Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Gun Control Sandy Hooker Claims Victim Would Rather Die Than Carry A Gun

A rather amazing thing has been going on in the schools since the Sandy Hook tragedy last year; common sense seems to be gaining a foothold.  School boards and districts are finally realizing the danger of believing in so called “gun free zones”.  With this realization comes the next step: action.  In many places across the country that action is the revocation of the bans denying teachers their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I wrote yesterday that this isn’t just in Texas or deeply red states but in places like St. Helens Oregon.

You can go ahead and add Briggsdale Colorado to the growing list as well.

School administrators in the tiny Colorado town of Briggsdale will allow an unspecified number of teachers to carry concealed handguns in the classroom as long as they agree to participate in ongoing training.

Participants must commit to hitting the firing range for a minimum of 100 rounds per month.

Briggsdale, located in northeastern Colorado, is too small to have it’s own police department and it’s at least 20 minutes away from the nearest emergency response.

But I’m not writing this just to illustrate another school that got wise to reality, lest I find myself writing about it constantly.  But rather it was a comment I heard by a Gun Control Sandy Hooker in response to the Briggsdale school district’s decision.

Jane Dougherty, the sister of slain Sandy Hook psychologist Mary Sherlach says:

“I can sympathize with [the school’s] location, and they’re small, but to me, that’s an accident waiting to happen.”

That right there is just your basic gun control talking point and while I think it is misguided it doesn’t really bother me as much as what she said next.

Dougherty went on to say:

“I think about my sister, she would NEVER, EVER want to be somebody walking around with a gun.”

Really?  Your sister, would never EVER want to be somebody with a gun?  This is why I refer to Gun Control proponents who exploit the tragedy in Newtown as Sandy Hookers.  This is about as reprehensible and morally repugnant as it gets.

According to Dougherty, based on her statement, her sister Mary Sherlach would rather die and let the 20 children die too instead of being somebody with a gun.

If what Dougherty says is true then her sister is a horrible human being who thought it was morally superior to let 20 children die than to shoot the person who was killing them.

Much like the old adage, “there are no atheists in foxholes”, it doesn’t matter how against guns she may have been, I tend to think better of Mary Sherlach and believe that if she had a choice to either shoot Adam Lanza or let him kill her and 20 first grade children she would do the right thing.

But for Sandy Hookers like Dougherty who has made herself a cause celebre exploiting her sisters memory, pushing for the very gun control in Colorado that left her sister defenseless in Connecticut, there is no depth they won’t sink to push their agenda.  Characterizing her sister as someone who is comfortable with the death of 20 children instead of using a firearm to save them is just par for the course.

Any way you look at it, we need less of these:

newtown-ribbon

The best way to do it is with more of these:

Staff-is-Armed-and-Trained

 

 

  • Keith Gallagher

    This is the mindset we are dealing with. That somehow it is morally superior to be a victim. I cannot wrap my mind around it.

    • Drawer22

      @Keith Gallagher – The reason you can not wrap your mind around that is because survival is so “normally” set in the most basic of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a “normal” need basic to virtually all animals: Survival of the species. Were it not for the part of a democracy which permits those who have no interest in survival, only being dedicated to a philosophy of extinction, we would not be having the weirdest of weird discussions with liberal cretins ─ and were it not for the fact that it’s ok with them that “authorized” killers keep saving liberals’ lives, liberals would find themselves extinct (which is a form of Utopia for them, I suppose).

      Let’s take that another step up the hierarchical ladder: A “normal” person, desiring survival in today’s uncertain world, thinks ahead and carries a tool which will give a greater chance of survival. That person desires the safety and security that being prepared bestows on those who carry, not only for themselves, but so that their friends and family have a better chance of survival. Such preparation is rather like carrying a spare tire in the car or having a fire extinguisher handy, not because one expects a flat tire or intends to start burning one’s house or car, but in the unlikely event that either a flat or a fire happen.

      On up the ladder is the reason people like us carry: Love. We love our families, and we share a loving sense of responsibility for other people which, for us, trumps unrealistic dogma and political idealism.

      The last two “rungs” on the ladder are equally easy to understand in the scenario with which we are faced with regard to outlawing survival. At the top of it all, good people with the tools to help themselves and others with the skills we keep current are the most moral ─ as if we did not already know that, if only subconsciously. We cherish not only survival, but liberty to insure the survival of others in a world filled with the unexpected.

      Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

      • Keith Gallagher

        Elegantly spoken, quiet professional.

        De Oppresso Liber

        • Drawer22

          @Keith Gallagher – Finally getting around to thanking you. Brother-at-arms perhaps? (My screen name alludes to a military-allied address I had overseas, along with an APO and “Free” as postage!) — De Oppresso Liber

  • Jhomas Tefferson

    Ok. No problem Mary Sherlach. Go to Chicago and walk a few blocks from the safe area downtown. And then die. So we don’t have to listen to your garbage again.

  • Σετη Λεωισ

    I was an athiest in a foxhole.

  • darkseider

    I say let them be victims then. Hopefully the predators will realize that these areas are filled with ripe and ready defenseless sheep and take advantage of it. When all is said and done they will either have a change of heart or there won’t be any morons left to dilute the gene pool. Either way it’s a win/win situation.

    • Drawer22

      @darkseider – Philosophically, I agree with you. However, I know that if faced with the probability that a known liberal will become a victim, my sense of responsibility for the welfare of others would trump even good sense: I’d risk my life for them, knowing their ingratitude. (As a ‘Nam Vet, there are millions of us just like that who did just that for an ungrateful nation; as a former LEO, one comes to expect ingratitude, as well.)

