Submitted by Dave Hodges on Friday, December 28, 2012 - 00:38.
We sit in the aftermath of Sandy Hook debating what to do about the murder of innocent men, women and children in America's gun free zones.
There are some politicians, two in Arizona, who want to protect our children while they attend schools. Arizona State Attorney General, Tom Horne, has unveiled a plan in which each school campus in my home state would be required to have at least one armed staff member. In my opinion that is not enough, but at least it is a productive start. Hypothetically, can anyone argue that schools would be the safest place in America to be if 10 staff members on each campus were trained and armed? The question is rhetorical because the answer is obvious.
Horne's idea is not new. In fact, he is copying what my friend, former Arizona State Senator Jack Harper proposed four years ago. Harper's idea was soundly defeated and continued to leave Arizona's students defenseless. When the coming trouble rears its ugly head, where will the resistance come from, you ask? Look in the mirror, because the American people are on their own and God help us if we ever give up our guns.
Harper and Horne's idea of arming school personnel goes a long way toward protecting our children. I predict that Horne's idea will suffer the same fate as Harper's. Protecting the children, in fact, protecting the all of the citizens in the United States is the not the objective of the Obama Administration! Ask yourself, would it be easier to protect school children by arming trained personnel or to risk civil war by confiscating guns? Further, Obama's children are protected by 11 armed guards while they attend school. Why are Obama's children more precious and deserve more protection than the Sandy Hook children?
Anyone with an IQ over room temperature should realize that getting our guns is the sole objective of these false flag attacks. Whether Sandy Hook was a false flag event, or not, the children at Sandy Hook are NWO fodder for gun confiscation. On that point, there can be no argument. Therefore, if the government does not want to directly protect our children, why are they going through the charade to get our guns in the name of protecting our children? George Orwell would be proud of this 1984 example of doublespeak.
Comments
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment