This Columbine Survivor Just Introduced a Bill That is Guaranteed to Be Controversial

Patrick Neville, a Republican who serves in the Colorado legislature, is not your average state representative. He is a survivor of the infamous 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. That day, twelve students, a teacher, and the two perpetrators themselves were victims of gun violence. Neville learned firsthand that gun control laws are futile, and schools cannot be guaranteed “gun free zones.” Now Representative Neville has introduced a bill to allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to carry a gun in public schools.

Neville says:

This bill will allow honest law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm for protection if they choose to, but most importantly, it will give them the right to be equipped to defend our children from the most dangerous situations.

The bill is expected to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, but die in the Democratic-controlled House.

Similar bills have been introduced in Florida, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Anti-gun activists are strongly opposed to the option of concealed carry in schools.

While Columbine and the other school shooting tragedies in our recent past have been perpetrated by mentally-disturbed individuals, there is growing cause for concern about political attacks. A recent article in Bearing Arms reports:

The Expected Attack (should we ™ that?) is the long expected mass attack on an American public school (or schools) by cells of Islamic terrorists who have been transiting our virtually undefended southern border for more than a decade.

William Forstchen wrote a chilling novella called Day of Wrath imagining how such a series of attacks might be conducted across the nation, and reading it will make you sick to your stomach as you realize just how vulnerable our schools are to these sorts of attacks.

U.S. counter-terrorism experts agree that this kind of attack is coming to America, but government on every level and education administrators refuse to acknowledge the certainty of these attacks. They have instead have retreated into the “it can’t happen here” delusion that should have been shattered once and for all on September 11, 2001.

After a December terrorist attack on a Pakistani school left 150 students and teachers dead, government officials declared that arming teachers with concealed weapons is a “logical step” considering the threat of Islamic terrorism. At Peshawar’s Government High School for Boys, principal Abdul Saeed keeps a loaded handgun nearby. He will not be caught defenseless if mass killers attack his school.

“After what I have seen I refuse to be helpless and unarmed if anyone comes in to attack my students the way [the militants] did in December.

“We were once warriors of the chalk and the blackboard. Now we must be soldiers at war and fight for the cause of education and a brighter future for our children.”

It is telling that the people who are advocating for arming teachers are the very same people who have experienced these kinds of attacks firsthand.

  • b4k9zp

    Of course this law should be passed. (or rather, all laws that prohibit carrying, whether openly or concealed) anywhere anyone wants to go should be repealed, nationwide).

    • JACK3889

      We have a law called the second Amendment–the RIGHT to OWN and BEAR arms ruled by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional for all but convicted felons and the mentally ill. Criminals obey NO laws. Libs can stuff it where the sun don’t shine.

      • Jim Falisi

        Right on JACK3889!

      • b4k9zp

        The second amendment actually does not even limit the right to possess and carry the arms in common use by the standing army of the time to those who are on “good behavior”– i.e., there’s nothing about a person having to be of “sound mind” or not having committed any “infamous crimes” in the second amendment.

  • Liberty

    Cower in a Corner or Concealed Carry. What decision do you suppose the child would choose?

    • JACK3889

      Doesn’t even need be concealed carry. Could be open carry in a safety holdster only the carrier can easily draw it, but no one else can easily get it out. Try as they might.

  • JimRed

    Criminals, governments and Islamics prefer unarmed victims.

    • Frankie3D

      Jim, Are you expecting these people to come on the scene soon?

      • Al

        You have inside info that they aren’t Frankie?

      • Jim Falisi

        Just in case your interested they are already here!!!

        • Alan

          Don’t waste your breath, he probably believes that it can’t possibly happen here, but global climate change is caused by man and will klll us all soon.

          • Jim Falisi

            Got that right.

    • JACK3889

      And there are 35 known Muslim combat training camps in 22 states-maybe more by now–set up by one Pakistani named Sheikh Gilani. They have fully auto weapons. They are on a map with DOJ clearly across the bottom of it. Obama’s secret army. Complete with videos showing them training to carjack, kidnap, etc.

  • Tricia Harris

    Absolutely this law should be passed. If ONE teacher in Columbine had been armed, the only ones shot would have been the criminals who came into attack the students and the teachers. What the heck happened to common sense? The liberal MORONS need to get a grip – CRIMINALS SEE GUN FREE ZONES AS A PLACE THEY CAN GO TO SHOOT PEOPLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE AREN’T ARMED! The Constitution GUARANTEES we can be armed and that’s the ultimate law of our country. Gun-free zones are stupid because the criminals do not respect that this is supposed to be a gun-free area.

    • Al

      The thick headed libs cannot understand that Tricia.

    • conservative since 1962

      The average death toll in a rogue shooter incident stopped by an on site armed citizen is approximately 25% of those incidents that continue until the arrival of Law Enforcement personnel.
      Based on that an armed teacher at Columbine would have reduced the probable number killed to three or four instead of fifteen!

      • Galveston1

        Those figures might be right for only ONE armed defender.
        What if there were 6 armed teachers?

        • conservative since 1962

          We can play “What if” forever with an infinite number of variables.
          The “approximately 25%” I cited is exactly that, an approximate figure based on all reported rogue shooter events.
          As far as I know it has not been weighted for the number of armed citizens on site, the actual response times of LEO arrival, or any factor other than the presence or absence of one or more armed citizens who actually intervened.

        • leadfoot320

          IT WOULD BE LIKE AN IDIOT TRYING TO ROB A COPS BAR !

    • JACK3889

      The anti-gunners might change their minds quick when a few of them come under attack. Let them throw rocks or spit balls–lol

      • Tricia Harris

        EXACTLY! The liberal above with his looney comments assumes that only ONE teacher would be armed – ALL of them SHOULD BE! They used to be and these problems didn’t exist. Oh yea right, that was out in the old WEST before the liberals invaded and tried to ensure their touchy feely cowardess was spread around.

        • JACK3889

          Absolutely. Akin to one soldier on the battlefield being the only one armed. Take him or her out then all others would be helpless. All in any school should be sufficiently trained in gun safety, using cover available, and accuracy. One to the upper body, one to the head. Gunfight is over!

        • leadfoot320

          THAT WOULD MAKE US LIKE ISRAEL ! AND WE WOULD HAVE ALL THOSE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS LIKE THEM ! WE HEAR ABOUT ALL OF THEM DON’T WE ? ? ?

          SARCASM FONT OFF !

