Indiana State Senators on Firearm Policy

Come across a couple of pieces mentioning our State Senator’s views on guns, schools, and the Newtown Shooting:

1. Sen. Tome thinks teachers should be armed.

State Senator Jim Tomes says teachers are closest to students, the first responders to any emergency and, for those reasons, should be armed.

Arming union thugs? Should make the next State House protest more interesting. . . except, of course, the State House is about the one place where the General Assembly still seems to think guns should be prohibited.

2. Sen. Delph views the Newtown murders as a consequence of government prayer not being permitted in schools. (Individual prayer is, of course, not prohibited.)

Instead, Delph said, the “evil that occurred” in Connecticut last Friday stemmed from an abandoning of traditional family and faith values.

“When we ban prayer from school, when we become hostile as a culture to traditional faith and values,” he said, “I think that has a negative coarsening effect on the culture, and it’s really sad.”

Which, of course, explains why the less religious countries of western Europe are awash in mass murders.

Note on governance: These two senators represent 7.7% of a majority vote in the Senate.

Comments

  1. HoosierOne says

    Don’t the Senators and representatives have the right to conceal carry? maybe they should arm themselves? See if the Republican caucus becomes a shooting gallery the next time they get nutso crazy.

  2. Carlito Brigante says

    Delph, what a impressive intellect. Reading from a script to the source of two treatises on western mythology will put the rounds back in the clips.

    We had the annual Chtistmas party with my very rich far right nmlaws last night. The source of many of my legal fees and my fees genflect before them in a way to sky man coud ever do. Although prayer in school came up as possibly helping to avoie future tragedies, we did generally agree that these things will continue to happen, and (Only part) of the reason is a wide availability of guns and pscyh cases willing to use them. But ramming vehicles, bombs, other devices can casuse such killings and guns should not be singled out.

    So we reached a rough, ableit pro-gun consensus that leaves some room for kknowledgment that guns are a little more efficien fope mass killers. I would call that progress.

  3. Carlito Brigante says

    Charlotte Allen writing for the National Review argues that the shooting occured because the school was “run by women.”http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335996/newtown-answers-nro-symposium#

  4. jharp says

    Sadly our United States Senator Dan Coates is no less looney.

    And Mourdock would have been even worse. Thank God that lunatic was sent packing.

  5. Stephen F Smith says

    “Sen. Delph views the Newtown murders as a consequence of government prayer not being permitted in schools.”
    Not sure how this connects, considering that the murderer was 20 years old and had been home schooled.

    • Mary says

      Perhaps the students should have prayed him away? But, then, if he came and shot anyway perhaps they did not pray hard enough, or failed to pray with the right words? Honestly, what is the source of this wrong-headed thinking?

  6. Stuart Swenson says

    Seeing positions like this, I initially thought, “Well, these are legislators. How would I conduct an intelligent conversation with them about this?” Then sanity regained a foothold. Some folks are not exactly in that mode, and I just hope a rational person in that group would take those folks aside and quietly say, “No. We don’t talk like that here.” Of course, this is Indissippi.

  7. teutonic says

    You do realise that the quote from Sen Delph was not his complete statement but cherry picked. Can’t imagine why the put the pray line in instead of his talk about the kids background. Hmmm………

    Senator Delph released a statement clarifing what was said.

  8. Carlito Brigante says

    The success of prayer in war and large-scale disasters is really easy to quantify. Often on disaster or war documentaries, the survivors will recount their stories of earnest and fervent prayer, and the fact that god was “looking out for them.”

    The other poor SOBs, Laodecians, back-sliders, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and other assorted corpses werethus weak in their prayer, or wavering in their beliefs, and otherwise unworthy.

    The next mass shooting at a state legislature will provide good insights into the worth of prayer and helping to identify the beloved of god.

  9. Don Sherfick says

    The NRA’s CEO yesterday blasted violent video games, and by implication the 2011 Supreme Court Decision declaring a California law protecting children from then to violate the First Amendment. I just looked at that decision. It was 7-2 with Justice Scalia writing for the majority. The two dissenters were, strangely: Justices Thomas and Breyer. Figure that one out.

  10. Mary says

    Haven’t followed the video game line, but so, NRA “cherry picks” amendments based on self-interest? Your thought is that the NRA backs the 2nd to the hilt but is (now, as of this week) OK with curtailing the 1st in the interest of children’s safety. Doesn’t hold water, they are now totally revealed and should be totally disregarded.

    • says

      Looking for consistency on this subject is going to be tricky. There’s the NRA , as you point out, looking to defend the 2nd at the expense of the first. There’s Piers Morgan, et al, hiding behind the 1st to attack the 2nd. There are those saying that playing hours of video games and/or watching violent TV shows & movies have no effect on behavior, but are concerned about the influence of 30-second TV ads on behavior.

