BREAKING: President Trump: Arm “Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/coaches”

President Trump's Tweets

And . . . he’s back. Just ahead of NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre breaking the NRA’s radio silence at the conservative CPAC conference (click here to live stream), President Trump unleashed a Tweetstorm stating his support for “allowing” specially trained gun-savvy teachers to arm themselves in defense of innocent life. The two Tweets above followed these Tweets . . .

President Trump: get rid of gun-free-zones

No doubt Mr. LaPierre will echo the President’s sentiments. Or is it the other way around?

Anyway, CNN and other mainstream media outlets reacted immediately to the President’s proposal by rounding up the usual suspects: teachers who oppose their colleagues’ right to keep and bear arms without government infringement.

What’s missing here: a direct call to repeal Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zone Act.

Until and unless the Act is tossed, local school boards will have the final say as to whether or not any given teacher, administrator or (God forbid) parent can carry a firearm on campus lawfully, protecting the school from violent attack.

comments

  1. avatar Libertarian says:

    to restrictive

    do it utah art ore mississipi enhanced permit art

    and repeal the gfsz act !

  2. avatar Bfitz76239 says:

    Yeah but he’s still gonna push raising the age to buy a rifle to 21 and banning bumpstocks.

    This guy is selling us out.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Bfitz76239,

      See my comment immediately below yours.

      I do not see that we are giving up very much if we get:
      (1) People over 21 can gift rifles to people under 21.
      (2) Bumpfire stocks are available with a $200 tax stamp.
      (3) Opened machine gun registry (needed to add bumpfire stocks)
      (4) Concealed carry in schools
      (5) National reciprocity

      Of course there should be ZERO infringements and we should advocate HARD for zero infringements. Until we get there, I can live with the above.

      1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

        This is why I hate politics. It’s trading X for Y, knowing that someday they’ll take Y back without giving you X.

      2. avatar Bfitz76239 says:

        I don’t think this will lead to the registry being reopened. If we were actually getting that in return, then sure, make bumpstocks restricted to it because then I can pick up a regular AR lower, file a Form 1 and drill out the third hole when it clears.

        You need to be realistic. No one in congress is talking about restricting them to nfa status. They’re talking about out right bans. We will get NOTHING in return for any of this. Just like we got nothing in ‘68, or during the Clinton ban years.

      3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        It doesn’t look to me like your #3-#5 are going to happen. #1 may even be restricted. He ma well try for a limited #4 but I think the RINOs in the senate will kill that attempt. You are counting eggs that haven’t even been fertilized.

      4. avatar Stereodude says:

        I could see them accusing and trying to prosecute people of straw purchases if you buy a rifle and gift it to someone under 21 even if no money changed hands by alleging a quid pro quo.

      5. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        “If we get……”

        *eyes rolling*

        Never. Gonna. Happen.

        All that may happen is further infringements. Best case, nothing happens.

      6. avatar Publius says:

        You need to lay off the drugs. There’s no way in hell well ever get the machine gun registry reopened and Republicans are too anti-gun to ever support national carry reciprocity.

      7. avatar DDay says:

        What? Expand the NFA by adding another? Hell no. Remove suppressors and SBR’s and SBS’s from the NFA, don’t add to it.

      8. avatar luigi says:

        I don’t agree with #5 for non-2A reasons, but otherwise that sounds pretty decent. As others have said though, not ideal and not gonna happen

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Okay, I think Trump is setting the stage to get concealed carry in schools when you look at those tweets in combination with his most recent tweet (which offers something that Progressives want):

    I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue – I hope!

    Add in national reciprocity and open the machine gun registry (so that we can own bumpfire stocks and new full-auto firearms) and this might be doable.

    Note: I support unfettered ownership of bumpfire stocks and fully automatic firearms. I oppose $200 tax stamps to own said items. If fedzilla reduced the price of tax stamps to $20, opened the machine gun registry, turned around tax stamps in two weeks, and allowed bumpfire ownership under that system, I could live with it.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      I get what your saying but we gotta be realistic here and undserstand no politician really understands the pro gun side. They’re not going to even comprehend most of what you’re suggesting. If we’re going to compromise on bump stocks, age, and background checks, we need to speak in more general terms. Like then also getting the HPA, national reciprocity, repealing the gun free zones, and if they really want to push the age agenda, then push restrictions on all adult activities until 21, like voting and military service. That’ll likely kill the age agenda as much as democrats depend on young ignorant voters.

      1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

        Amen. If you’re not old enough to defend your life or go hunting, then you’re not old enough to vote or get drunk or get high.

        I’d say they can still join the military, though. We need more troops, and it gets rid of the motivation of the GI bill somewhat if we say they can’t join until 21.