      Generally speaking, those who carry have an ingrained sense of community and responsibility. That translates to being a sheepdog, as it is we who insure the survival of the sheeple, even at hazard to our own lives.

      De Oppresso Liber

      • Fred Campbell

        Your points are well taken, Combat shooting involves a complex set of skills to be maximally effective.
        But, the primary value of a gun (in a real world situation) is its simple display. I have had an occasion to “pacify” a situation by simply withdrawing a gun from my pocket and pointing it at the ground.
        Yes, one must know how to operate the safety and load a round, a skill that can be learned (and demonstrated on a range) in minutes.
        In my 80 years, I have sometimes gone decades without firing a gun. Nevertheless, anyone assaulting me, my family or breaking into my home would have ended up dead. Period.
        In discussing gun training, let’s not confuse the basics with the optimum.

  • Fred Campbell

    “Participants must commit to hitting the firing range for a minimum of 100 rounds per month.”

    Who came up with this idiotic requirement? Do our police train to this level? Does someone consider the proper (and safe) operation of a gun to be rocket science? If so, then our ghetto rats must all be incipient geniuses. The only real training required is relative to chambering of a round and release of the safety (on second thought, on some guns, this can be daunting in a true emergency). The rest is simple pointing and aiming, an instinctual skill we all learned as children (or at least those of us who played cowboys and indians).
    The true value of a gun is its known possession by a citizen. Criminals are attracted to easy targets.
    They are as risk adverse as anyone. Note that recent targets have all been locations where guns were “not allowed”.

    • bulletsfirst

      Good point Fred. It’s a silly requirement but if that’s what it takes to get the thumb suckers on board and makes them feel better so be it. I mean, to me, I read this as an excuse to hit the range, not like I need one but hey. Especially if someone else is paying. Not sure if the school is going to cover the cost but bonus for the teachers if they are. Besides, that is one of those requirements that will probably fade out over the years.

    • Drawer22

      @Fred Campbell – There is a whole bunch more to shooting accurately in an armed conflict environment than just putting rounds downrange to show you’re not an easy target. And while 100 rounds per month isn’t much, I’m pretty sure the school authorities would allow teachers to take additional training, fire more rounds per month, and get educated in classes which emphasize legal considerations, safety, and proper maintenance of firearms and ammunition.

      And, by the way, why would one have to chamber a round in a semi-automatic handgun which has a manual safety? By doing so, one only gives notice of one’s position to the bad guy, not to mention depriving one of an additional round kept at the ready, as well as a full magazine.

      I note that you did not include grip, stance, sight alignment, sight picture, breathing, various positions from which one may need to fire ─ and a host of other considerations in your “simple” training of merely drawing (a trained response which is not reflexive without practice), pointing and dropping the hammer, while hoping that you didn’t hit anyone behind or crossing your line of fire who isn’t purposely targeted.

      We do agree on one philosophical premise, supported by statistics: “Gun-free” areas are Victim Zones.

      De Oppresso Liber

      • Fred Campbell

        Fred Campbell Drawer22
        • 5 minutes ago

        Your points are well taken, Combat shooting involves a complex set of skills to be maximally effective.
        But, the primary value of a gun (in a real world situation) is its simple display. I have had an occasion to “pacify” a situation by simply withdrawing a gun from my pocket and pointing it at the ground.
        Yes, one must know how to operate the safety and load a round, a skill that can be learned (and demonstrated on a range) in minutes.
        In my 80 years, I have sometimes gone decades without firing a gun. Nevertheless, anyone assaulting me, my family or breaking into my home would have ended up dead. Period.
        In discussing gun training, let’s not confuse the basics with the optimum.

  • myfordtruck

    Some people will do anything for there 15 miniuts of fame even draging her dead sister name thru the mud

    • Drawer22

      @myfordtruck – …And THAT’s what people with moral fiber describe as immoral. It just shows how immoral some liberals really are ─ and in the name of morality, no less!

      Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

  • There’s one word for such a person: infidel.

    “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

    For more regarding the Biblical responsibility to bear arms in defense of yourself, your family, and others, see “Firearms: Scripturally Defended” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/firearm-right.html.

  • Drawer22

    Good on ’em! Briggsdale is on the right track! ─ Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

  • av

    This is simply the brainwashed ramblings of the liberal mindset…It also generally comes out of the mouth of someone who has never been a victim themselves….never had to fight for their life ….She was not the victim of Sandy Hook…her sister was….It is not the same thing…ask anyone who has been a victim of extreme ,life threatening violence…I have on numerous occasions….Never , ever, make the mistake that this idiot woman is proposing for us all…because if that day ever does come….you’d trade just about anything for a .45 acp and several extra magazines.

  • Barry Smith

    Anyone who says or claims they rather DIE than to have a gun and at least attempt to save herself and the defenseless children and very least the children must be seriously mentally defective if not downright insane. This woman who said this should be sentenced by a judge to carry a unloaded gun around her neck for six months, and at the end of said sentence asked if she still believes it is guns that kill people and not people who kill people.

  • Sunshine Kid

    When I first read the headline, my thought was “The victim may want to die, but I DO NOT!”. Then reading the article, I realized that the speaker saying that was telling what a dead person WOULD have done, and sorry, that is saying that when faced with death, the victim has no other choice.

    And an idiot like that comes off as an idiot.

  • BlueMoney

    To all those who would rather be murdered than carry a gun… I suspect you’d also rather see OTHERS get murdered than be able to defend themselves. Including me.
    I’d just as soon never have to use my carry gun. Therefore, here’s hoping it’s YOU who gets accosted by a vicious criminal and not me (after all – one less CRIMINAL ENABLER, is even better than one less criminal!)

Send this to friend