It is the Double-Speak that does them in.

Rep. Steube’s House Bill 19 is the most high profile and the prickliest. The bill allows current or former military members or law-enforcement officers in good standing to carry a concealed weapon at elementary, middle and high schools. Each “school safety designee” would have to pass a background check and receive training from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

……..

No doubt, the measure reveals a real societal fear Americans harbor living in an armed country. However, turning public schools into armed camps is not the answer. The proliferation of firearms, their availability, is part of the problem.

Assign more officers to protect schools and use technological devices such as cameras. We have said it time and again: Schools need more pencils and computers for their students. Schools need more resources, but not guns.

via Schoolbooks, not bullets | Miami Herald Miami Herald.

This is a perfect example of Double-Speak as you can get.  You heard them before saying that they are not against Concealed Carry or even owning guns, but they are bothered by the fact that people are not properly trained and that only police and the military should have guns. This bill proposes exactly that: Military (active or retired) and Police (active or retired) having to undergo training (again) and more training (Active Shooter) even a psych evaluation are not good enough and the concept is awful-evil-horrendous and must be snipped at the bud right this minute.

And I bet they don’t even realize the contradiction or even what they wrote.

It is never about the guns, it is about control. (Yeah, I know you heard it before.)

Note: Last year’s version of this bill included the possibility of non-LEO or Non-Mil but with a CWP to be a part of the School Security. That was removed and STILL they think it is a bad idea.

6 Replies to “It is the Double-Speak that does them in.”

    1. That was my thought. Mass-killers are usually also suicidal, and aren’t expecting to survive the event; they just want to go out with a large body count.

      Cameras just make it so you can watch the killing unfold in high-def, from multiple angles.

      (A lesser man would take this to an extreme and make the case to accuse the antis of getting off on snuff films, but I won’t go there.)




      0



      0
  1. If the Lady principal at Sandy Hook would have had a gun instead of a sharp word, how different would that have turned out?

    It’s a known fact that Marines are some of the best shots in the world. I was good enough to train the best. So the state thinks I’m not “good enough” to carry in a school without “special” training. The state need to come to grips with the idea that just because someone is recent military or wearing a badge doesn’t make them special in any way. Some of the worst shots I’ve ever seen were cops. If you will notice something about cops, the ones that shoot rings around people are also gun guys. Most cops shoot once or twice a year because they have to. Look at the NYPD, fire over a dozen rounds and hit the BG once or twice and hit 4 or 5 bystanders. Yep, that’s the type I want protecting my grandchildren.




    0



    0
  2. Miguel, the article says “current or former military,” but you’re translating that as “active or retired,” which leaves out the vast majority of folks who are veterans but who did not retire, instead separating before retirement. I’m in that category of a non-retired veteran — 7 years active in the USAF and over a dozen in inactive reserve.

    Additionally, the comment “having to undergo training (again) and more training” assumes that all servicemembers are fully-versed and trained in firearms by the services. As aircrew, the only training I had was qualification on the .38 and then the M9, and I probably shot no more than 200 rounds in my 7 years of active duty (and during one requal, there was no money for training rounds, so we got requaled without shooting — seriously). The administrative types who carried M-4s, M-16s, GUU-5/Ps or whatnot during base activations were no more well-trained than we were, and the Social Actions types (i.e. human-resources-like harassment investigators, PC-indoctrinators) had ZERO training and never carried any firearm. I’m not knocking anyone of us veterans whose first-line tool was not a firearm, but too many folks think that every servicemember is a well-trained weapons expert.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .