Armed Teachers

“I fully support the Second Amendment!” – no you don’t, Mr. Edwards (Republican candidate for NH CD-1)

by Skip

First, let me state this: Groksters have decided to not put out an endorsement in the Republican Primary race in NH First Congressional District.  We’ve basically said “a pox on both their houses” for the dumpster fire that has become the norm this go around.  We interviewed both; an hour and a half with Andy Sanborn and two and a half with Eddie Edwards.  Both were gracious and we were allowed to ask pretty much any question that popped into our heads.  Both allowed us to video record their entire times and it was relayed that since not all of the Groksters couldn’t attend the sessions, we wanted them to be able to form their own views from the interviews.  We were also given permission, by both, to post the videos if we wanted to. To date, we have not.

Which brings me to the sign above.  It became clear that Mr. Edwards did not agree with it during our interview; I grow weary of politicians saying different things to different audiences. In this case, to we Groksters and then to others.

Near the end of our time, I went “current culture” and stated my case (paraphrased)

I adopted my Grandson earlier this year – he will soon be going to elementary school.  I have a valid NH Pistol / Revolver license duly signed by my local law enforcement – should I be allowed to concealed carry in his school? After all, I meet the exception outlined, because of that license, in the Federal law.  Statistically, I am “safer” and less prone to breaking the law and committing a crime than police.  NH law has no restriction on such carry.  Would you support my entrance into the school?

Hesitation ensued. He did allow that he would support that although I did hear about “confusion in an attack, mistaking good guys vs the bad guys”.  But he agreed, that was fine with him.  So far, so good.

Then I went further.

See that sign at the top of the post?  He made it clear that he was against allowing teachers and staff being armed, that we had law enforcement to respond to such an active shooter situation and that teachers should not have guns in schools.

Loyal Readers know that during an interview where there seems to be some sliding, prevarication and deflection, I always return to one of my favorite phrases: “You didn’t answer the question“.  I had to continually follow up on this and so did Grokster Mike who, if anything, is more militant than I on this subject of “shall not be infringed” (again, I believe the NH Constitution’s Article 2A states the case FAR better than the US Constitution’s Second Amendment).  In this, in his own words and reasoning, he would withdraw that Right simply because one is a government worker in that situation even as it is clear that most mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones which most schools are.

Edwards continued his hypothetical “infringement” and said it would get too confusing, ending up in a bureaucratic mess of rules and regulations + the expense of arming them anyways and paying for time for practice ammo and range time and training and…and….well, you get the picture.

I have remained silent on this until now – but I’ve now turned into that old Popeye the Sailor Man cartoon in that “I cants stands it no more!”. In the end, he would refuse to arm teachers (Sidenote: I’m wondering about the latest turn of events where US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has intimated that federal funds from her agency may indeed be made available for such activities – arming and training guns).

The mindset of Mr. Edwards, I detected as I drilled down past the glib talk on freedom and rights and the Administrative State (all which sounded good in my ears – he is a very good speechifier and easy to listen to) has elements of a bureaucrat.  Also, he didn’t like being pinned down to specifics.  Both Mike and I, as “either it works or it doesn’t, either off/on binary decision” engineers, kept drilling down until he admitted to just that.

In the end, I was unsatisfied. I have the video if he/his campaign wishes to contest this OR we can revisit for a “clarification” if so desired.  In the mean time, he and his campaign ought to lay off the “fully” part because “fully” means all people in all situations. You can’t state “fully” and then artfully not talk about your exceptions unless someone gets past the first or second surface levels of a speech or quick Q&A (and we are not know for quick Q&As, are we folks?).  He needs to ante up on this – or people between now and the Primary need to start doing their own drilling down and into very granular and specifics parts of this issue.

To be truthful and for full disclosure – I did enjoy the interviews with both and it was looking like it might have been difficult to make a decision. However, as this race went down into the gutters, then into sewers, and then raced towards the fiery molten metal / magma that is the center of the earth, we backed off as with this, they both fell below our standard of quality. Knock yourselves out, dudes and readers, pick’em as you like’em.  We’ll still like you although the candidates may not (it won’t be the first or last time).

They went where our endorsement won’t follow.  And this coyness on this vital Second Amendment issue is not just about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It IS all whether we are subjects, stripped of the ability to defend oneself, to a Government or being a sovereign Citizen in possession of and in control of all of our innate Rights protected by the Bill of Rights + those not specifically enumerated and having a Government.  A huge difference.

We cannot be sure that with his hesitation on the Second if there may be hesitation on other Rights – which puts into play my meme: I need to be able to never have worry about your vote.

Note: I have done a few light edits since the original posting, mostly for grammar reasons, as this was written very earlier in the wee hours of this morning. I will blame it on dyslexia of tired fingertips.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: