Sibby Online

HB1087 amended and passed 8 to 7

Again, we have no principled discssion regarding the constitutional right to bear arms, so pragmatism ruled the day and the school sentinel bill was amended to add more requirements and then narrowly passed to the House floor by the House Education committee. There will surely be more discussion on  this issue. Certainly a close vote on a Republican dominated committeemeanswe may have some new  RINOs to talk about.

Another irrational school board member regarding guns

First read this:

The Sioux Falls School District moves up plans to tighten security at its 35 buildings.

The district had planned to increase security measures within the district over the next few years as it remodeled buildings.

However, school board member Kent Alberty said the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in December was absolutely a catalyst for the district to move on those plans now.

Now read this:

When it comes to beefing up security, Alberty is not a fan of a bill before state lawmakers that would allow teachers and administrators to carry guns.

"I think the legislature isn't using its best judgment if they are spending time talking about, 'What ifs'. I think we need to not over react as a society to the Sandy Hook tragedy and pass laws that are passed on emotion, not on very well thought out, clear-cut, good decision making," Alberty said.

Yes that was said by the same board member who made the first statement and in the same Keloland so-called news clip. We don't hear much about the high level of security at Sandy Hook. Instead we hear the media pushing for expensive security projects that have not reached their utopian levelws of safety. It is only the ideas of returning to traditional constitutional rights that are "not on very well thought out, clear-cut, good decision making".

Sandy Arseneault, President of the SDEA teacher's union uses pananoia caused by dreams to argue denial of constitutional rights of union members

During the debate on HB1087, a bill that would allow school bards the right to allow staff to bear arms, Sandy Arseneault makes this argument against the bill:

Sandy Arseneault, president of the South Dakota Education Association, said she was on the “hit list” years ago of a Custer student who had blueprints of the school and a plan to kill people. A fellow student reported the plan, and the student was removed and given help.

She was not calmed when the school hired an armed security guard following the incident. She said she had nightmares that the guard was stalking her, and she took some time away from work.

“I’ve been trained to teach children,” Arseneault said. “I do not want to carry a gun, nor do I want to work in a school where other teachers or other staff who might not be trained carry a gun.”

So a security guard stalks you in a dream and so that gives means Arseneault the reason to not "want to work in a school where other teachers or other staff who might not be trained [to] carry a gun". So was it only in her dream that the security guard was not trained? And why would a union boss deny her members their constitutional right to bear arms due to paranoia from a bad dream? Makes absolutely no sense at all.

The House Education committee is to vote on this tomorrow morning and one wonders how many will be swayed by testimony from a delusional paranoid union boss who can't separate dreams from reality.

I agree with Pat Powers' quote of the day which proves HB1087 needs to be amended and then passed

I doubt that agreeing with Pat Powers will get this web site restored to his sidebar [especially when I point out that Powers promoting of Wade Pogeny's anti-gun position probably fits Power's Educrat wife's liberal wishes], but here goes anyway. I agree that yesterday Wade Progeny provided the House Education committee with the quote of the day:

“This is a decision that is so important that it needs to be made at the state level.”

- Wade Pogany, Associated School Boards of South Dakota,
in reference to HB1087, which would allow school boards the decision to arm staff.

When we note that HB1087 was to give local schools the decision to allow teachers to carry firearms at school or not, Pogeny's argument flies in the face to local control. Certainly something that school boards who pay him should consider problematic.

But I say he is right. Article VI of South Dakota's Constitution contains our Bill of Rights. Section 24 states:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied 

So the state should step in and make sure that the Constitution of South Dakota is enforced on local school boards. That is the opposite of Pogeny's postion on this issue, as he spoke against the premise that teachers should be allowed to bring firearms into schools to protect themselves and the students the state is in charge of educating. HB1087 is to leave the discussion up to school boards, and based on Pogeny's tesimony, South Dakota school boards are not in favor of preserving gun rights for teachers. So HB1087 needs to be amended and restated to force schools boards to honor the Constitution of South Dakota, instead of letting them decide the issue.

Here is a common sense analysis of the issues of arm teachers and gun-free zones from Larry Correia:

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.

But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.

Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.

I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.

After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless?  None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.

Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.

Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, I’m sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states who’d be willing to teach them for free.

For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.

Gun Free Zones

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utah’s gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping center’s front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was NO GUNS ALLOWED.

The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED.

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

According to NBC, the Sandy Hook shooting involved 4 handguns, the assault rifle was in the trunk of the car

Check this out, and make sure to use the link to the amazing NBC report:

On Saturday morning, Dec. 15, one day after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook  Elementary School, NBC’s chief justice correspondent, Pete Williams, spoke  with “Today” show host Matt Lauer.

Williams shared “new information this morning from a couple of federal  officials and state officials.” Said Williams, “They say now that there were  actually four handguns recovered inside the school, not just two as we  were initially told; four handguns and apparently only handguns that  were taken into the school.” (Italics mine)

Williams said that Lanza also brought an “assault style, AR-15 style rifle” with him to school, but, he added, “We have been told by several officials that  he left that in the car.”

Later that same Dec. 15, Dr. Wayne Carver held a press conference.  Gun-control zealot Piers Morgan did not like what he saw and savaged the  conspicuously lab-coated Carver via Twitter.

“Extremely disrespectful press conference going on with #Newtown medical  examiner,” Morgan tweeted. He added later, “Really disgusted by this medical  examiner’s showboating behaviour – should be kept well away from cameras in the  future.”

