William Katz:  Urgent Agenda

HOME      ABOUT      OUR ARCHIVE      CONTACT 

 

 

 

 

 

BREAKTHROUGH – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  While the liberal left descends into hysteria, trying to prevent any truly effective means of stopping school shootings, real-live citizens and their representatives are starting to take common-sense action.  From the New York Post:

Don’t mess with Marlboro Township.

The leafy, well-heeled New Jersey suburb will station a permanent armed cop in each of its nine schools starting Jan. 2.

It’s apparently the first district nationwide bent on packing heat in every schoolhouse since madman Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.

“We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools,” Mayor Jonathan Hornik told The Post.

“With this new evil, you can’t just sit there and hope that it doesn’t happen in your town. We must protect our kids.”

The mayor and other town officials had approved the initiative before the chief of the National Rifle Association ignited a firestorm on Friday by calling for armed guards for schools.

Besides putting a cop in each of its schools — one kindergarten, five elementary, two middle and one high school — Marlboro will consider fortifying entrances with steel doors and bulletproof glass and installing surveillance cameras “all over” to feed to the police department, Hornik said.

Cost won’t stand in the way of “state-of-the-art” safety, he added.

COMMENT:  Yay!  Finally, there are some people who understand that our highest priority in the current gun debate is the immediate protection of children, not feeling good about ourselves or announcing positions that will get us invited to the right cocktail party in Washington. 

You can be sure that Marlboro will be ridiculed by the usual suspects.  Brace yourselves for comments like 1) "It may upset the children," or 2) "Is this the kind of society we want?" or 3) "What if the policeman is a racist, or has contempt for children of alternative cultural characteristics?"

I specify that 1) some children may be upset; it's a better alternative than getting killed; 2) no, it's not the kind of society we want, but we also don't want a society that sacrifices children to the egos of the political left; 3) there are some bad policemen, but we don't abolish the police, we improve personnel.

In the late sixties Nixon spoke of a "silent majority."  He wasn't exactly the right messenger, as he suffered from terminal obnoxia, but he was right.  I suspect that, when asked an unbiased question, most American parents would favor immediate, trained protection for their children, not the endless ruminations of the leftovers from the Nixon era, who never proposed a solution that worked, nor met one they liked.

December 23,  2012