Published: Sunday, Feb. 3 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Darrell, one question...Who is gonna pay for it?We are
already dead last in per-pupil spending. Many of our schools don't even
have AC. And you want to spend more? Are you prepared to raise
taxes? If you are then fine. If you are not, then your letter means nothing.
We could lay-off high paid school administrators and replace them with retired
people who have background appropriate for protecting our students. We could
insist that school staff use resources more wisely and cut spending in that
area. An extensive study on schools and success does not show that the schools
with the most money to spend do the best. It is more a case of the money spent
on education being used wisely for success to result.I've
taught school in enough settings to know that the waste is amazing. To keep
students busy provide them with expensive equipment, materials and just plain
nonsense is the philosophy all too much. That all adds up.I think
there are school staff members in virtually every school who would be willing to
learn firearm use and be prepared to shoot when needed.
How about we just do away with public schools and replace them with free public
education using the internet. The cost would probably be less and the problems
of physical buildings, transportation, food preparation, class size, teachers
pay and protection security would go away. Parents could choose the
style, philosophy, source, even the teacher. Or even make a blanket choice of
Federal general, State general, Mormon or what ever. Students
could work individually in their own homes or join with the neighbor’s
kids for some or all of the classes. The interface would be interactive so that
the participation of the student is recorded and questions allowed. The teachers would be well paid experts under constant surveillance and with a
staff of assistants. The availability of teaching aids unlimited and up to
date. Books, available from the internet in many forms including
video, audio, and even text. etc. etc. etc.
@real maverick-Good question. Besides all the waste mentioned by previous
posts, I know Utah politicians would love to tap into our natural resources.
That could bring billions to education and other state programs. Raising taxes
always seems to be the first reaction when clearly there are other alternatives.
We really need to think outside the box and kudos to our state legislators who
are trying to do just that!
Darrell, what about shopping malls and movie theaters? What about churches,
mosques and synagogues? Are we going to arm every entrance to every public place
in America? Before we do that let's try, at least try to prevent. As
Americans, we cut corners. Soon we'll have teachers and rent a cops armed
that are less qualified than the students. It stands to reason we should first
do the ounce of prevention bit before making wholesale changes to our society.
Shouldn't we make it difficult for the terrorists of all ilks to acquire
rather than cower in our homes waiting for them to strike. Let's do common
sense prevention before we overreact.
This is a problem that has taken over 200 years to develop. Solving it will
require an enormous amount of wisdom and compromise.Letters like
this one, and comments that do nothing but vomit repetitious nonsense from both
sides will do nothing toward finding that solution.
Protecting our children doesn't have to cost a lot of money. One district
in (I believe Oklahoma) is going to be arming volunteer employees who are
already working in the schools. They will be provided with training. In Utah
many teachers already carry a gun.Yes the presidents children do
need and do deserve armed protection. But no the presidents children are not
more important than the rest of Americas children. Our children deserve the best
possible protection too. Notice the president's children's school is
not protected with a gun free zone? Why? Such a zone would be ignored by
criminals, only good people would adhere to the law andThe best way
to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
I've never seen a press release issued bragging about gun free zones. I am
pretty sure that our politicians allow concealed carry in our schools in Utah. I
have never been in a bank where I have seen an armed guard. Neither of the
credit unions I go to have armed guards. The letter writer is just making things
up. The funny thing is, the gun show, cross roads of the west, does
not allow concealed carry or loaded weapons at their shows. They don't
trust gun toting people. The people selling these guns don't trust the
people buying those guns.
Here is the last paragraph from Mr. Paskett's letter:"This
is the time to take decisive action in protecting our most precious asset: our
children."But for many citizens, do NOT legislate any new limits
on the major and most efficient tool of choice that has been designed and
engineered to crush holes through living flesh.
