why anyone would think that. Maybe Harold is just shell-shocked from constant criticism.


Harold has been criticized as being a Fudd many times. It hurts him because he imagines himself as a leader or mentor. This inclusion is an effort on his part to separate himself from Fuddism.. Since his carefully thought out strategy often amounts to compromise, it is simply not accepted by Second Amendment Absolutists. Therefore many have no problem with putting him in the “Fudds & Butters” classification regardless of how he tries to weasel out of it.


That’s funny


Boom … But right over the target , as they say !

Wild Bill

I like everything that you wrote except “… Absolutists…” because is sounds too extreme. Of course it isn’t too extreme, it just sounds that way.
I would ofter advocate just to soften the presentation, but that would not be any more correct, just softer. IMHO.


Hey Wild B…

Wild Bill

It is more like exhausted B after this past week. But we are one step closer to being ready for winter: )


You’re right of course. Some of Harold’s articles are not as heinous as others though, and I struggled to see why he’d need to preempt the Fudd label on this one, as if he could.


My interpretation of the “FUDD” remark was that it was aimed at the “100% or nothing” crowd who believe anything less than perfect legislation protecting 2A rights is “betrayal.” Senator Cruz’s proposed legislation is not everything we could want, but the reality is that anti-gun extremists hold the majority in both houses (with VP Harris the tie-breaker). The legislative process requires some of those extremists to cross their party’s lines and vote for something they will punished for by their party bosses and their constituents. There is not a single Democrat who will vote for teachers being armed, despite the… Read more »


Harold absolutely opposes Second Amendment Absolutism. Although he does not say so often, he views that concept as dangerous to the cause as the anti-gun forces. For Harold, the way to get to the freedoms we are all supposed to have is compromise. The path he would have us follow is small incremental successes through compromise. We should all see by now that the enemies to our rights never compromise. Since those that wish to steal our freedoms never offer any compromise, why should we even think in those terms ? There have been decades of compromise leading up to… Read more »



You should change your name to Hammer.


Boom … The more I look at that picture … That’s a guy !


Oldvet, what picture?




Ope… Dean Weingarten article national survey 9/15


Firearms estimates and defensive gun uses


Oldvet, oh yeah, I know the picture you’re talking about. Several times in Deans articles and some others, they’ve used pictures where you can’t figure our what the hell they are. It’s been so frequent it’s almost like it’s being done intentionally. I think it’s a guy too.


I don’t think so… Her knuckles are small, and her cheeks are fat…I think she’s just an unattractive woman… But like I always say, “somewhere there’s a light (and/or a position) that she looks good in”… They all look good in the right light… ….or in the right position….or both… It’s just that some look good in more lights than others.

Last edited 7 days ago by Boom



Haha, it definitely ‘looks suspect’…but… I guess reality is in the eye of the beholder..haha. She might be whatever you want her to be..


If that’s a women in that picture, it has a face only a mother could love, maybe.


Hope that’s not Dean’s Daughter .


… or his wife.

That would be horrible.

…how tacky of us… . . .


Oldvet, now I wish I would had kept my mouth shut!


In a true compromise, both sides get something, both sides give up something, both sides leave the room not as happy as they could have been, but also not as angry as they could have been.

But in today’s much modified dictionary, the Left sees a compromise as, we give up some of our rights, and they give up demanding that we give up all, at least not untill they demand more compromise.

After seeing one compromise after another my entire adult life, I’m fed up with Harold’s “final solution”.

I want my damn cake back!

Last edited 7 days ago by DDS

The comments on that link are great


Boom … Tool Time Tim said FJB wanted to know how long 60 Minutes was .


Safer schools would mean less opportunity to impinge on liberty. The “for the children” liberals don’t give a damn about loss of life whether it be in school, in a city or anywhere else. A death is nothing more to them than something to eagerly exploit.


Chris Murphy and anyone who thinks like him are completely unhinged idiots .


