Donald Kaul’s article was, to use his term, pathetic.
He says, “Military style guns aren’t good for much except killing a lot of people quickly” and that these semi-automatic guns are “what amount to machine guns.”
This shows ignorance.
He also says, “If what you need weapons for is to fight off government, semi-automatic weapons won’t cut it.”
He seems to want both sides of the argument.
He says we can’t have guards at our schools because “it would cost a damn fortune.”
Does he feel the same way about power plants, banks and airports?
He says we can’t arm teachers because, “Do you want your kid’s science teacher pretending to be Dirty Harry?”
While this may pass for an argument, in liberal la-la land, it is pathetic.
Donald would trust teachers with his children’s safety and education, but give them a gun and they turn into Dirty Harry?
The same stupid arguments were used against allowing pilots to be armed.
We trust them to fly big guided missiles with thousands of gallons of fuel and hundreds of passengers, but they can’t be trusted with a pistol?
We have teachers taking on extra duties all the time, such as field trips. coaching basketball, etc.
Why can’t we consider offering extra pay to take training to become qualified with a weapon.
Many teachers would be very appropriate if they wished to do this, and it would not cost a “damn fortune.”
Finally, Donald offers the utlimate liberal justifaction for cutting back on the Second Amendment; “It would be nice to try something to show we care.”
Wouldn’t it be better to do something that makes the situation better?
The only thing I’ve heard that stands a chance of working is to get ride of “gun free zones,” which are a magnet to miscreants bent on murder, and show we value our children as much as the contents of a bank or the other places we already have armed security.