      • Kent2012

        most of them do spit balls…..oh sorry could not resist that one…

    • Frankie3D

      You assume too much – that that teacher be there that day. That he/she would be within the area of the gun violence. That that person would be proficient in firearms. That no one would be shot before that person could respond. That there would be no collateral damage. The same to you, Al. And remember – “A well regulated Militia…” (as they existed back then).
      You know, I have the feeling that all the pro-gun organizations and all gun lovers keep coming up with these things, in hopes that those objecting to the NRA version of the 2nd Amendment will go away forever.

      • Tricia Harris

        It certainly is OUR HOPES that those who object to the 2nd Amendment to OUR Constitution will GO AWAY FOREVER! If you don’t like the laws set forth in OUR Constitution, you are more than welcomed (and encouraged) to LEAVE OUR COUNTRY!

        • Al

          Thank you Tricia.

        • ConservativeConvert

          Well said Tricia, I concur.

      • Al

        It is our forefathers version not the NRAs. What other parts of the “Bill of Rights” don’t you like? Obama doesn’t like any of the constitution and we all know he doesn’t like this country of ours. I’m a lifetime member of the NRA and you anti gunners will always be around as long as you all are safe for the time being. That’s why the NRA will always be around to keep you antis at bay. Frankie do you believe the framers of the “Bill of Rights” wanted us to stay with the guns of the day with no advancement but to keep our old flintlock guns and our enemies and criminals have up to date arms?

        • ConservativeConvert

          Thank you All. It is clear from their supporting documents that the Founding Fathers intended for every citizen to own at least one military grade small arm.

          Not on Our Watch
          Molon Labe!

      • Big Ed

        Frankly Frankie “proficient in firearms” doesn’t mean a hell of a lot when you are trying to return fire on some lunatic in a school classroom or hallway full of children. I think it means returning fire without hitting a kid. As far as proficiency is concerned anyone with the guts to confront a nut with a gun is a better person than the nut without a gun so HOORAY for the NRA!

        All responsible school teachers and administrators should be armed.

      • ipsd48

        And you assume only ONE teacher on the faculty would be armed

      • b4k9zp

        What “NRA version of the second amendment” is that? The one that says that the Second amendments words: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”?

        Every citizen has the right to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the military and police (the “standing army”) of the time. That’s stated in the 1939 United States V. Miller case, the 2008 District of Columbia V. Heller case, and the 2010 McDonald V. Chicago case decided by the Supreme Court of the USA.

        That’s what the founding fathers wrote, and what they intended. That every man should be armed. That anyone who wished could have a gun and carry it with him or her at all times, where ever they wanted to go. The “well regulated militia” phrase meant that there would be a large body of individual citizens, each bearing their own weapons and ammunition, which they knew how to use because they practiced constantly with them, and were able to “bring home meat for the table” with regularity, so that they could form, at need, a body of people who knew how to shoot, who could fight for the defense of their country and also for the defense of their rights against a tyrannical government. That was why the first shots of the American Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775–the british redcoats were ordered by the Royal Governor to confiscate the privately owned cannons, rifles and muskets that were stored, along with ammunition for them, in private homes in those towns.

    • b4k9zp

      It would be better if many more than one teacher, school administrator, custodian or whatever were armed. T

      As it was, on that day in 1999, there was ONE armed guard provided for the entire school campus. He was on his authorized lunch break when the two Columbine killers came into the school building with their legal weapons and illegal pipe bombs (that did not work, thank God) and began shooting. There’s plenty of evidence that shows that the two killers waited until the one armed guard had left the school campus before they began their rampage.

  • David Seale

    It would be a big step in the right direction if this bill were passed NATIONWIDE!!!!

    • conservative since 1962

      Lobby for it in your own state of residence!

      • JimH

        Illinois? It would have to get through Madigan-istan.
        Dream on.

        • conservative since 1962

          I don’t reside in Illinois!
          Just needs more of the people to do it there than here in a more reasonable state. Don’t give up!

          • Mark Parham

            shut up Conservative since 1962

          • conservative since 1962

            Why?

          • jdelcjr

            Because they are scared. The libs attacks on our 2nd amendment rights are being counter attacked by new pro 2nd amendment legislation in many States. They are trying to stay as vigilant as we are. The more they have to spend their time and money fighting pro 2nd amendment rights the less time and money they have trying to pass their own agenda. Don’t be silenced and don’t give them a rest. We have the Constitution on our side.

          • conservative since 1962

            As an answer to my reply of “Why?” to Mark Parham’s post of “shut up Conservative since 1962” seems to be out of context.
            You seem to be saying much that is similar to my position so I presume you do not want me to “shut up”.

          • jdelcjr

            No. I was surmising my opinion to you as to why he would have wanted you to “shut up”. It didn’t make much sense to make a reply to him since its seems he has no argument except “shut up”.

          • conservative since 1962

            Thanks;
            You and “icemancold” have made me realize that I had erred on the side of brevity!
            I should have replied to “Mark Parham” as follows “Why should I “shut up”?

          • icemancold

            Because Mark Parham is an OBAMA loving GUN CONTROL NUTCASE DEMOCRAT That is why he said what he said to you.!!

          • conservative since 1962

            See my reply to “jdelcjr”.

          • The Fox

            Get a brain and get your head out of where the sun don’t shine and smells like the dictator Obozo’s butt, you left wing idiot.

          • b4k9zp

            Why should he shut up, parham? Because you hate hearing the truth! Just as you hate the USA and freedom?

        • The Fox

          More gun laws then most state and I higher crime rate then most states and it criminals killing unarmed people but the Nazi state never learned real history and elects brown shirt idiots to govern them and it shows each day. The two cops in Ferguson didn’t get shot by a gun laying on the side walk, a lawless nut job racist did that but, the left just can’t bring themselves to get a real brain and do real justice, Brown got real justice, he was a thug, robbed a store and attacked a cop for telling you to get out of the street and you might just die a thug and Brown did because his lazy parents raised him that way, so they are as much at fault as any for this thugs death, and they showed they were thugs during the riots and need to be in jail or suffer the fate of their thug son.

          • TexasProud

            I totally agee with your comment. An after reading the messages that Browns family made about the cops being shot,sheds light on what kind of people they really are. And they have the guts to say their son was something other than what he really was. The parents laid out their childs destiny,he was a victim alright…….a victim of parents that have no value,no heart….,he was their creation….not a pretty site. They must have been proud to know,their life decisions created what eventualy caused the demise of their child. That mom and dad are animals….thats it pure in simple. Their son was doomed since his birth.