        1. avatar That One Guy says:

          congress loves them the “some animals are more equal than others” carveouts to gun laws…so raise the purchase age of semi-auto rifles to 21, then offer an exemption for anyone with a military or LEO background.

      2. avatar Marcus says:

        Indeed if they are going to raise the age limit then it better apply for military service maybe even a constitutional amendment to raise voting back to 21. No gun changes period without giving something back like the SHARE act. Maybe they can even remove the Hughes Amendment for “universal” background checks. Hell even put a 10 year limit on this change it if they want to call out their BS but regardless the RINOS need to be removed from office.

      3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        You realize the voting age is in the Constitution? 26A.

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          Since when are amendments settled law? The 2nd clearly isn’t…

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          While that’s a fair point, I don’t think liberal judges would have a problem following that amendment and conservative judges actually respect the Constitution.

    2. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      That’s a lovely dream but what mental illnesses should bar you from ownership? PTSD? Depression? ADD? ADHD? Or should we stick to more serious illnesses? Who gets to decide how depressed is too depressed to own a gun? How bad does PTSD have to be before they say no guns for you?
      Now as for the tax stamps we know the government ain’t ever gonna cut the cost of anything. They ain’t gonna open the registry and the NRA will probably help keep it closed… We can’t have Billy Bob droppin the value on all those old collector machine guns by screwing with supply and demand.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        ATFAgentBob,

        Yeah, mental health disqualification is Pandor’s box and ripe beyond description for abuse.

        Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any way to allow for mental health disqualifications and protect us from abuse apart from the current standard which is a court adjudicating someone as mentally ill. And even that could be abused.

        Perhaps a simple standard that we could support would require at least three psychologists diagnosing someone as a schizophrenic, psychopath, sociopath, or having impulse control due to a traumatic brain injury?

        It all comes back to the simple standard: if someone is too dangerous (because of mental illness) to own a firearm, they are too dangerous to be among us in society without a custodian.

        1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

          There is no perfect way to tackle this without first removing politics from the equation entirely. There are numerous stories out there of numerous psychologists saying the desire to own a gun is in itself a mental illness or that voting GOP is a mental illness. There in lies the problem… Mental health “experts” and any others in the medical field have already been politicized and root for the liberal agenda. There are those licensed and practicing who would sign the papers saying you are nuts for even wanting a gun and have you committed if they thought the courts would actually back them up.
          I think before we attach mental health to anything we need to first stop this politicize all the things mentality we have fostered and actually improve the quality and availability of mental health care. No, throwing more pills at the mentally ill is not an improvement nor would I term it treatment except in cases where without the pills the person would likely be running naked down the street screaming about the flying spaghetti monster stealing their dog. Only after we make mental health care actual health care rather than a prescription line and remove political bias should we even attempt to make mental health a requirement to excercise a fundamental right.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      How is getting concealed carry into schools any of Donald Trump’s or the federal government’s business?

    4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I don’t see it happening, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by Trump before. More than once.

  4. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Provided the damn fool drops the age restriction crap and bans he was pushing yesterday I can support this idea, but if the tan idiot is still pushing raising the age limit on rifle purchases, banning bump stocks, and a new assault weapons or semi auto ban he can sit and spin on a cactus wrapped in razor wire. Sorry to be graphic…. Not really but still I cannot support any pro gun stuff he may put out when just yesterday he was all for giving in and making the socialist liberals’ wet dreams come true.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Banning most/all semi-auto firearms is a total non-starter. THAT is the proverbial “hill to die on”. (For reference I have not seen any press release or tweet where Trump suggests banning most/all semi-auto firearms.)

      I am feeling more and more confident that Trump is manipulating the political Left. He puts something on the table that Progressives want. He lets them really get excited and intent on getting it. Then he tells them what they must give back to get what they want. It really is good psychology.

      And it is by-and-large a win-win for Trump. If Progressives agree, Trump gets something that we want and can tout the fact that he worked a bi-partisan deal. If Progressives walk away, he can tell voters in the political middle that he offered what Progressives wanted and Progressives walked away which means he is the good guy and Progressives are the bad guys.

      1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/02/robert-farago/breaking-president-trump-direct-justice-department-ban-bump-stocks/

        Lets be real. Banning anything that increases rate of fire or setting an upper limit on a rate of fire will pretty much lead to semi autos being banned and Jerry Miculek having to get a $200.00 tax stamp for each hand. Again it’s very murky waters we’re sailing into here. Who gets to decide a rate of fire? How do they determine a safe rate? How would you enforce that? Simple answer ban weapons that make it easy to exceed the rate you set. Say they set it at 60 rounds per minute. Most semi autos can easily exceed that so ban those and leave hunting weapons (bolt actions, lever actions, pump actions, and revolvers) alone. Wanna ban bump fire completely? Easy ban the guns that make it possible. Now I don’t really know if one can bump fire a lever action or grampa’s old K98 war trophy but pretty much any semi auto can bump fire.

