Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | School Lunch Menus | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Do you think teachers should be allowed to carry firearms in classrooms?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

careaboutsnivelrights

Jan-09-13 7:52 AM

I know of NO teachers who I would be comfortable having a gun, back in the day there were a few who may have been able to handle it, but sorry I cant think of one Ive known recently who Id trust

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinsetter

Jan-09-13 9:17 AM

No guns in schools, theaters,stadiums etc unless they are carried by military or police officers.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-09-13 1:03 PM

Great idea pinsetter, Could you please make sure the criminals and idiots out there follow that rule? Thanks

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jan-09-13 10:45 PM

What teacher would want to take on that liability?

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-09-13 11:54 PM

Possibly one who feels like he/she would do anything for his/her students and accepts the idea that he/she is, in the absence of the kids' parents, responsible for their safety and well being along with their education.

My wife would do anything for her kids. She loves them. And after meeting some of them, I'd say most of them return her devotion. I pity the fool who tries to harm one of her students.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jan-10-13 12:12 PM

For what other professions and in what other buildings is it suggested to just arm the employees rather than employ professional security or add better security systems no matter the cost...oh yeah it might require more tax dollars. Never mind.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnagipd437

Jan-10-13 1:18 PM

Teachers are entrusted with keeping our children safe already. Why not train them how to handle the protection with a firearm properly? Whether there is a school liason officer or not in the school, does not make it safe. 1 person can be "caught sleeping." Make it possible for the 20+ teachers to be armed, and it becomes a fortess. I'd love to know that my child's teacher was trained and ready to protect my child.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MNcommonsense

Jan-11-13 9:23 AM

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MNcommonsense

Jan-11-13 9:24 AM

We hire security to protect our money at our banks, we hire security to protect us at athletic events, would we not hire security to protect our children at school?

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jan-11-13 1:16 PM

Show me a bank in Newtown or New Ulm that has armed security guards. Same goes for athletic events.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jan-12-13 10:03 AM

Teachers should only have to worry about teaching...and training in technology, anti-bullying, recognizing child abuse, and identifying mental health issues and students at risk for suicide. They are on the front line dealing with every issue important in keeping our kids safe. They sometimes face verbal assaults and threats from a student or parent. Sometimes they have to defend themselves or students from physical assaults by other students. Now add the training, responsibility, and liability that goes with carrying a gun? Will they be asked to face assault rifles with pistols? Given the attitude toward the lazy thug teachers by the same groups now asking them to arm up, it’s pretty clear who will be blamed for any deaths in future shootings, no matter what those armed teachers do to defend students.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-12-13 9:37 PM

AD

That's why I go back to my first post where I said "...IF they are properly trained and are comfortable in doing so.

No one should feel compelled to carry."

It'd be their choice if they wanted to be armed (and go through the additional required background checks and training)or not.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jan-13-13 7:52 PM

That's all fine and dandy until the next job posting calls out: "ISD88 in search of full-time home economics teacher. Ability to pack heat a plus." There could be plenty of good teachers that would get overlooked in favor of a so-so teacher that cones with a Glock.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinsetter

Jan-15-13 7:40 PM

I agree with eaglesfan

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-15-13 9:31 PM

Well sure, Pinsetter, a Glock is easy. But a so-so home-ec teacher who could raise a bazooka...

My heart goes pitty-pat at the very thought.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinsetter

Jan-21-13 6:39 PM

Time for new survey. Check out Mankato paper. Some news papers change survey questions daily, weekly.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-21-13 10:22 PM

How about: Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed to allow President Obama a third term in 2016? Or, President Clinton, for that matter.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinsetter

Jan-22-13 10:18 AM

No need to change. I'm in favor of limiting terms of all elected officials. Maximum of 8 years and no retirement package as they can go back to there regular jobs. I would also put all government employees, elected or not, on social security like everyone else.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 1:23 PM

pinsetter

Exactly! I agree 100%!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-22-13 3:23 PM

I long for the return to Bubba days. And I wonder what Monica is up to now. Maybe those two should do a reunion tour like aging rock stars. Or, we should just elect Hillary in '16 and let the fun begin all over again.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Jan-23-13 2:31 AM

I think the house of representatives should be 4 year terms, opposite of the presidential election, because as soon as they get into office, they have an opponent within 6 months that they must start a campaign against. Limit their terms to 2 or 3 terms.

The senate should be limited to 2 terms.

ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS should have to serve out their entire term except for health reasons, or for improper conduct, in which case there should be penalties. It is not all that uncommon for legislators to quit mid-term to take lobbying positions. We are seeing it in Minnesota, and other states are dealing with this right now, too. Who pays the expense of a mid-term election? We do, and that isn't right. As much as I liked Terry Morrow, he shouldn't have run for office if he was considering another job. If he wasn't considering it when he ran, he shouldn't have taken the job until after his term was up.

I think they should accumulate retirement benefits, but only based on the years serv

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinsetter

Jan-23-13 9:52 AM

I agree with middle class worker. I also think that a 2 year wait to become a lobbyist would be a good thing.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-23-13 9:32 PM

We could also improve the planet if there was a 2 year wait to get married and if parents had to have a license to have children.

Think about it.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinsetter

Jan-24-13 9:48 AM

Many politicians(not all)voting is controlled by lobbyist. They can't give them money but they give them gauanteed million dollar jobs the day they leave office. Much different than getting married or havig children. Marriage and children involve love not corruption.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-24-13 10:51 AM

Reminds me of the old parent joke: I wouldn't take a million dollars for my child, and I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for another one.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web