          • The Fox

            I’m glad to see someone out there that has a brain and not brain washed. I have been to Texas many times and always enjoyed my stay and might end up moving their someday as they know truth from fiction. You have a good life and enjoy the week end and protect you and your family everyday of every hour, God Bless the wise and judge the wicked as we know He will. God Bless and Shalom TexasProud:

    • jlcham

      Amen brother.

    • Al

      You are nutz David Seale.

      • Frankie3D

        Here! Here!!

        • Kent2012

          should have written ho ho….

        • b4k9zp

          can’t even get that right, can you frankie?

        • David Kledzik

          Papers please, comrade!

      • Kent2012

        wriiten like a true 2nd amendment hating coward…

        • Al

          Sorry. I mis read the post.

      • icemancold

        DAVID SEALE is one of the more sane people on here! He is thinking about the SAFETY of our children and not the agenda of a bunch of anti gun PANZY DEMOCRAT COWARDS.!!

        • Al

          Sorry. I AM a gun nut. I made a mistake. NRA life member here.

          • David Seale

            Accepted Al !

      • Al

        Wait. My mistake. Wrong guy. Sorry David Seale.

    • Frankie3D

      Are you insane? You must be if you believe guns should be allowed in schools.

      • VT Patriot

        Oh franky baby, the only problem seems to be that the bad guys can’t read the “Gun Free Zone” signs. Perhaps if they made the letters larger it would help.

        • Alan

          No, they can’t read.

          • Jarhead

            Or are off their meds?

        • Kent2012

          would not change that bad guys will go where they can armed with what they can carry or clean out the diapers of the cowards that hate the 2nd amendment, America, and freedom….

        • The Fox

          They can read and know it is a safe place for them to open a shoot gallery on innocent unarmed citizens, that is the problem.

      • Al

        LOL Baddies are going to obey that rule? You are naïve and insane.

        • The Fox

          So your answer is to let those who don’t obey the law have their guns but don’t let innocent people defend themselves and others, that don’t make sense at all as the lawless don’t fear ink on paper.

          • Al

            Uh I’m on your side? I’m pro gun?

          • Al

            Hello? I’m a NRA member.

          • The Fox

            Thank you and all freedom loving Americans should be as we are, God Bless and Shalom and I am also along with RMGO.

          • Drawer22

            @The Fox – You may wish to apologize to Al for having misconstrued what he clearly stated and then publicly taken him to task. Let’s not fight each other when we’re on the same side!

            De Oppresso Liber

          • The Fox

            Apologize for what, didn’t get on his case if you read my answer, we both belong to the same groups and even Blessed him and wished him peace, so what fight are you talking about? God Bless and Shalom: PS, if your talking about my first answer that was taken care of.

          • Drawer22

            @The Fox – I believe you’ll do or have done that which you think or rationalize to be the right course of action.

            De Oppresso Liber

      • susan shelby

        You apparently have not read any history of Hitler’s regime in Germany—you know, like the holocaust? WWII? the SS? citizens’ gun confiscation? Or maybe you need to look at the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Those nasty ole guns do not kill people—–PEOPLE kill people. People protect themselves with guns from maniac gun carrying criminals.

        • dtk1952

          It appears that dear Frankie is a stupid liberal, so there is no hope educating him. Liberals will only be happy when we are totally at the mercy of criminals.

          • Jarhead

            Or the Freaky Frank is a paid troll?

          • The Fox

            Semper Fi, Corps 61-75, God Bless and Shalom Marine OOH RAH!!!

      • The Fox

        Wow many children would be alive today if just one person was armed in the Conn. school? Your the nut job and insane for you not trusting honest citizens to be armed to protect themselves and those around them, you would have voted for Hitler because he disarmed the people before becoming a dictator, oh, that’s right the left never learned real history just revised history, so we can see where you nut jobs are coming from on the left.

      • dtk1952

        Son, when I was in school every pickup had a gun rack with at least 1 gun in it. I won my first rifle as a freshman in high school, carried it home on the school bus. Stuff was allowed like that, but, unfortunately, damned liberals took over and everything went to 7734. I for one believe that teachers and other cadre at the school should have firearms.

        • LastGasp

          Ahhh,,,the good old days. We had a skeet club in high school and it wasn’t frowned on if you were late for morning classes because you had a deer or game birds to clean up. Having a long gun in your locker for hunting after school was common place. There are still lots of pickups with gun racks and long guns in the window here in Idaho.

          • dtk1952

            Most places don’t have them because there has been lost a sense of trust. If you display a gun in a gun rack in your vehicle someone is going to try and steal it. That’s the pity of the times we live in.

      • b4k9zp

        Why shouldn’t they be? If law abiding teachers and school administrators are carrying, they would have a chance to stop would be murderers like the Columbine killers in 1999, or others who attacked similarly disarmed individuals in “gun free zones” nationwide. Banning the carrying of firearms is not going to stop someone who has made up his mind to murder as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, but will only encourage such murderers, for they will know that they are unlikely to have to face any armed opponent and they would rather murder defenseless sheep than face an armed guard dog.

        Federal and state laws have made “Free fire zones” out of our nation’s schools, colleges and universities since at least 1990, and the results are in–criminals prefer to make attacks on disarmed victims in such areas. They don’t go to gun stores, or gun ranges, or police buildings (generally) to make their murderous attacks. They go where they know that they won’t be faced by someone else with a gun–it’s safer for them that way.

      • ConservativeConvert

        A gun in every teacher’s desk would GUARANTEE that not more than one or two kids died before the shooter did.

        • David Kledzik

          Maybe zero children die instead of just one or two. Zero is acceptable

      • b4k9zp

        Why shouldn’t guns be allowed in schools? Many schools had marksmanship programs until about the 1970s when liberals took real education out of the schools.

        And funny thing, there were very few shootings in schools in those days. That’s because criminals knew that they were likely to face an armed opponent in the school building or nearby if they tried anything. The gun free school zone laws created by idiotic anti-gun liberals only encouraged school shootings.

      • LastGasp

        Yeah, you and the bad guys don’t want guns in schools,,,,,what does that tell you?

    • Gregg the voice of reason

      I agree with David.
      Good people should have the right to carry concealed.
      This would stop many bad people from committing crimes and Murder.
      Teach them how to use their weapon in a safe manner.

      • The Fox

        When it pasted in Florida the criminal started attacking tourist as they knew they weren’t armed and even then the crime rate went down. A armed society is a polite society or as John Adams said “A armed man is a citizen, a unarmed man is a slave”, well spoken John Adams and a Semper Fi to your memory.

      • cdreeder

        How about abolishing all these stupid little “No gun zone” signs! That is worst sign ever!