Re: "But for many citizens, do NOT legislate any new limits on the major and
most efficient tool of choice that has been designed and engineered to crush
holes through living flesh."Only the citizens that have --
unlike liberals -- retained the power of logical thought.Unfortunately."Legislative limits" [nice try at
camouflaging the term "gun-control laws," btw], will only affect those
who are disposed to comply with those "legislative limits."Belief in the discredited liberal dogma that those violating current
"legislative limits" and wreaking violence against our children, might
somehow be deterred by brave, new "legislative limits," when they have
clearly demonstrated a disposition not to comply with those "legislative
limits" already in-place is closely akin to belief in unicorns.
Or better yet -- Let's just put our kids up in schools with big
concrete walls, gates, locks and barricades --- so all the gun toting 2nd
amendment general public can run about restriction free, instead of and at
the expense of our children's freedom.
procuradorfiscal, it seems like you are having a rough time with the term
"legislative limits". The rest of us understand that clearly this means
gun control laws. Why is it that for some people it seems that every
argument boils down to "liberals"? Look, there are plenty of
conservatives that have supported legislative limits on guns. For example Ronald
Reagan and the NRA. Sorry don't mean to bother you in your
bubble. Go on with your rant.
Re: ". . . there are plenty of conservatives that have supported legislative
limits on guns . . . . Go on with your rant."Thanks, I will.No true conservative supports liberal "legislative limits" on
essential American freedoms, including those guaranteed by the Second
Amendment.Anyone suggesting that the right to keep and bear those
arms that would be useful to a well-regulated militia is advocating surrender of
the right upon which all the others are based. Once liberals feel they can place
"legislative limits," at their unfettered whim, on whatever they want,
whenever they want -- American freedom is dead.It's only that
nagging thought in the back of their tiny, closed minds -- that real people may
have, not only the inclination, but the actual power to choose organized
insurrection, over forced compliance with their brave new freedom-sapping
"legislative limits" -- that keeps liberals and liberal regimes in
Only the citizens that have -- unlike liberals -- retained the power of logical
thought.Wow, a portion of the citizens of the Republic have a
monopoly on logic. If you start with a false premise then the finest logic will
very often lead you to a false conclusion.Words words: Is it this,
that or perhaps something else?Is it “legislative limits” or
“gun control”? Is it jail or security center? Taxes or theft?
Family Home Evening or a family fight that starts and ends with prayer? Was it
the draft or citizen duty? Etc, etc..
"that real people may have, not only the inclination, but the actual power
to choose organized insurrection"Ha, no nagging thought in the
back of my little closed mind at all. I'm very confident that any citizen
that chooses organized insurrection needs to be rounded up and prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. And thank goodness the country I love, the United
States of America has the ability and the will to do this. Thank goodness my
country that I love will be kept safe from those that think they are above the
law, from those that would overthrow her.
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTIt's only that nagging thought
in the back of their tiny, closed minds -- that real people may have, not only
the inclination, but the actual power to choose organized insurrection, over
forced compliance with their brave new freedom-sapping "legislative
limits" -- that keeps liberals and liberal regimes in check.8:44
p.m. Feb. 4, 2013=========== When you and your tiny,
closed minds loose the right to VOTE, I'll support your armed
insurrection.Meanwhile - It's my sworn Constittional duty:per Article 2, section § 332. Use of militia and armed forces
to enforce Federal authorityWhenever the President considers that
unlawful obstructions, combinations, ... or rebellion against the
authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the
United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State,
and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those
laws or to suppress the rebellion...to keep guys like you in check.
airnaut, well said. The thing with some people today is that they
think they are following in the footsteps of the great minds that fought the
British Empire and founded our government. They think they actually have
something in common with these people. The thing they don't understand is
that those that fought against the British Empire had very legitimate
complaints, not the least being taxation without representation. These great thinkers were not fighting just because they did not get their way
and were pouting. For the modern tea partiers to think they have anything in
common with the founders of this country is an insult to the founders legacy.
One old Man. The truth is sir that the right does not want to find any solutioo
that does not result in more guns being sold. Until that changes there will be
no wise solution found.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments