Sunday, December 27, 2015

Gun Nut Dad Sends School Into Lockdown After He Strolls In Carrying Firearm To Prove A Point

Addicting Info

At a time when kindergartners are being gunned down in classrooms and the scourge of mass shootings is on everyone’s mind, one Michigan man felt it was his duty to terrify the students and teachers in his child’s elementary school by bringing in a loaded pistol when he arrived. The school’s staff at Homer Community School District reportedly questioned his intentions with the gun – as seems reasonable when your job is to protect children from being shot – and the parent, whom the police have not identified, grew indignant. According to him, even being asked about his weapon violated his right to bear arms and he insisted that it was his “right to have it there.” He did, however, eventually leave.
He clearly gave it a lot of thought because he showed up to the school on Monday… still carrying his ****ing gun. The school’s staff, reasonably concluding that this could pose an unsafe situation for kids, were forced to lock down the entire school.
Although the parent was receptive and showed up to the school for the meeting with [Superintendent Robert] Wright, he brought a holstered gun again.
“And lo and behold, he showed up with his weapon holstered … it was never out of the holster,” Wright said. “And at that point I had to inform him that our protocol is that we go into lockdown just for pure safety of all of our students and staff, and so we went into lockdown at that point.”
“They asked him to sit in the front lobby and they went into lockdown,” Saxton said. “He left when he heard them go into lockdown.”
Insanely, this is considered “functional” in Michigan. The school was told by law enforcement officers to continue locking down the building each time someone comes into it with a gun. The law still says the school has to let those gun owners in. They legally aren’t allowed to enforce a rule that keeps guns out. And here we have another lesson in what it means to be free in America. Men are free to wander freely around an elementary school with a loaded weapon if they want to. Children are free to sit scared inside a locked classroom, avoiding windows and doors, waiting to find out if the guy outside is trying to murder them or just pick up his son or daughter for soccer practice.

23 comments:

  1. This is very old news Mike. In fact, you originally posted about it back in March here,

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/03/michigan-gun-advocates-test-rules-for.html

    And the legislature has actually come up with a fix for the issue which you posted about here,

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.be/2015/11/michigan-governor-promises-veto-of.html

    In fact, according to the article you posted, the Governor vetoed a similar bill in 2012 that would have prevented open carry in schools.

    "Snyder, who vetoed a similar bill in 2012, this week told radio talk show host Steve Gruber, “I stand by that decision,” and affirmed when pressed that he would veto the latest attempt to expand legal concealed carry into gun free zones saying, “I’ve done it before.”

    As I said in the previous post, the choice is whether to continue the status quo and continue to allow open carry in schools, or to require permit holders to get additional training to be allowed to conceal carry in those places and not cause such a ruckus.
    You often fault the evil gun lobby for not being willing to compromise.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "ruckus" is not because of training, or the lack of gun training. Being a gun loon you just don 't get it. "Old news" Are you saying because it happened a while ago, it's OK?

      Delete
    2. "The "ruckus" is not because of training, or the lack of gun training."

      Well Anon, the gun control lobby seems to have a love/hate relationship with concealed carry. They seem to hate it right up till the other alternative is open carry.
      In this case, the ruckus I speak of wouldn't happen at all if he was able to carry concealed.
      As I clearly stated in my comment, the term "old news" means it happened so long ago that Mike posted both the original event, and legislative bills to bring about a solution to the issue.
      In fact, the Governor vetoed the same bill over two years ago.

      Delete
    3. ss, as TS has often shown, everyone has a better memory than I do. I can't seem to keep these stories straight - there are just so many of them.

      Delete
    4. But fewer than you think- since you repeat stories so often.

      Delete
    5. Easy to tell you are not a parent SS.

      Delete
    6. But I am Anon. And you've criticized my parenting skills on occasion too. But this is about improving the law. There was an attempt to do that a couple of years ago, which was vetoed by the Governor.
      Keep in mind, that doing nothing keeps open carry legal. This is something the gun control lobby loves to use. That of taking small "common sense" steps in the direction they want to go.

      Delete
    7. I'll keep in mind that you think this "point" the nut was making, is scaring the4 hell out of children and law abiding citizens, which you find just fine.

      Delete
    8. "which you find just fine."

      Never said it was fine Anon, just legal. And an improvement seems to be getting vetoed.

      Delete
  2. And they NEED TO do the lock down because simple fucks like this guy pose a huge threat because normal humans wouldn't do shit like this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The nit-wit that wrote this, Jameson Parker, admits to being a SJW in his own blurb on the AI website.
    Well, let's just see exactly what a SJW is according to the Urban Dictionary.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20justice%20warrior

    Michael Moore and this moron. To quote The Donald: LOSERS!

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does the school go into lockdown when someone dressed up in a police officer uniform enters with a gun openly displayed on their hip? That should be part of the standard procedure right? Who knows if the guy/gal is really a police officer or what their intent may be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a whiney gun nut response. Poor us, we're not treated like cops are.

      Police officers are trained about a hundred times more than your typical gun carrying civilian. That's the difference.

      Delete
    2. No, they're not. Most civilian law enforcement agencies are required to qualify with their service weapons annually or semi-annually. Many armed citizens go through more ammunition on a Saturday than your average cop does all year. If you think that you didn't lie, then I welcome sources for your assertion.

      Delete
    3. How are you to tell just by looking at someone if they really are a cop? Shouldn't the school react on the safe side and either insist the cop leave and come back unarmed or go into shutdown if he/she enters the building? I mean they are brazenly carrying a gun out in the open so there is a decent chance the person is a pyscopathic killer right?

      Delete
    4. Police officers are trained about a hundred times more than your typical gun carrying civilian.

      Could you point me to the mathematical breakdown by which you arrived at that 100-to-1 ratio? Not that I don't trust your math skills, but . . . OK--I guess it is that I don't trust your math skills (not to mention your integrity).

      Delete
    5. Apparently in Mike's world, these "gun nuts" aren't nutty enough about guns to actually fire them more than once or twice a year.

      Delete
    6. CI, guys like you surely spend more time practicing than the average cop, but do you really think that applies to the typical gun owner? I don't.

      Delete
    7. CI, guys like you surely spend more time practicing than the average cop, but do you really think that applies to the typical gun owner?

      Are we talking about "typical gun owner[s]," or typical open carry activists? Surely you're not claiming that those two designations apply to the same group--or are you?

      Hell, even if you dramatically broaden the second group to include every private citizen who legally carries a gun on a regular basis--concealed or openly, activist or not--it would seem something of a stretch to describe the group as "typical gun owners," since far fewer than half the gun owners in the U.S. carry a firearm on anything approaching a regular basis.

      Delete
    8. Exactly, Kurt.

      Mike, wouldn't you say the "fanatic" who lives by the gun enough that they want to carry it everywhere they go is more like Constitutional Insurgent than "your typical gun owner". Are you telling us those who have a "fetish", as you call it, for guns are the ones whom you are ok with carrying?

      Delete
    9. I'm not ok with any of it, as you well know.

      Delete