His Voice: We failed Sandy Hook Elementary
by Charles Norton / Submitted to the Tracy Press
Dec 27, 2012 | 4181 views | 22 22 comments | 7 7 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The primary responsibility of a government is to protect its citizens. Government at all levels must bear the responsibility for failing to protect the 27 people who were viciously murdered in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.

Thanks to the speed of modern communication, news of the Sandy Hook massacre reached across the country within minutes, putting America into a state of shock.

As seems to be the prevailing norm in all recent similar tragedies, the media, in its rush to report sensational events, often “fills in the blanks” to substitute for missing information.

There were media reports that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin were responsible for the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gaby Gifford. One network erroneously reported that a tea party member was the shooter in Aurora, Colo.

On Dec. 14, as the nation was going into a state of shock over the evil and senseless killings at Sandy Hook School, some of our elected leaders selfishly took advantage of this tragedy for self-promotion. Most notably was our own Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Her behavior is despicable. Feinstein was screaming “gun ban” before grieving parents could see their children’s bodies. She attempted to divert our attention from grief over the killings to promote her political persona and agenda.

She was not the only political figure to so act. We must share the blame, because we elected her.

As the shock stabilizes, more information tempers our judgment. At least it does in some of us. Comparison of Sandy Hook is being made to what is now known about shootings in Columbine, Colo., Aurora, the Clackamas mall in Portland, and, lest we forget, Stockton.

The Columbine shootings happened while assault weapons were banned. The other shootings occurred in gun-free zones. The other common denominator in all these shootings is that the shooting stopped when an armed third party arrived.

As America is looking inward to get answers as to what is happening, politicians will call for gun bans, gun-free zones, outlawing crazy people, censorship and other extreme measures that won’t make our schools safer.

Some of the politicians calling for more restrictive gun control, such as Feinstein, admitted to having concealed weapons permits.

While we’re introspecting, we might ask ourselves if the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting, Fast and Furious gun trafficking scandal and Waco, Texas, fiasco should be thrown into the mix.

Politicians and media leftists are salivating over the prospect of further erosion of the Bill of Rights that won’t make our schools safer. Instead, let’s look at our Bill of Rights for the answers.

The Second Amendment contains a possible solution.

I refer to the term “a well-regulated militia.” The sheriff’s posse fits that definition perfectly. A designated posse with a mission to protect schools would make our students safer.

• Charles Norton is a retired U.S. Marine and Tracy resident.

Comments
(22)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
debbdaves
|
January 11, 2013
OG I too am against abortion but reserve the right of the woman to choose what is best for her, rather than letting the church or state decide. As to your objection, our tax payer dollars also pay for a lot of destruction and killing through wars, our tax payer dollars pay for inmates to be housed at the cost of millions, while we don't spend as much on prevention, education, health care. So the system is warped, and planned parenthood does not cost as much as bombs do.
Lumpia
|
January 11, 2013
Stop paying your taxes?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
January 12, 2013
debbdaves

True, we do spend a lot of tax money on thangs fer destruction an killing through wars an also th housin of inmates, read convicted criminals, but all of those expenditures are in behalf of our citizenry to keep them free an safe frum harm.

Is th system perfect? Not by a long shot. But when ya objectively look at it an compare it ta th state of th rest of th planet it's doin a pretty good job.

For instance, ya can pretty much write what ya want, a totally different topic fer later discussion, an even though some carp about it ya don't have th government breakin down yer door an haulin yer butt ta jail an keepin ya thair without even conductin a trial. An don't confuse this with prisoners of war cus that's a different story all tagether.

We use ta spend th money on prevention education an yes, even health care but people with other agendas an mind sets pretty much succeeded in doin away with it. Yes I'm talkin about schools. Not th promulgation of religion but moral teachins based solely on th morality of th society we lived in at that time. Such thangs are best larned when we are young but all of that has been taken out of schools.

cont

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
January 12, 2013
As ta planned parenthood an costs, planned parenthood costs more than ya realize an not just financially.

With respect to planned parenthood an bombs, bombs are not government subsidized birth control while many of th procedures conducted by planned parenthood are not.

Planned parenthood should be helpin people ta become good parents, as in plannin an larnin how ta best do it, not a convenient form of birth control through th practice of abortion.

Once again, with planned parenthood an government produced bombs yer comparison sort of falls apart in that thair are no similarities between th two an thair outcomes other than th fundin it takes ta run em. One is social an th other is fer national defense.

Hey, I don't like war. It's a bad thang an I do wish it was not around. But wishin an reality are two different thangs now aren't they?

I also feel pretty much th same way about abortion.

Th big difference is though, I am willin ta pay fer wars an th killin because of wars ta keep humanity free an away from tyrannical oppression. That expense benefits th most people even though I don't like havin ta pay fer it.

Abortion though is a different story. It's somethang I personally don't believe in an those who get one really don't affect me or anyone else, other than th human that was aborted, read killed, because his or her mother for the most part, as thair are minor extenuatin circumstances that may apply, didn't take adequate protection ta keep frum gettin pregnant, doesn't want ta be bothered ta raise th child or adopt it out an takes th easy way out with a very warped method of birth control called abortion.