  • abag

    This is a common sense bill, and should be passed Nation Wide. We have threats everywhere we go! Schools are targets and will always be targets as long as Bad people feel safe from threats, the whack jobs feel some twisted gratification, and the Press just helps them out. So people feel guns should not be in schools and I think the parents are more afraid than the kids would be. But done right kids or parents would never know that is why it is called concealed carry. I am sure the kids are not afraid to go spend the day at a shopping mall! having armed citizens walking around all day long and never knowing it. As a tax payer I provide funding for the schools and therefore I should be able to walk in that school and not have to check my 2nd amendment at the door.

    • JimRed

      To the left, common sense only consists of disarming the law-abiding public.

      • Al

        Yeh Jim. They are the bright ones. LOL

      • usncb

        Common sense to the left is, “Do as I say, not what I do”.

      • JACK3889

        The left lacks all common sense. Too ignorant to know they are the first eliminated once a tyrannical government no longer needs them. They are a blight on government doffers being as useless as they are.

  • Ralph Long

    Good God finally some politician learned how to read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution governing
    the right of “We the People” to keep and bear arms!….Good Deal Folks now maybe a few real thugs,rapists,Muslim Terrorists will think twice before attacking Loyal Americans!

  • wmagg

    YES the DEMS will oppose this bill, They do NOT care about YOUR children. They only care about the Overblown lies and rhetoric they can create when such a tragedy occurs
    They, the Dems, have No intention of protecting the children because they are afraid those children will grow up and oppose Democratic rule and the abuse of power the dems have become known for. If you doubt the truth of that statement just look at the educational curriculum they are pushing for.

    • JimH

      But think of all those indoctrinated minds that would not live to vote Dem.
      What a dilemma.

  • snowyriver

    about time someone realized “gun free” means open territory to criminals.

  • Gary Grimm

    we are long overdue for a national Right to Carry Law that would guarantee every law abiding citizen the right to conceal carry in each and every state of these United States. Reasonable location specific restrictions would apply.

    • peanut butter

      We actually have one. It’s called the second amendment. It was passed over 200 years ago.

      • Gary Grimm

        I appreciate that. But, you and I know that absent a strong and clearly written Federal statute, state and local police are still able to drop government intervention on the heads of honest citizens when they cross state boundaries… with arrest, jail, fines and imprisonment now being the reality. Ugly, reprehensible, but true.

        • leadfoot320

          I’VE HEARD THAT A NATIONAL RECIPROCITY LAW WAS IN CONGRESS WITH A GOOD CHANCE OF PASSING ! I SURE HOPE SO !
          IN OREGON I CARRY CONCEALED, WHEN I PASS IN TO CALIF, I HAVE TO UNLOAD AND LOCK MY GUN IN THE TRUNK. WHEN I GO IN TO NEVADA I CAN NOW OPEN CARRY (NOT CONCEALED) ALL THIS JUST FOR A TRIP TO RENO !

    • Tricia Harris

      We already have that – it’s the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution! It was passed a couple hundred years ago. It’s those darned Liberals, cowardly Democrats, and Progressive who want to do away with it. It’s their influence (not to forget buying off Democrats in the House and Senate of each state) that has led people to believe we don’t have this right any more. WE DO HAVE IT, and it’s a guarantee! Don’t listen to the looney minds of Liberals – they are all screwed up.

  • whap888

    The Second Amendment in our Constitution means that unless
    someone’s rights have been diminished through the due process of law, then
    that person has the right to keep (own or possess) and bear (carry with,
    transport, both inside and outside the home, openly or concealed, loaded or not,
    cased or no, holstered or tucked into a waistband or pocket, et cetera) arms
    (anything created as or possibly construed as a weapon — anything). That is,
    after all, what it says.

  • peanut butter

    I thought this was going to be a bill AGAINST guns. Glad to see things are turning around, even if the dems won’t pass it.

    • snowyriver

      This bill will make it to the usurpers desk and die there.

      • conservative since 1962

        True, if it was a federal bill! In this case it is a bill in the Colorado State Legislature!

        • snowyriver

          thank you for the correction.

  • CaptTurbo

    Neville knows what he’s talking about!

  • Quintin G. Williams

    I agree that certain teachers should be allowed to be armed if they choose to and are trained in the use of firearms. In my experience both as a police officer and a classroom teacher, I ‘ve personally know of teachers who were armed in spite of Federal Laws prohibiting that and know of a few cases where even students came armed to school. Fortunately, with the devices in place to prevent such cases most were caught and students dealt with in accordance to the regulations in place. This survivor certainly knows firsthand what can and has happened prior to the current threats from the likes of immigrant terrorists who could and might carry on with such attacks on the innocent children. The argument of guns kill people is a falsehood that we all know so well. People pull the trigger and fire at will when they have a sick and perverted mindset on hurting others. Trained people know the consequences of the use of a firearm, be it a gun or a rifle and usually conform to the laws in place. Lets hope that the passing of these type of bills / laws don’t turn around to bite us in the end. God Bless America !!!!

    • olf

      No amount of bite could out weigh the lawless of the criminals and politicians that do not have the well being of human life in mind. They are selfish as they keep armed guards for themselves, but refuse protection for the law abiding. God will have the finial say.

  • Al

    The anti are strongly opposed to the carry bill. Like the crazies are going to obey the “no gun zone” law.

  • usncb

    LOOK< as long as we have the damorats and those who fear firearms for whatever reason we will have to defend our right to the 2nd amend. BUT, when the SHTF who are these anti-gun jerks going to seek out?.when the SHTF the people will love a red neck in hopes that they will defend them. They will realize that the guy down the street that has guns and ammo + a food supply wasn't so crazy after all. Good luck Mr. Neville…………combat vet V.N.

  • James Harris

    ALL teachers should be required to take small arms training and pass proficiency tests and carry in school NO COMPLY-NO JOB!!!!

    • usncb

      PLUS a refresher course and requalification every 3 to 4 months with practice sessions in between.

  • CyclingFoodmanPA

    Read the book “Terror at Beslan”. After you read it, know that a number of the Chechan rebels who orchestrated the attack got away. These “escapees” are the project leaders for the next large scale attack on a school. Any doubts, check out Lt. Col. (R) Dave Grossman’s site and read EVERYTHING he writes. It is NOT a matter of IF it will happen, it is a matter of WHEN it will happen. And when it does, may there be numerous armed teachers in that school. No, they may not survive, but, it will provide more time for 1st Responders to get there. I would gladly lay down my life for my child or her friends.
    Also – “gun free zone” = “target rich environment”.

