It was hardly surprising that the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers immediately called for stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings.
It was equally unsurprising that the leaders of both national teachers unions – NEA President Dennis Van Roekel and AFT President Rhonda “Randi” Weingarten – scoffed at the idea of arming school employees to defend their students and colleagues in the event of an attack.
Those union leaders are mind-numbingly liberal and subscribe to the belief that nobody but those who work for government should be allowed to have weapons.
But one teacher/NEA member, David Reber of Lawrence, Kansas, recently provided a common-sense rebuttal for the union leaders to chew on. His very logical ideas were published by Examiner.com.
“Mr. Van Roekel and Ms. Weingarten, consider a scenario. You're in a school and someone comes in shooting. You take cover and you and your students are, temporarily at least, safe. Your cell phone is in your pocket. What would you do next? You'd dial 911, of course. But why? What would the police bring to the situation that you don't already have?
“If you answer ‘badges’ or ‘a fancy car with lights on top,’ you aren't being honest with yourself. You call the police because they will bring guns and they will shoot back.
“Now, what is the average response time for 911 calls? Compare that to the response time of an officer or two that are already on site. How many lives might be saved in that time difference?”
Reber notes that both union leaders dismiss their critics because most have never worked in a public school. Yet those same union leaders – who have never worked in public safety – act as if they know best in emergency situations.
“The response of union leaders to the NRA also shows incredible hypocrisy,” Reber continues. “The teaching profession is under constant attack by people who have never set foot in a public school classroom. As professional educators, it is incredibly insulting when people who couldn't teach the broad side of a barn from the inside tell us how to do our jobs.
“Ms. Weingarten, the police carry guns. Do you presume to know more about stopping violent criminals than law enforcement professionals do? Mr. Van Roekel, does a former math teacher like you know better than a police department about such matters?”
Reber then slams what seems to be little more than a political agenda.
“I am proud to be a member of NEA,” he wrote. “But when my union leaders pander to the unrealistic utopian fantasies so many people hold, it doesn't serve our profession well. More importantly, the focus on guns themselves distracts us from the real problem our country is facing: WHY are we producing so many people who want to kill innocent children?”
Will Reber’s common sense arguments get through to anyone at the national union level? Not likely, as there’s a bigger socio-political agenda at play. It’s not about safe schools – it’s about enacting a radical agenda with the ultimate goal of disarming American citizens.
The Connecticut tragedy is being used as a cheap excuse to try to implement that unconstitutional and unrealistic plan of action.