So while I may not like it I am more inclined ta willinly pay my tax dollars ta fund our military that protects all of our way of life an less inclined ta pay my tax dollars ta fund someone's abortion because they didn't take adequate precautions ta keep frum gettin pregnant in th first place.
debbdaves
|
January 11, 2013
So Conservatives want to propose anti abortion laws to prevent abortion but not anti gun laws to prevent killing? Double Standards?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
January 11, 2013
debbdaves

Personally, my personal feelings on th subject, is that abortion is wrong. An while I don't particularly like th notion of abortion I do understand thar are others that don't think that thars is anythin wrong with it. Now if they wanna have an abortion an ask me about it I would tell em ta do somethang else. But if they still wanted it then they are free ta go get it.

Here's th question. When you believe somethang an someone else believes differently, conducts themselves accordingly, should you have ta pay fer it?

While I do care from my own personal perspective, I really am not all that concarned about someone gettin an abortion as I am about havin ta pony up tax dollars so they can have one.

Even then it wouldn't be quite so bad if a number of people simply didn't use it as a form of birth control. Supposin for a moment ya use some form of birth control (an frankly what ya ultimately do in that department is your private business), do ya thank it right for someone to be forced ta pay for yer birth control particularly if they feel th method ya have selected is wrong?

I don't really care one way or another if ya decide ta have an abortion. I just don't wanna have ta pay fer a procedure that I personally feel is wrong. If ya wanna pay fer it yerself ya won't find me sayin anythang about it unless ya ask me my opinion about it an I'd tell ya th same thang I'd tell anyone else that it ain't, in my opinion, a good idea.

Now ya just might say I a judgin ya. So? Ya judge me an others when we do an say thangs ya don't personally believe in. Th difference is that with th thangs that I do are somethang ya don't personally like, I don't come round an ask ya ta pay fer em.

Demonstrably, anti-gun laws are not going to stop killing with guns. But it's a fair bet to say that abortion is going to kill 100% of the time. So ya see, yer sort of tryin ta compare apples ta taters. Thair both crunchy an grow on plants but aside frum that thair's not much else ya can make a comparison on. Abortion, Death by gunfire, they simply do not relate to one another to make a comparison.

midwestgirl
|
December 31, 2012
"The other common denominator in all these shootings is that the shooting stopped when an armed third party arrived."

NO MOST TOOK THEMSELVES OUT after the violence they caused.
SpikeVFR
|
January 10, 2013
So if what you propose is true, wouldn't it have been better if the guy never had a gun in the first place?So he couldn't have gone in and shot even one person?

The best an armed gaurd in CT could have done is possibly limit the number of kids shot. So lets say an armed gaurd was able to respond halfway thru the shootings,OK?You would still have 10 kids and 3 adults dead.Wouldn't it have been better to have not have it happened at all?To not have had the guns widely availible to the public so that this woman had these guns in the first place? It is the difference between being reactive and pro-active.

For example,guy in China went nuts a few weeks before and attacked a school there, he injured 18 kids and several adults before he was subdued. But notice the word injur and not kill, NOONE died.Why,because he only had a knife.Still horrible to be sure,but no one died.

Even if what you say is true, and I don't agree, but for the sake of argument lets say. So every mass killing was stopped by someone with a gun. Isn't that proof that your approach doesn't work? That the killings are still happening even with easy access to guns? I don't want to limit killings, I prefer to stop
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
January 10, 2013
spike

Under an ideal world circumstance th answer ta yer question,"So if what you propose is true, wouldn't it have been better if the guy never had a gun in the first place;" is a resounding yes.

However we don't live in that perfect world whair such thangs don't happen.

Also, if existin law had been followed he wouldn't have had th gun ta shoot people with in th first place.

Th fact that he was aware that no one would be able ta mount a good defense, because th place was a "gun free" zone an th facts that other laws that would have prevented him frum havin a gun were largely ignored is what led up ta this tragedy.

An if ya look closely at th China incident many of those injured died as a result of thair injuries.

Fact, more people die in America as a factor of lethal bludgeoning than do people who die as a factor of a gunfire exchange. So, should we outlaw baseball bats, hammers an sticks?

SpikeVFR
|
January 11, 2013
What ever do you mean "if existing law would have been followed"

From everything I have heard, the guns were legally bought and stored. What laws were ignored?

None of the victims in China died, and even if they do, it isn't 26 people.

And where in the world did you get your figures about bludgening vs. shooting deaths? The NRA?

Would you rather have a gun running loose with a bat or an AR-15?
oldleathers
|
January 11, 2013
So tell me SpikeVFR, do you think all guns will someday be eliminated? If so how would the government go about cleansing us of this "scourge"?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
January 11, 2013
SpikeVFR

He had a history of mental problems, had existing law been followed the "cooling off" period for th background check should have revealed that problem an prevented him frum buyin a gun.

Havin laws don't do much unless they are enforced. As I recall frum th story on this guy one place did refuse to sell him a gun. Why them an not th place where he got th gun?

Even then, assumin all th laws were followed, unless no guns exist at all anywhere on th planet, he could have gotten one. That too would have been illegal but so what? So is killin people.