What Morgan did not foresee, however, was that the showboating Carver had  introduced a new bit of information, that, whether true or not, Morgan would  exploit for weeks to come.

As Carver explained, he and his team of his team of 14 assistants had started  the autopsies of the 20 children that morning and finished by 1:30 p.m. Only in  the Q-and-A did a question arise about the  weapon used:

Reporter: Doctor, on that examination, could you tell which  caliber of the handgun compared to the rifle on these shooting victims were?

Carver: It’s a good thing there’ll not be a prosecution ’cause then I couldn’t answer that. All the wounds that I know of at this point  are caused by the one weapon.

Question: So the rifle was the primary weapon?

Carver: Yes.

Question: What caliber was used?

Carver: The question was what caliber were these bullets.  And I know I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists, but if I  say it in court, they yell at me and make me answer. So I’ll let the police deal  with that for you.

As he admitted, Carver had only done seven of these hastily performed  autopsies himself. He did not even know the caliber of weapon used. He and the  reporters seemed unaware of Williams’ authoritative report just hours earlier  that federal and state officials had only found handguns at the scene.

To watch Carver in his fumbling 15 minutes of fame is to understand that he  was only accidentally part of a media-government plot to focus on “assault” weapons.

The initial reporting on the press conference likewise failed to grasp the  narrative that was about to emerge. I could not find a single headline that  mentioned assault weapons. “Children at Sandy Hook were shot multiple times” was  one common theme. “Worst I’ve ever seen,” was another.

In the days that followed, the story would shift to the AR-15, not as the  exclusive weapon – two handguns remained in the narrative – but as “the primary  weapon used in the attack.” On Dec. 19, CNN reported, “Police say Lanza’s rifle  used numerous 30-round magazines.”

This, of course, may be true, and Williams’ sources may have been wrong, but  my investigations into TWA Flight 800 and the Oklahoma City bombing have taught  me that the early reporting is often the most reliable, especially when there is  a Democrat in the White House with an agenda.

Pat Powers, thin-skinned RINOs can ignore their oath of office

[UPDATE: Shortly after putting up this post, Pat Powers removed me from his sidebar updates.]

Now Pat Powers responds to blackballing trumping legislation with this:

Well, what if one of the people arguing for a position you are supportive of – in this case, 2nd Amendment rights – has spent months attacking you, sent out postcards accusing you of ridiculous things and positions you know you don’t support, etcetera….  And now they want you to support your bill? Or even better, they tell you privately they’ll attack you if you don’t support it.

So according to Pat Powers, politicians who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, can also violate their oath of office and vote against the Constitution's Second Amendment when supported by those who have been blackballed. I did not know RINOs were so thin-skinned. And they are RINOs because the SDGOP Platform's Preample starts out with the statement the their principles are based on the Constitutions.

And what is even more shocking is Pat Powers tries to argue in the name of "civility" as he says this:

I see the fringes on the left and the right are both doing their best to give birth to kittens as they mewl about how legislation should stand or die on the merits of the legislation, and personalities should have nothing to do with it.

You know, I visited where they’re coming from this past December. Unfortunately for them, Fantasyland only exists in Disney Parks. But as I did, if they stay there long enough, they might get a picture with Wreck-it Ralph.

Folks, it’s a plain and simple truth that legislators – like the public at large, when they are asked to choose a candidate in elections – are asked to make a judgement for or against legislation through persuasive arguments and speeches. Sometimes they can be swayed by impassioned pleas, despite having leanings towards another view.

So Pat Powers thinks civility includes calling those he disagrees with members of the fringe who live in Fantasyland? And that the premise that if "Zach is for it we will vote against it" is a "persuasive argument"? You don't have to be on the fringe to understand that the Constitution should take priority over personalities.

The problem for RINOs is that they don't want their constituents to understand how they vote and instead we are to vote for them only because they have "good personalities" and give "good speeches". And anybody who dares expose their voting records are to be blackballed.The " ridiculous things and positions" Powers is talking about is the ridiculous votes these RINOs make. And we wonder why the Constitution continues to be violated over and over again?

My spies have told me that Representative Stace Nelson is also blackballed. We need to watch and see if that is true.

Pat Powers , SDGOP blackballing trumps the merits of legislation

[UPDATE: Shortly after putting up this response, Pat Powers appears to have removed this website from his sidebar in order to prevent his readers from seeing the other side (conservative) of the issue. Typical for RINOs to avoid accountablilty from true conservatives.]

In true fascist fashion Pat Powers argues that the concealed carry legislation is dead on arrival because of who supports it, not due to the merits of the legislation itself:

It’s got the full backing of Zach Lautenschlager? Too bad for the measure.  It might have had a good chance.

If you recall the last we’d heard of Zach, he wasn’t endearing himself to a few people who occupy the State Capitol, which required a 911 call. And now he’s back with hat in hand asking for the legislature to pass a measure he supports.

Anyone taking any bets as to whether it makes it out of committee?

Based on comments I have been seeing in the media from the SDGOP leadership, they really don't want to pass Second Amendment bills, but are searching for ways to kill them and not look like they are anti-gun. Pat Powers just pointed us to one reason they will use to cover their deception. And BTW, Zach's crime was pointing out the pro-homosexual agenda of the SDGOP to a pro-family group.