        1. avatar That One Guy says:

          Recall that lever actions are too fast for the Australian government to abide…

        2. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

          Good point @That One Guy. So now we add lever guns to the ban list and you know those Germans used to swear they were up against machine guns when the Brits were runnin SMLEs sooo let’s ban those too. See the issue with rate of fire now? It can be achieved many many ways.

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          Standard semi-auto handguns and rifles (including and especially the AR-15) without bump stocks are “in common use”.

          I think the only way to ban bump stocks is through an act of Congress (which will likely include fixNICS, raising the legal purchase age to 21, national reciprocity, the HPA, and repeal of Gun Free School Zones).

          If it goes that way, we all need to carefully review the language and be sure to comment regarding anything that would regulate or ban bump stocks to be sure it is very, very limited.

          Banning all semi-autos (in the end) would require a Constitutional Amendment or repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

          In the end, the likely outcome is nothing will be done.

  5. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    So I guess the goodtrump got a hold of his twitter account today.

  6. avatar Hank says:

    We cannot allow the age limit to be raised without demanding all adult activities like voting and military service also be delayed until 21. That’ll either kill the debate, or, whipe out a huge portion of the liberal voting block.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Hank,

      I like the idea of raising the voting age to 21 if we cannot purchase firearms until age 21.

      If people between the age of 18 and 21 can own and possess firearms that someone over 21 gives to them, this is more of a symbolic injury than an actual injury in practice.

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        Maybe, maybe not… I could see them accusing and trying to prosecute people of straw purchases if you buy a rifle and gift it to someone under 21 even if no money changed hands by alleging a quid pro quo.

    2. avatar Stereodude says:

      Driver’s licenses and abortion without parental consent too.

    3. avatar Charles says:

      Actually most studies show that the younger voting block while it is the most liberal, is also more pro gun rights than any other segment. Less of them own guns, but the ones that do are not Fudds, they don’t hunt, they are more likely to participate in three gun or steel plate matches. Even the ones that don’t own guns, don’t believe gun control works in polling and tend to fall on the side of gun rights.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        But they still vote liberal. So they’re hypocrites and we still get screwed.

        1. avatar Charles says:

          Nope. The gun owners are still single issue voters and the non gun owners are likely to redefine progressive platforms.

    4. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      No smoking, voting, rated R movies, Facebook/snapchat/Instagram etc until 21. No drivers licenses either. No guns of any sort or knives, forks, sporks, high powered assualt flashlights. Sex is also banned, no porn. And no cellphones, too dangerous! Mandatory curfews. No 18 year old child needs to be up past 9:30pm. Common sense, we need to get these kids off the street! Will those regulation seeking kids agree to such?

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        It’s ten o’clock. Do you know where your children are?

    5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      If we’re repealing Amendments, lets repeal the 17A.

  7. avatar W says:

    Patience Robert. Patience.

  8. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Getting rid of GFZs makes much more sense.

    Arming a specific few is a start but also makes them primary targets for future mass shooters.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      TJLarson2K,

      Arming a few staff, parents, and/or volunteers does not make them primary targets for future spree killers if those spree killers have no idea who is armed.

      1. avatar That One Guy says:

        Put an armed guard in the school to act as the canary in the coal mine. Even if they take the first rounds, it’ll be a warning signal to the rest of the school.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Kind of morbid — and true nonetheless.

          Perhaps we could put an incredibly lifelike animatronic dummy at school entrances instead? (Idea being that a spree killer would attack the dummy first not realizing it was just a dummy.)

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Uncommon_sense, it works for deer hunters/poachers.

      2. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        Ah I wasn’t very clear. When I mentioned a “specific few”, I was talking about the notion that arming teachers was “the solution”. It’s a good start.

        A better solution is getting rid of GFZ, which would allow for much better deterrent as you mentioned, you would have a larger number (even if it’s just perceived) of concealed carriers at any given time.

        Now, if you add on-site armed security that specializes in engaging and eliminating armed and armored threats, that’s an active deterrent in the off-chance there are no other armed citizens in the vicinity.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      Irrelevant. Mass shooters do not attack where regular people are allowed to be armed. This has been shown time and time again. It’s insanity to ignore that 98% of public mass shootings in the last 50 years have been gun free zones.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        You WIN the interwebz IMHO😄

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        68 years.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      You can get rid of the federal GFZ designation, but states and school boards would promptly put in place their own bans.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Preemption is required.

  9. avatar FlamencoD says:

    Raising the age limit to 21 may sound like it will help, but in reality, of all the mass shootings I can think of, the perp was 21 or older (except for Parkland) or stole the firearms they used (Sandy Hook), or acquired their firearms illegally (Columbine). This is why it’s lip service. The Parkland shooter (I won’t say his name) probably would have found another way to get an AR-15, or tried a different method of attack (i.e., car/truck).