This kid had a lot of problems an that is what led to this. Instead of gettin him th treatment he needed it's apparent he was virtually ignored.

Ya do need ta get a handle on yer emotions though I did understand what it was ya were attemptin ta say. Guns don't run around with bats or other guns an kill people.

Even so th answer ta th question is neither. Don't want people runnin around with a semi-automatic AR-15 an M-16 any other gun or base ball bat, hammer or knife killin people. But even if ya outlawed th possession of any of those thangs, thair still gonna find a way ta kill. Could be with a car driven inta a crowd of people at a mall I don't know.

But I do know if law abidin citizens were allowed ta carry without fear frum bein arrested, th guy with an AR15 might get off a couple of shots but he would immediately be taken down. Th problem with th Sandy Hook incident was he had th superior firepower an his victims didn't have any firepower ta fight back with.

Kind of like early American history whair th settlin Europeans wiped out th indigenous Indians that only had clubs, spears an arrows ta fight back with. But some of th Indians were fast learners cus when they got guns they started ta hold thair own a bit as th firepower problem was more equal. Thair problem then was one of bein physically outnumbered.
midwestgirl
|
December 31, 2012
The problem with Gun Control is the word CONTROL which is NEWSPEAK for REGULATIONS words do matter for most..........Americans do not like the word control being used on them......... authoritative or dominating influence over;.........We need to call it what it is GUN REGULATIONS .....rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.

THE NEWSPEAK WORKS ON MOST OF THE LEMMINGS

death tax v estate tax

Capitalism/free market v public financing with private profits

Tax the rich v taking from the rich

Teachers v thugs



backinblack
|
December 30, 2012
I wish I could shoot them"

TP staff, just in case you missed it the referenced quote is from debbdaves and is a threat directed at conservative republicans.

If you do not report debbdaves to the Tracy PD you will share blame if this lunatic actually launches any assaults against conservative republicans. Her hate is well documented and you have a responsibility to step in and prevent a potential trajedy when she snaps and carries out her obvious agenda of hate towards conservative republicans. You have been aware of her hate mongering for awhile and have done nothing to stop her hate speech, now we have an actual admission of what she'd like to do so step up, grow a pair, and do what's right.

This is how bad things start and although you may think so, this is no joke.
FRETLESS
|
December 28, 2012
Dcose, my original point was that the assault weapons ban was not meant to eliminate these guns overnight. The political mouthpiece comment was meant to show that politicians and pundits will say whatever fits their agenda regardless of the facts. You brought in quotes from far left politicians. My point there? You can expect that reaction from the far left, every time. Getting worked up over it is a waste of air. I hope this eases your mind. Good night.
grapesrain
|
December 28, 2012
Before we all condem guns, the NRA and people who own guns and condem NRA president that reccomneds an armed guard at every school, let's take a look at just a couple of the people that are yelling the loudest about gun control. If you are watching liberal media then you are most likely half educated on this issue. Fox News will give you the other half of the story and you can deciede. Personally, Obama does not like guns and this is his time to start disarming america. It is about liberal socialism and taking our freedoms.

Rahm's Kids' School Protected by Armed On-Duty Police. Yes, he is one of the politicians that say arming schools are crazy.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/26/Rahm-s-Kids-School-Protected-by-Armed-On-Duty-Police

Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104

David Gregory Mocks NRA Leader for Proposing Armed Guards in Schools But Sends His Kids to a School with 11 Armed Guards

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/12/26/david-gregory-mocks-nra-leader-for-proposing-armed-guards-in-schools-but-sends-his-kids-to-school-with-11-armed-guards-n1474345

FRETLESS
|
December 28, 2012
dcose, did you expect something different from Sen. Feinstein? After every one of these shootings you will get Democrats at every level introducing gun control legislation. And every time it goes nowhere. It is the job of the politicians to appear as if they care about the little people. But unless you are writing a large check to them every year, you do not matter. There are enough elected officials that receive large sums of money from the gun lobby to ensure that nothing will happen with the good Senators proposals.
dcose
|
December 28, 2012
By your response, I've missed your original point. Could you restate it ?

Thank you.
victor_jm
|
December 28, 2012
I've been in a state of shock for over 40 years.

FRETLESS
|
December 28, 2012
I am not going to get into a discussion on the pros and cons of gun control here. I have my opinion and you have yours and I don't think that will change. I do want to point out though that the assault weapon ban was meant to ban the purchase of new weapons. The legislation did nothing to make existing guns illegal. Too often lately this ban has been held up as a faild example of gun control. This ban would have taken decades if not longer to be effective. Was it bad legislation? Maybe. But it was not written to eliminate these weapons overnight. The government was not trying to "take away your guns" as some political mouthpieces would have you believe.
dcose
|
December 28, 2012
One political mouth piece refutes your comment,

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to introduce sweeping gun-control legislation at the beginning of the congressional session in January.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession” of certain weapons, the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

Judge Larry Burns, a judicial mouth piece refutes your comment,

"Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," he wrote.



"Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market," he suggested, referring to two provisions in the old assault weapons ban. "I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it."



We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.