  • DERRELLCRAWFORD

    If ever there was a time to Carrie guns it is now ,as the need to do so has reached a critical time .Classes in school should also be taught in grades starting in the 7th or 8th grade at the acceptance of the parents and credit for talking the class should be recognized .Respect for weapons and defense of recognized weapons are at a critical period in the world. Never in the last 200 years has there been a more required need to protect our family’s and country. The police force is being over whelmed and unappreciated ,their thoughts and feed back should be taken into serious consideration. If the children become more respectful of weapons and knowledgeable .this in itself becomes a deterrent to there use

  • Nikita63

    The law being proposed is prudent, does not criminalize law abiding citizens whose armed presence in the schools would limit any terrorist damage in the schools we KNOW at some point will be targeted by ISIS operatives and other RADICALS. The legislation is Common Sense and appropriate but because it is: it will NEVER be allowed to, pass. What does that tell you ,about the REAL aims of the Government we have in place? THINK and you may even see the TRUTH! Our Foreign Policy is a joke, . Our military has had it’s capacity to defend us impaired and their voting rights denied. our rights are under attack and our enemies are licking their chops at the insanity of the policies in place WHICH DIVIDSE, NOT UNITE US AND IT APPEARS ALL THIS IS DONE BY DELIBERATE DESIGN. I do not think this can pass in Colorado so any hope as evinced here by some that the application might be eventually national in scope are unlikely because it is the RIGHT thing to do and that is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THOSE CURRENTLY IN POWER. PERIOD.

    • usncb

      Those in power means, I assume, is the whole gov.’t. They are all NUTS save for a very few

      • Nikita63

        Too bad they do not have to go sanity evaluations prior to running for office! It ought to be mandatory and we have the right to insure that those who govern are at least moderately and intellectually CAPABLE of doing so which is at great question these days; especially when one looks at the Government CREATED scandals and the accompanying obfuscation of the cover-ups and constitutional violations they involve!

  • JimH

    The man speaks from experience. To bad the elites won’t listen.

  • Obie Miller

    Gun-free zones only restrict law abiding people from having guns. To the criminals, of course, this tells them that they will not find themselves opposed by anyone with a gun.

  • David Seale

    Unfortunately I live in one of those Blue-Blue states. Full of sheep like Al.

  • Charlie

    Patrick Neville you have proven that common sense is not totally dead within the group that has become public political servants !!! Congratulations !!

  • johnwlooper

    An excellent idea!

  • Tom Murray

    Finally some sense!!

  • Aaron Freeman

    An armed society, is a polite society.

  • AP Besser, Jr.

    Hmmm…it’s worked great for the Israeli’s in their schools; however, the “nanny state” Libs know what’s best for you don’t ya’ know? Nothing like the “neon” sign gun free which translates as unprotected.

  • mary ann oyanib

    I agree and we should have a sign saying:” This school is not a gun free zone”.

    • leadfoot320

      I SAW A SIGN LIKE THAT AT A TEXAS BANK ! AND THEY MEANT IT !

  • Midnite Rider

    NOW THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.Some one with some common sense.

  • 4b4mac

    There will always be the whimpering – but more than anything the resistance to possession of firearms in schools (by dedicated responsible owners) is twofold: Marxist administrators and “teachers” – and litigation paranoia. What was it Shakespeare said? Something along the lines of “First we kill all the lawyers”. Case in point, the so-called Constitutional “lawyer” ensconced in our White House. How about that for a contradiction in terms!

  • Frankie3D

    This is about as crazy a proposal to come along in the long time: to allow concealed guns into schools. Allowing concealed guns to be carried in schools is asking for trouble. Our Congressmen and women must stop being controlled by the NRA. We, the people, elected Representatives and Senators from the states to represent us in Congress. We did not elect the NRA to represent us in Congress. If that is the case, I’m afraid that there is not much hope for the United States. It is time that we, the people, insists that all guns are illegal. PERIOD!!! This whole thing is embarrassing to the whole world. I’m sure that there are those who say, “SO WHAT’|”. As much as you wish to deny it, we are a member of the world community. Our country’s status has really suffered in the last few years. We were once the strongest world power. Now, it may be China. Countries like India are growing in a positive fashion on the world stage. And we do stupid things like proposing that concealed weapons be allowed in schools. We are already a big embarrassment on the world stage because of our insane gun laws. We are a big player in the illegal gun trade. Look at the availability of guns here in the U.S. Gun manufacturers probably manufacture thousands of guns per week. This too is insane. Remember the first few words of the 2nd Amendment – “A well regulated Militia…”. Militias as they existed back then.

    • Galveston1

      Frankie, you just cannot connect the dots, can you?

      • b4k9zp

        Like all hoplophobes, he thinks that guns are big scary monsters that commit crimes all by themselves.

    • Galveston1

      And PS Frankie,
      You are absolutely correct in that our country’s status has really suffered in the last few years.
      We have never before had a president that traveled around the world apologizing for our country, or whose insane/incompetent foreign policy has diminished our standing world wide.
      Our allies no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.
      Thank Obama for that!

    • Gary Grimm

      yes, this is a well armed country Frankie3D. and look at the lengths folks from around the globe go to get in.

    • Dynamicdave

      So, when did somebody stamp “stupid” on your forehead? It is liberal idiots like yourself, thinking that “nobody should own guns,” which is the reason why this country will fall. God, you sicken me. I am willing to bet that if you were at a school, picking up one of your kids and somebody went off with a gun, shooting at random and a person was there with a concealed weapon to protect you, killing the armed madmen, you would then be praising the “concealed carry person,” wouldn’t you? If you say “no,” that makes you a liar and if you say “yes,” that makes you a hypocrite. Choose one. Friggin’ Liberals. You are destroying our country.

    • leadfoot320

      we have the most guns per capita in the world. Yet we are 111th in # of murders per capita ! IF YOU LEAVE OUT THE CITIES WITH THE STRICTEST GUN CONTROL WE ARE AT 200 AND SOMETHING ! The top 110 countries have very strict GUN CONTROL (LIKE YOU CAN’T HAVE ANY)
      In Plano, Texas everyone has a gun, THEIR MURDER RATE IS LOWER THAN AL BUT 2 COUNTRIES !

      IN COUNTIES THAT HAVE OUTLAWED GUNS, OVER 80,000,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MURDERED BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT ! (COULDN’T HAPPEN HERE . RIGHT ?) BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT PROTECT THEMSELVES ! WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY DO WE. OR DO WE? ? ?

