Central Minnesota Tea Party blog: Love the gun in the teacher’s holster, hate government paying for it

Print

Having fulfilled their educational mission last month by bringing “Brigitte Gabriel” to Little Falls to warn about the threat of Muslims to the verdant plains of Morrison County, Bluestem’s fellow citizens at the Central Minnesota Tea Party are back to blogging.

The latest bit of enlightenment that they share is Armed Teachers?

We asked a question too: why the question mark from individuals whose devotion to the Constitution begins and ends with the Second Amendment?

With that mystery hanging over the copy, it was a must-read, and we eagerly devoured the pixels, soon learning after the jump that it was a post lifted from South Carolina patriot Tim Brown at Freedom Outpost, Arkansas Uses Little-Known Law To Arm Teachers With Guns. Brown freely mixes his original thoughts with an Associated Press report (via the Blaze) about “training and arming 20 teachers, administrators and other school employees” for the coming school year.

Smith approves–though he isn’t happy that the government is paying for the training and arming of the teachers. Here’s how the program works, in copy that’s straight from the AP report:

Superintendent David Hopkins said that the school district’s previous plan in the past was “Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best,” but he added, “That’s not a plan.”

Hopkins believed in utilizing those who were already employees of the schools to guard students, rather than paying for security.

“We’re not tying our money up in a guard 24/7 that we won’t have to have unless something happens. We’ve got these people who are already hired and using them in other areas,” Hopkins said. “Hopefully we’ll never have to use them as a security guard.”

Through a program, participants are given a one-time $1,100 stipend to purchase a handgun and holster. The district is paying about $50,000 for ammunition and training by Nighthawk Custom Training Academy.

Got that? Train and arm the staff, and the school doesn’t have to pay those layabout armed security officers, who will so be doing nothing at all unless someone opens fire.

Brown likes the idea of armed teachers but not the notion of using taxpayer money to do it:

Personally, I don’t support tax dollars going to any of this, but the concept of the training and arming teachers and administrators I fully support. After all, they are not only protecting student[s], but also themselves. In fact, I’m often amazed at hearing stories where teachers have to bring in paper and pencils and have to use their own money to purchase supplies and yet here’s tens of thousands of dollars being spent on guns, training and ammunition. However, I’m glad to see that the school district is serious at least about letting citizens be able to carry their weapons to defend themselves and the students of the school. For that, I applaud their efforts.

Bluestem’s happy that Brown admits that maybe taxpayer dollars should directly purchase school supplies rather that having the fund for teachers’ salaries indirectly subsidize that buying.

But school security? That is so not taxpayer business, since the teachers would be defending themselves, not just the children. Let them pay for their own dang guns and armed crisis training!

We have to wonder why Brown stops there. Under that logic, Americans should be able to cut military and defense spending to the bone, since those law enforcement officers, Border Patrol personnel, Marines, sailors, soldiers, and pilots aren’t just defending communities and our country, they’re defending themselves!

Bluestem is grateful to the Central Minnesota Tea Party for sharing this gem, as we probably wouldn’t have found it in our own meandering reading.