I wish I would have gotten one of those stainless Rossi 92’s in .454 Casull when they were still around 4-500 bucks…back in the good ole days…


Schools don’t intend to change a thing. It’s the rest of the world that will be ordered to change. Expect the brilliant gun free zone fantasy to stand for a thousand years.


Spot on. I get the ‘FUDD’ reference. We are trying to develop effective public policy at all levels of government to confront criminal behavior. That includes keeping guns out of the hands of hoods and nuts. WE cannot allow the Progressive New Left to hijack the issues we actually own. We own the issue of firearms safety. We own the issue of law enforcement. We own the issue of physical security of public resources like schools. We own these issues because most of us have dedicated our lives to actually accomplishing the execution of reason based public policy. While our… Read more »


Govt can and will never control criminal behavior. Unless we go to complete police totalitarian state and even then criminals will rule even harsher….in govt and out… That’s a non starter. The people can solve much criminal activity as we are seeing across the country now. Many times the criminals will never offend again. We have a lack of morals, respect, integrity and the lack of right and wrong in our country. Govt isn’t going to solve that, in fact govt is exasperating it. The people must stop it. In the mean time to tell anyone when and where and… Read more »


Politicians should be protected to the same level they allow their constituents’ kids to be protected at school.


“Who doesn’t want safe schools?” Well, what is the mandated protocol to keep schools safe? GUN FREE ZONES! What exactly do “GUN FREE ZONES” do, and what do they achieve? GUN FREE ZONES disarm every good person who would be there to defend life and insure that everyone is defenseless to mass murder with the only recourse being to rely on a police response time to arrive, AND THEN GET ORGANIZED, WORK UP A PLAN, AND THEN MAKE ENTRY, and then find the murderer and neutralize him. It has taken as long as THREE HOURS to make entry. Even if… Read more »


I figured you’d be gone from this site by now. Your posts are worthless. You need to get off this site and find something you can at least halfway do, you sure not here.

Wild Bill

Respectfully, to whom are you responding?


Bill, I was wondering the same thing. I assume he’s talking to Harold.

Wild Bill

Oh, so friend Deg does not mean “posts”, but rather articles. I see. Go Deg!!!


Bill, I don’t know that for a fact. I just can’t see why he would be so critical of any of the posts. Maybe he was referring to Harold’s article as a post. I could very well be wrong too.

Wild Bill

Got me beat!


Yeah, what could possibly be wrong with federal funding for constant security monitoring of our kids and armed agents surrounding them all day?

I love AmmoLand, but I really wish you would fire all these schill “journalists” pushing tired boomer era Republican ideology (i.e. military industrial complex funding).


Agreed – however Cruz’s proposal was to free up money earmarket for COVID relief grants to schools. Allowing schools other options for using that money. Among other options schools could use that money for infrastructure hardening. Does your hate of military-industrial complex extend to objecting to installing stronger doors? These changes could somewhat reduce need to have armed personnel placed for instant response. As for your objection – it is simply another argument for programs like Colorado’s FASTER. Allowing teachers to protect their charges to best of their ability. Personally I am concerned about my two babies who no longer… Read more »


There’s absolutely nothing wrong with “military industrial complex funding”. Don’t be mad just because you didn’t get in on it while we’re getting was good.


If you actually care about rights and freedoms, there are probably quite a few “boomers” here that you can count as supportive friends. We are tired. We have been through a lot, we have seen a lot. If you are lucky enough to survive as long as we have, I hope you will find young folks show you some respect.
With some research I think you can find that over many decades, many democrats have shoveled money into the military industrial complex because it provided jobs for their constituents. It’s called ” Bringing Home The Bacon”.


….or to simply make themselves look sensible…..


Yeah, better we should NOT have “ARMED AGENTS” surrounding them all day, and then have our elected officials ACT OUTRAGED against GUNS, while they smile and act quick: You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. As kids die, it is not acceptable for the ones who deny security, to then use the “crises” to advance their political agenda of taking constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. The Second Amendment is clear, and non-negotiable. Totalitarians always disarm the populous. They… Read more »