    • the kev

      Stup. We, the people of America, are the largest armed force in the world. No country would invade us. They would have no chance.
      The SECOND AMENDMENT is homeland security. Stup.

    • b4k9zp

      Nothing you state has any validity whatever, Frankie. The NRA’s “interpretation” of the second amendment is that of the founding fathers, who had just fought a revolution that started because the british government tried to confiscate the privately owned cannons, rifles and muskets that were stored in private homes in Lexington and Concord Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. Many if not most of the Congressmen and senators who vote against the idiotic and unconstitutional laws that restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms do so because they agree with the NRA’s position on the second amendment–that it protects the right of the individual to own and carry those weapons that are in common use by the “standing army” (police and military) of the time. IOW, despite your lies, they abide by their oath of office to support the Constitution (which includes the 2nd amendment) as the supreme law of the land.

      What is crazy is passing “Gun Free School Zone” laws that prohibit only law abiding citizens from having their own weapons with them at all times, where ever they wish to go, so that if worst comes to worst, they have the means with which they can defend themselves against the criminal actions of other people, and ultimately, against the tyrannical actions of a government gone out of control. Just Google “The Battle of Athens (1946), aka “The McMinn County War (1946)” for a description of at least one time when armed citizens had to fight against a corrupt local government.

      All guns are legal, and there’s nothing you or any hoplophobe like yourself can do about it. For it is not the firearm that commits any crime, any more than it’s the baseball bat, kitchen knife, chainsaw, pillowcase, poison gas, or any other tool a person uses to kill or threaten to kill others that commits the crime, but the criminal human being who uses such weapons.

      The words “a well regulated militia” have nothing to do with our current status, for an individuals membership in any organized militia has never been a requirement for the right of the individual to possess and carry “arms” to exist. and that right exists whether or not the second amendment or the constitution exists.

      • Frankie3D

        You are really blind to the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment. If the Founding Father, who wrote it wanted to included everybody (other than members of Militias) would have worded the 2nd Amendment differently. Do you think he was kidding when he wrote, “A well regulated Militia…”. The NRA doesn’t want people like you to pay any attention to those words. And the Congressmen who vote for any anti-gun legislation are in the pocket of the NRA. You should remember that things as far as guns go have gotten way out of hand. I don’t presume to know their minds or understand the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but if they could have seen the insanity of what the NRA and all gun lovers felt, they would have written the 2nd Amendment entirely differently. Read and UNDERSTAND the 2nd Amendment again, paying real close attention to from “A well regulated Militia…” to the end of the sentence ending with “…free State…” And stop paying any attention to the NRA. They lie and have been doing so for years.

        • b4k9zp

          First of all as to your blatant lie about the National Rifle Association. Unlike you, they have never lied. Second there is a whole host of evidence that proves that the objective of the 2nd amendment was that “every man be armed.” There is no evidence at all that the authors of the second amendment intended it to be anything BUT a protection of a pre-existing, absolutely unalienable birthright and civil right. George Mason IV, who is considered to be the “father of the Second Amendment, since he is arguably the person who proposed it in its present form, defined the “militia” as “the whole body of the people, with the exception of a few elected officials”, and further stated that the best way to enslave the people was to disarm them.

          The “well regulated militia” clause is merely a statement of a single reason why the right of the individual to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the “standing army” of the time, if better weapons are not available to them. That reason is that the any militia cannot exist unless there is a large body of citizens capable of bearing arms, who, because they have those weapons in their possession at all times, and practice with them constantly, have learned to be good enough marksmen that they don’t need to be taught how to shoot when they are called up, at a moment’s notice, to serve in the militia.

          Many of the federal and state legislators who vote to support the 2nd amendment are in fact members of the NRA, because they agree with the NRA’s logical and rational stance on the 2nd amendment, which is what everyone who wrote and talked about when the 2nd amendment was considered and proposed as an amendment in the First Congress, and in all the state legislatures of the time when the amendment was being ratified. They are not in the pocket of the NRA.

          The only thing that has gotten “way out of hand” are the liars like you who claim that only members of an organized militia have the right to bear arms. For such is a blatant lie.

          James Madison, in the debates in Congress over the bill that became the bill of rights, stated in a speech in Congress on June 8, 1789, as recorded in I Annals of Congress 434: “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …” That indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists independently of the existence of any well regulated militia, in Madison’s mind, and in the minds of every one who voted to ratify what became the 2nd amendment.

          As Stephen P.Halbrook stated in his book “That Every Man Be Armed” (1984): “In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and
          the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.”

          Professor Leonard W. Levy, author of “The Origins of the Bill of Rights” (1999, paperback edition), stated in Chapter 6, on pages 134-135 of that 1999 paperback edition: “Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. The military connotation of bearing arms does not necessarily determine the meaning of a right to bear arms. If all it meant was the right to be a soldier or serve in the military, whether in the militia or the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights…The very language of the amendment is evidence that the right is a personal one, for it is not subordinated to the militia clause. Rather the right is an independent one, altogether separate from the maintenance of a militia. Militias were possible only because the people were armed and possessed the right to be armed. The right does not depend on whether militias exist.”

          Tench Coxe, a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, wrote in a letter to “The Pennsylvania Gazette”, that was published in the Feb. 20, 1788 edition: “”…Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of all Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in
          the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.”

          Judge Thomas M. Cooley, author of “General Principles of Constitutional Law Third Edition ” (1898) stated: “The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but
          this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning
          to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”

          Saint George Tucker (Called by many “the Blackstone of America”, who wrote “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings” (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1999) (1803), and “Blackstone’s Commentaries: with notes of reference to the constitution and laws, of the federal government of the United States, and of the Commonwealth of Virginia : with an appendix to each volume, containing short tracts upon such subjects as appeared
          necessary to form a connected view of the laws of Virginia as a member of the federal union, 5 vols.” (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803): ”The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any
          prohibition of arms to the people.”

          William Rawle, (1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington.) “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

          Despite your lies, the NRA accepts the whole of the 2nd amendment as a flat and complete prohibition of any laws (local, state or federal) that limit or infringe on the individual citizens unalienable birth right and civil right to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the military and police of the day, or better ones if they are available. You are the one who is blind to both the history and the meaning of the second amendment.

        • b4k9zp

          You state: “Read and UNDERSTAND the 2nd Amendment again, paying real close attention
          to from “A well regulated Militia…” to the end of the sentence ending
          with “…free State…”” MMm. What “sentence ending with “…free state…”?