        • says

          And, if the government decides to violate the 1st amendment?
          That is why the 2nd exists.
          There is a reason they are so close together. The 1st amendment preserves democracy, and the 2nd preserves the 1st.

          Before we go to the whole “do you really think a bunch of citizens can stop the US Army?” route, see Afghanistan, and consider how many Army soldiers would really be willing to shoot a countryman defending his home.

          • Carlito Brigante says

            We have a court system that does its consitutional duty in protecting people from unlawful violations of the first amendment.

            And before you assert some puerile argument that a few thousand gun nuts in their wet dreams want to shoot it out with the US military and “protect” the first amendment, recognize that their firepower is unmatchable. And they will an excellent job killing insurgents, They had little trouble in the last time. But if that keeps your little fetish pumping out testosterone, have at it.

            And which Second amendment are you talking about? The correct interpretation that provides for well-regulated militias, or the plain language that five Republican appointees could not understand and imputed a non-existent right to use firearms in self defense?

            And do not ever presume that you or some other firearm fetishist can protect my rights better than I can.

            • says

              History disagrees with you. The reason you and I can have this open debate is because private gun owners used inferior weapons against the world’s largest army over 200 years ago.
              I don’t have an arsenal in my home, and I don’t expect to have to use the guns I do have to rise up against our government. There is nothing going on or even being talked about that would warrant that type of response.
              However, a completely disarmed populace makes it * possible* for a dictatorship to be established. I don’t want that to even be considered.
              Look at Afghanistan, by the way. Does it look like we were able to complete the job there? Do you really think most people in our military (most of whom are private gun owners) will follow orders to shoot a US Citizen?
              Without the threat of private gun ownership, local police can use pepper spray to round up dissidents.

              • PeterW says

                “The reason you and I can have this open debate is because private gun owners used inferior weapons against the world’s largest army over 200 years ago.”

                No, that’s not what happened at all. Contrary to myth, the Revolutionary War wasn’t won by a bunch of gun owners hiding behind trees and shooting at Redcoats.

                The US became an independent country because: (1) the continental army (a regular army with trained troops and weapons supplied by France) became well trained enough to defeat the British regulars on occasion (this is something the militia never did; it’s also why there are statues of Von Steuben). These battles gave the brilliant diplomatic effort by Franklin enough credibility to convince France to come in on the side of the US. The seige of Yorktown could not have been won by the US if the French Navy hadn’t first defeated the British Navy at the Battle of Chesapeake.

                Even after the Battle of Chesapeake, Washington’s 8000 regulars and 3000 militia couldn’t have won the siege without the 8000 regular French troops.

                It’s not that the militia were useless – they provided important security for rear areas and depots, and performed some reconnaissance. But the actual fighting was done by regular armies with weapons and equipment supplied by the government.

                (And, regardless, if the British had won we would still be able to have this conversation, just as many such conversations are conducted in the UK today.)

  11. Stuart Swenson says

    The solution to this difficulty lies in the numerous causes, and then coming to terms with them and determine whether we really want to solve the problem. The problem lies in the proliferation of guns, how technology is making them more efficient and marketing is making them more available. The problem is in the proliferation and use of violent media and how it is produced and marketed to everyone, including the ones who are most vulnerable and most likely to believe that violence is the answer to whatever ails them. The problem is, no doubt, in the adversarial and aggressive culture that, in its implementation, has an addictive element. A serious look at the sociological and psychological literature would reveal numerous contributory influences. If we don’t like the continuing mass murders, we have to seriously address all of those elements, as a therapist would in working with a family. Everyone has to be willing for at least one ox to be gored. Of course, there is the alternative: to blame everyone else (a la NRA spokesman) and expect everyone else to change, then simply reserve a section of the newspaper for news of the latest masacre.

  12. Carlito Brigante says

    The Colonies won the war with products of the Treaty of Comity and Alliance between themselves and France in 1778, the military skills inclucated into the Continental Army by General Von Stueben, and the long lines of British support.

    This is not to dismiss the Contenintental Army and the amazing undertaking and victory, but the brave Minutemen needed assistance in its undertaking. And excellent diplomacy, then-current disputes between France and England, and the prospects (not forthcoming) of fur trades from the Louisianna territory helped a tremendous amount.

  13. John says

    So here is an interesting take on armed teachers and principals. Where I teach the principal routinely comes around “requesting” that a grade be changed for one reason or another. If we arw both armed does a shoot-out take place?

Leave a Reply