Iowa exercise guru Erica Ziel with her “From Knocked-Up to Knockout”  workout  DVD.    Iowa blizzard coverage.  And Iowa educators refuse to consider arming teachers to defend themselves and students.   And an FAQ for answering some objections teachers may have.  

Direct download: mickelson-2012-12-20.mp3
Category:general -- posted at: 1:06pm CST


How can you help calm down those people who are teachers or educrats who find the idea of being armed in the classroom scary and appalling?

  This is an important question.    There is a difference between somebody who sees himself as an individual equipped with God-given rights, including the right to self-defense…more than that,  the DUTY of self-defense,  than those who don’t.

Think about this.  Parents have the right to defend themselves and the right and duty to protect their own children with force, even deadly force.    These are individual rights and duties assigned to individuals and members of the most basic unit of government, the family. Parents assign those duties to teachers who are supposed to agree to the doctrine of “in loco parentis”…    in the place of parents.   They are our designated parents in the public sphere. Too often members of this generation only see themselves as creatures of the state.   They have assigned the state the duty of  “in loco parentis”…  they have made themselves children and have embraced the state as parent.   They want nanny state to always be there to protect them against evil.   So, when Nanny says schools are a gun free zone, they feel secure.   And they feel disloyal to Nanna if they even ponder having their own gun or taking personal responsibility for their own safety.    As we say, they have been worked over.

The quickest way to cut through this tension is to ask a couple of questions.


1.      Do I,  as a parent,  have the right to use deadly force in my home to repel or even kill an invader who seeks to do harm to my children? 

2.      Do you as a teacher accept your duty as in loco parentis to do the same?   If not, why not?   If you aren’t concerned enough to defend my child why should put my kid in your “care”?   If not, does that mean you won’t even defend yourself?   If not, are you a pacifist?   Or just a pacifist at school?       Is there something magic about a school building which requires state sponsored pacifism?     If so,  isn’t that an example of a state sponsored religion?     Does the state have the power to convert you to the Quaker religion during school hours?    You might say that you’re untrained or not competent to defend your life or the lives under your care.   Ok, so if somebody is breaking into your house in the middle of the night are you gonna call out,  “Hey buddy,  I’m not really trained to repel you.  Can you come back after I get some training?”     No,   you’d grab anything you could to stab, beat, and bludgeon and discourage the attacker.    And you would feel great if you were successful.     So, now imagine how you’d feel if you had just prevented the murder of 20 helpless kids under your care in your classroom.    The parents would erect a statue of you in your honor.   And you would be a living hero.     The teacher who threw her body in front of those bullets in Connecticut is also a hero, but she is dead.  So are the kids.

3.       Perhaps it’s time to reconsider.


Category:general -- posted at: 1:00pm CST






December 2012
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31