          For the entire text of the 2nd amendment says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The sentence ends with “…shall not be infringed.” and that clearly refers only to the subject of the sentence, which is “the right …”

          The “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” clause is not a complete sentence, for it has no verb and no object. It is merely a prefatory clause, stating ONE and only ONE reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is that the existence of a body of citizens, EACH ARMED WITH THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED WEAPONS, with which, because they used them all the time, they were completely familiar, and could be relied upon to hit any target of their choosing with some regularity without further training was necessary for the security of a state against foreign invasion (or invasion by hostile Indians) because that body of citizens could be called upon at a moment’s notice to use their weapons for the defense of the community and there would not be time to train them to shoot. The “well regulated miltia” is not a requirement for the right of the people to keep and bear arms to exist. But a body of citizens each of whom owns his own weapons, and is familiar with their usage, is absolutely necessary for any militia which has any hope of being effective in a battle to exist.

  • olf

    Here is a man who has obtained wisdom. He is completely correct. I plead with everyone to speak out in wisdom. The higher educated rulers see us as stupid. But they are the ones who have been teaching low level intellect for years. We know they are lying to sway the fearful and ignorant to complete destruction of a great and powerful country ordained by God’s laws. They don’t like God or answering to his higher authority. This is second nation taught in true civilized rule of law. They don’t like laws, it gets in their way of the evil they live by. Israel was the first nation setting up civil society based on the human experience. Salvation is through the Jewish people, God’s chosen to change and civilize the world. We can to this, don’t let their lying intimidation stop you. You know when they lie, “Their lips move.”

  • Rx7pj

    This is the STUPIDEST idea I’ve ever heard.

    • Dynamicdave

      So was your response. Liberal moron. If a criminal wishes to sneek a gun in, he will hide/conceal it. If a law abiding citizen is carrying concealed, saves your child from a crazed gunman, you would be changing your tune, FAST. To say you wouldn’t be grateful would make you a liar. To say you would be grateful, makes you a hypocrite. Choose your poison.

      • Rx7pj

        The kid that walked into Sandy Hook WAS a law abiding citizen until he pulled the trigger.Moron

        • Tids1960

          Shady Hook Huh ?

          Didn’t Lanza have some kind of diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome ? And how did Pozner die twice ?

          “A large-scale attack on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, last month left 132 school children and 10 teachers dead.
          Among the alleged victims emerged the familiar face of Noah Pozner, one of the children supposedly killed in the December 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.”

          • b4k9zp

            Generally, Asperger’s has never been considered to be any kind of a violent type mental illness. People likely to have had Asperger’s have included Dr. Marie Curie, Dr. Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Amadeus Theophilus Mozart, Sir Isaac Newton, and many other people considered to be geniuses in their fields. They had the ability (partly fostered by their Asperger’s Syndrome) to focus on a single problem to the exclusion of all else, which made them appear to be “stand-offish” or “socially inept”.

            Not surprising that one of the “Children killed at Sandy Hook” could have appeared among the dead in a school killing on the other side of the world. For the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for the state of Connecticut for 2012 showed that the Connecticut state police and local authorities in both Newtown and Sandy Hook, Connecticut reported ZERO murders had occurred in those communities in 2012, despite the lies of the news media.

            Photographs of the children allegedly killed at Sandy Hook appeared shortly after their “deaths” were announced on national TV, and many of those “dead” children were seen in the group that posed behind the fraudulent president when he made his speech demanding stricter gun control laws a few days later.

            It is well known that FEMA had scheduled a shooting scenario at the Sandy Hook HIgh School that day which followed the script of the alleged shooting almost exactly, and it is also well known that the county sheriff of that county is virulently anti-gun.

        • Dynamicdave

          No, MORON! He was NOT a law abiding citizen. He was a 20 year old kid with a history of mental illness. He was NOT authorized to own a gun. He stole his mother’s 9mm pistol, shot her in the head and then went on a rampage. Do your homework before you speak. Liberal jerk. De oppresso liber.

          • Rx7pj

            Listen you ignorant moron he was law abiding. There was no oder against him for mental illness which would keep him from owning a gun. ALL criminals were law abiding until they first used a gun in a crime. Time for you to wake up and do your OWN homework before opening your ignorant mouth AGAIN, JERK.

          • Dynamicdave

            As I said, I wait for the day somebody is threatening you or your family at gun point, or even knife point. If I were to walk by, knowing your views, I would leave you to your own devices. See you “talk” your way out of that one. Face it, man, NOBODY on this site is agreeing with your idiotic, tough talk, yet hypocritical viewpoint. You want your cake AND to eat it too. You are a confused, unrealistic Liberal who has never faced violence/evil in it’s truest sense. I have. I served, fought and bled so jerks like you can have your stupid rights. But I will be damned if pacifist Liberal fools will take away my 2nd Amendment rights. De oppresso liber.

          • Rx7pj

            Only idiots agree with YOU

          • b4k9zp

            Your name calling only proves that you know that nothing has any validity whatever. For while he technically had “obeyed the law” and had never been arrested for any crime, he had made up his mind to violate and break the laws against murder of a human being, which means he was not a law abiding citizen by any stretch of the imagination. He was a murderer who wanted only a gun free zone where he could kill to his heart’s content. So people like you are his accomplices in those alleged murders, because you enabled him to kill without having to fear confrontation with another armed individual who would have stopped him.

            No criminal who breaks the law is a “law abiding citizen” by definition, because they make up their minds to kill, rob, rape, or assault other persons, in spite of the laws prohibiting such actions.

        • coolman11

          and it could have been an actual law abiding citizen that stopped him you think it’s a bad idea but this is what it’s come to, you have kids on psychotropic drugs that play shootem up games all day, it’s not only a gun free zone but a God free zone also

        • b4k9zp

          First, calling others “moron” always proves that nothing you state has any validity whatever, for you show that you have no factual evidence whatever and certainly no thinking ability or reasoning ability. The guy who allegedly shot the people at Sandy Hook was definitely NOT a “law abiding citizen”, for he considered murdering people and did so. That’s obvious. He was both determined and inclined to kill other people, which “law abiding citizens” don’t even consider. Doesn’t matter if he had never actually broken any laws, (which technically would make him a law abiding citizen) but that he had made up his mind to kill others in violation of the laws against murder.

    • b4k9zp

      Typical of your preference for calling names, proving as always that you have nothing on which you can base any argument, and therefore you lose every argument in which you participate.