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      The Columbine killers were too young to buy guns so they had a friend purchase them. There are always work arounds.

  10. avatar cisco kid says:

    What an obscene joke. Most school districts do not even have enough money to heat the decaying buildings let alone hire armed guards or have half million dollars security alarm systems which is exactly what it did cost for one very rich school district. Only Federal money could do this and the skin flint greed monger Republicans would never fund such money because it would leave less money to feed into the Military Industrial Complex that brings so much blood money into their corrupt pockets to fund their endless wars of rape, pillage and conquest.

    As one school teacher said, “Yes sure I would want to be standing there with a gun in my hand and get gunned down by frightened and panicked swat teams storming into my room. I would be shot down immediately.

    1. avatar A Brit in TX says:

      Well SWAT teams will first surround the school, and then make entry 2 hours later. Plenty of time for that teacher (a sample size of one, cherry picked by the media) to have re-holstered and shepherded his/her students away.

    2. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

      Cost is not a problem if we make it painless for community volunteers to arm up and patrol the schools

      You really are not a very smart person, are you?

  11. avatar Wiregrass says:

    All that is needed is to repeal the gun free zone clause. No one needs this “highly trained, gun savvy” bullshit. Just the fact that there could be armed resistance, whether their actually is, is enough to dissuade these pukes. The rest is just security theater. I think it is a good idea to provide training for the personnel willing to carry but making a big show of it is nothing but an attempt to mollify the sheep.

  12. avatar TexTed says:

    I cannot believe how shortsighted you people are.

    This is the whole ballgame right here. This is the invasion into enemy lines. This is how you win the culture war.

    Sure, 95% of teachers will be opposed to teacher carry; only 5% of Americans concealed carry at all. But if 5% of teachers/administrators carry… and we get them in schools… and nothing bad happens, then it starts to spread. Just like concealed carry did.

    I will absolutely-damn-guarantee you that if a school shooting happens, and the 95% know which of their colleagues has a gun, they’ll be running to him or her for protection.

    And once that happens, that is when “gun normalization” can occur. It ain’t never gonna happen with Chipotle Ninjas scaring the hell out of people, but it WILL happen when people see the actual results and that there’s nothing to be afraid of. The first time a concealed carrier stops a school shooter, is the day the 2A crowd wins once and for all.

    This is the whole ballgame, right here. This is what we elected Trump for. And if we have to give up (on a temporary basis) some useless bump stock or raising the age to 21 for long guns in order to get it through, then so be it.

    This proposal is the very definition of WINNING.

    And yes I said “temporary”. Remember when concealed carry was banned everywhere, and then freedom spread across the country? Remember when campus carry was banned everywhere, and now it’s starting to spread? Remember when “assault weapons” were banned in the entire country, and then — they weren’t, and the AR15 became “America’s Rifle”?

    Win the culture war, and the details will come. Lose the culture war, and you lose everything. Trump is doing the right thing. Defeating GFZs cuts the anti’s (theoretical) balls off. Add Trump’s GFZ proposal to national reciprocity and it’ll be the biggest gun rights win since the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “The first time a concealed carrier stops a school shooter, is the day the 2A crowd wins once and for all.”

      It has happened. The media fails to report it. It fits both there sensational and political biases to not report it. “Nothing happened today” isn’t the best way to grab eyeballs.

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        When has a concealed carrier stopped an active school massacre in progress? I’m unaware of any cases. I know we have things like the Sutherland Springs shooter being stopped, but I’m talking specifically about a school shooter.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I don’t remember the keywords to google them, but there have been several instances where teachers and administrators have gone to their cars and gotten their EDC guns and stopped a shooter. Were they conceal carrying at the time? No, because it would have been illegal. But they were a concealed carrier and they stopped a mass shooting before it became one.

          It’s actually pretty typical to just say “vice-principal stopped student” and leave out the fact he had a gun.

          Now, I don’t disagree that having the same people who carry outside of a school carry inside a school would be a victory. It would be a victory in itself. It would reduce school shootings. They would be even more rare than they are now. But the media wouldn’t report that or link the two facts.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          TX_Lawyer,

          The one example that I have found is the high school in Pearl, Mississippi. It could be a shaky example though.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I think that’s one of the ones where several reports did not mention that he stopped the shooter by using a gun. I don’t really try to remember if it was a school or some other GFZ because I don’t see any difference other than any adult targeting children is an exceptional monster.

  13. avatar Ret1SG says:

    I say JUST DO IT! It’s either that or spend money we haven’t got on more undertrained SROs. Teachers are with our kids/grandkids everyday and many are willing.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email