  • bigbillofwyandotte

    Here in Michigan, the good news is, we are able to get a CPL with little problem, provided you pass the requirements and are a law-abiding citizen. The bad news is, they restrict the heck out of those who have a CPL. We are treated like we are potential criminals or crazy people. I can’t even visit a friend in a hospital without leaving my pistol in my truck. Most attacks on people are when they are going to or from their vehicle, and the crooks know that. Also, what if I comply and my vehicle is stolen? Another firearm has just gone into the hands of the bad guys. We had a special class for a while that if taken, we could carry in more places, but suddenly, restrictions were put back in place for most of those places that course was supposed to allow us to carry in, so it pretty much died. I, for one am going to be pushing for changes in those rules, but I feel like I’m spitting into the wind.

    • olf

      Don’t give in, we are tougher and smarter than the left. Their goal is not righteousness, but anarchy and chaos. Those kind are so intoxicated with evil they have no sane thoughts any more. Good will over come evil. God can only bless truth.

  • Jim Falisi

    Outstanding BILL! Should introduced and passed in all 50 states!!!

  • Think about this for a moment. Conservatives, please help the liberals. In each school or theater shooting the only thing that stopped a “bad guy with a gun” is when a “good guy with a gun” showed up.

  • icemancold

    I agree 100% with David Seale on allowing any one with a CPL to carry in our SCHOOLS the GUN FREE SAFE ZONE SIGN just invites some one to go to a SCHOOL to kill a LARGE NUMBER because they know they are safe to do so in the SCHOOL.Allowing Concealed weapons in SCHOOLS will help prevent this because the shooter does not know who if any one is armed they all may be armed.!!

  • ipsd48

    Only thing that bothers me is why the push for CONCEALED weapons permits? Why should HONEST people have to conceal their weapons?

    • Dynamicdave

      Possibly because a lunatic might target the one carrying the gun openly, 1st. If the bad guy doesn’t know which adult is carrying, he might not be as prepared to return fire.

  • The Fox

    A wise man who knows guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I sleep with my 9mm next to my head in bed and it has never got up while I’m sleeping and shooting me, never walked down the hall killing my neighbors so the left would say I have a stupid gun that can’t think for itself. Well they are the one’s who can’t think for themselves every dictatorship came about after the weapons were taken away from the public but, since the left doesn’t teach real history anymore it will repeat itself here in the U. S. under their mindless control of everyone on the plantation of all races and colors, they are dumber then rocks. OOPs sorry rocks for the insult.

  • Joseph C Moore USN Ret

    What number of unarmed innocents in “gun free zone” need to be slaughtered before the common sense of self defense breaks through the idiocy of making children and adults sitting targets for the crazed killers.

  • dtk1952

    Here’s a guy that has faced the bullet. And he is pro-gun unlike stupid liberals who want only the bad guys to have firearms.

  • Robert Allen

    I agree 100% Nationwide

  • LittleMoose

    We need something like this because a terrorist attack would require more then one person with a gun to oppose it. Multiple people with concealed carry permits is a good start.

  • 4570

    “The bill is expected to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, but die in the Democratic-controlled House.”

    Why am I not surprised? Because the Dem’s have PROVEN, TIME AND AGAIN, to rather have DEAD CHILDREN than lose in the court of ideology.

  • Douglas DeViney

    Can’t the issue be forced when a super majority of states pass similar bills?

  • Oingo Boingo

    Sniveling hoplophobes in government, NGOs and school administrations are also in La La Land.
    The aggressively delusional and willfully unknowing are begging for Reality to come live with them, badly.

  • MegaMouseGW

    This bill is actually common sense. If at least a Security guard had been armed in the School he may have ben able to stop the scumbags from using their HANDGUNS to kill those children. I would support this myself.

  • LYNN KELLY

    YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND LIBERALS THEY HAVE A DEATH WISH BOTH PERSONAL AND FOR THE WEST GENERALLY SO LIBERALS WILL SEE SUCH ATTACKS ON SCHOOLS AS SOCIAL JUSTICE NOT TERROR.

  • Frankie3D

    Susan, you are out to lunch. You’re comparing apples to oranges when you go back to Hitler. Your reasoning is all wrong. And do not tell me that the 2nd Amendment gives gun lovers the “right” to keep and bear arms. You should forget the NRA’s version and go by the 2nd Amendment as it was written. And the decision by the corrupt Supreme Court is all wrong. They too are probably in the pocket of the NRA. We know the Republicans (talk about dirty words) are in the pocket of the NRA.

  • Frankie3D

    To b4k9zp: You really are crazy. Even in the old west, I doubt they allowed guns in schools or churches. If guns are allowed in schools, watch out. It’s only a matter of time before things really get out of hand. VERY BAD IDEA!!!!!

  • Frankie3D

    To b4k9zp: Nope! You’re still trying to prove that the NRA is “God fearing” fearing organization. You are so wrong. My guess is that you either work for the NRA or their brain washing has really work on you. If they don’t lie, how come they want their members to ignore the first part of the Amendment. In fact, they leave it off on the quote they’ve put on the wall of the lobby in their head quarters. They will do anything or say anything to get people to agree with them. As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, I go by what it says only. I don’t change it meaning, like the NRA, and you, are doing, How you can deny all I’ve said surprises me. You must be really dumb and believe the NRA unquestioning. Don’t forget that in 1780 there were not the number of men there is today. The more men they could encourage to join a Militia, the better. They wanted all men. Therefore, all men that belonged to a Militia had to keep the guns at the ready. I learned along time ago that Militia Men, or Minute Men, even slept with their loaded guns under their beds, ready to go. So, in a way, you are right. They want all men to be armed for the security of a free state. But this is 2015. So much has changed. We no longer use Militias. Firearms today are way different than the firearms 1780 – much more deadly. They could not have known about the state of firearms in the future. In fact, firearms improved greatly as time passed. NO!! You are completely wrong in what you say and believe. And you should never go by what the Supreme Court says about the 2nd Amendment. I wonder if they read the 2nd Amendment. But, then again, the Supreme Court is corrupt and in the pocket of the Republican Party, which is In the pocket of the NRA. By the way, are you Republican?

  • jag57

    South Africa had churches sprayed with gun fire, when the ANC Marxist terrorists were in the process of taking over the country, in the early nineties, because they didn’t think there should be guns in church. ANC terrorists would burst through the door and massacre the congregation. This caused them to rethink being armed in church, which didn’t go well with the ANC that wanted to kill them.

  • cdreeder

    Why controversial? Because it makes sense. Teachers with conceal carry permits are already going to class loaded! No not drunk silly people…