Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Arming teachers is not a wise decision

Comments

Return To Article
  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 5:47 a.m.

    Considering that a handgun in the home is more likely to be used against the home's occupants than against an intruder, I would say the burden of evidence is on those who want armed teachers. They need to prove that the rate of accidents from guns in the classroom is virtually nonexistent, or you will end up with more casualties nationwide than from all of the school shootings combined. Mr. Burrell raises some excellent points, and I will value his opinion many times over that of Wayne LaPierre.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2013 6:01 a.m.

    Not only is it not "wise", it is in fact profoundly stupid.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Jan. 7, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    The problem with arming teachers is obvious, you aren't really arming teachers, you are arming the students. Almost any well conditioned student can easily over power a weak or unsuspecting teacher.

    Maybe we should only hire teachers who are ex-police officers or members of special forces units, doesn't anyone remember Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop".

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    Wow. Some actual wisdom in a letter to the editor.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 7, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    Emajor. Then who is going to protect our children? The inconvenient truth is that bad guys with guns can only be stopped by good guys with guns and the police can't protect your children any more than they did at Sandy Hook or any other school. Bad people will always get guns and no gun control law can or will stop them!

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 7, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    If someone knew teachers were armed I think they might be afraid. In fact mall shooting in Oregon and I beleive another shooting some time ago a teacher there got a gun and lives were saved there.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    I was talking last night with a friend who is an expert on gangs in Utah. He works with the Utah Attorney General's office. Although he is pro-gun, he has some serious concerns with the lack of adequate background checks, the gun show loophole, and the fact that before being prohibited from possessing a gun, a person must have been convicted of a felony.

    According to him, at least two thirds of gang members cannot be restricted from packing. Most have fairly extensive records of misdemeanors, but no felonies -- yet. It is not unusual for police agencies to have to return weapons to gang bangers because their possession of the weapon is permitted under current law and the Second Amendment. Because there is no registration of gun serial numbers, there is no way of learning if the gun has been stolen.

    He also points out that in almost every case of a gun being used in domestic violence, the gun was lawfully possessed by the shooter. Even though the shooter may have had a long history of previous violence, nothing can be done until he crosses the line from misdemeanor to felony.

    Something to think about?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    higv, it has been reported that the guy who claimed to have stopped the shooting in the Oregon mall wasn't in the vicinity when it happened.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Mountainman said,,,for the upteenth time, "... bad guys with guns can only be stopped by good guys with guns..."

    OK. You win. I get what you're saying. But as long as you say that I will say this:

    Deaths caused by firearms in 2011 included these numbers for developed countries:

    Unted States - 10.2 per 100,000 population
    Germany - 1.05 per 100,000 population
    United Kingson - 0.25 per 100,000 population
    Japan - 0.07 per 100,000 population

    So i genuinely want to know, what makes the difference? Why so many more deaths in this country? Are we just bad people?

    I think there is another answer but I want someone, in a responsiublke position, to explain these numbers to us all. Then, and only then, can we have a meaningful conversation about how to stop the killing.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    higv
    Dietrich, ID
    If someone knew teachers were armed I think they might be afraid.

    ==============

    ...and I don't think a mentally ill person, with a death-wish, 2 assault rifles, 1,000 rounds of ammo, and a bullet proof vest is afraid of a Kindergarten teacher with a 9mm and a 7 round clip at all.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    ECR. Its the culture. For example, when Japan suffered the tsunami, there was virtually no looting. Compare that with what happened during the last two hurricanes in America, especially in New Orleans.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Good, sensible letter. Nicely done, sir. And I honor your service to our country.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    ECR. Its the culture. For example, when Japan suffered the tsunami, there was virtually no looting. Compare that with what happened during the last two hurricanes in America, especially in New Orleans.

    9:09 a.m. Jan. 7, 2013

    Unted States - 10.2 per 100,000 population
    Germany - 1.05 per 100,000 population
    United Kingson - 0.25 per 100,000 population
    Japan - 0.07 per 100,000 population

    =================

    The Culture?

    Japan is a SOCIALIST nation,
    So is Germany and the UK.

    Perhaps the Gun-toutiing,
    anything for a buck,
    Me, Myself, and I,
    get off my property or I'll shoot,
    selfishness,
    of a paranoid America who thinks that the Government, their friends, neighbors, family and everyone around them is somehow out to get them,
    is the REAL problem?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    There are bad cops too. Shall we take all police guns away?

    You trust your kids to a teacher all day long. How does their having a gun change who they are? Having a gun doesn't suddenly make them into a ruthless killer. These are highly qualified, responsible people. Who better to take the responsibility for a weapon and the safety of our kids.

    If you don't trust a teacher with a gun to take care of your children, you shouldn't trust them with your kids at all. A gun is only one way a teacher might harm a child. They might humiliate them, or hurt their feelings, or molest them. They might stab them with scissors. You just never know.

    And the anti-gun folks think the pro-second amendment folks are paranoid. Your fear of the presence of a gun is paranoia.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    EMajor: So the burden is on gun owners and their advocates to prove that exercising their right will not have any negative effects before they will have that right protected. Is that what you are saying?

    If so, why don't we extend that logic to all the other rights protected by the constitution? Lots of people abuse the right of free speech (slander, libel, hate, etc.). Do we make someone prove that they will do none of those things before we grant them free speech?

    Freedom of the press has been abused numerous times by so-called "journalists" printing lies, exaggerations, and selective omissions. Do we make them prove that none of that abuse will happen before we "allow" a free press?

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    If teachers want to carry concealed, are judged mentally sound, and are willing to go through extensive training, they should be supported and allowed to do so. Concealed carry permit holders have been shown to be much more law abiding than the general public.

    As for the unhinged teacher 38 years ago, I don't think he/she would have passed today's required FBI background check, as well as the mental evaluation and extensive training (above).

    I think my children are safer at a school where competent, well-trained teachers and administrators are allowed to carry concealed. If something bad starts, the teachers are already there on the job, in the best position to take quick action if needed to protect the kids. We should let them.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    How sad --

    When I was a kid, we feared knowing the Pricipal had a Paddle in the closet.

    Today, kids might fear knowing the Pricipal has a Glock 17 in the closet.

    I also feared a certain 5th grade teacher who was known to fly off the handle and abuse kids at times.
    Throwing papers, kicking garbage cans, and slapping rulers was a weekly occurance.
    We were scared half to death.

    I know times have changed, but I don't feel better thinking my kids or grandkids would somehow be made safer knowing these types of short-fused "teachers" could be now be legally packing heat.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    The answer is home shcooling

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    To "ECR" the problem with your statistics is the simple fact that they don't reflect the overall homicide rate. If guns are the problem, then explain why the nations with the highest homicide rates also have low gun ownership rates?

    For example, in 2010 Honduras lead the world in murders, yet they only have 6.2 guns per 100 people. Your ilk's logic can't explain why they would have such a high murder rate with so few guns.

    The other problem that your ilk has is the simple fact that once you take away guns, the mentally ill will just switch to knives, swords, or other similar things.

    If you want to see what happens when you take away the guns, look to Japan. Read about the Akihabara massacre where a man killed 4 and injured 8 people using a survival knife. Banning guns is not the solution since crazy people will find a way to kill. The root of the problem is the mental condition of the populace.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 7, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Once again, this letter points out that mental health is the issue of concern, not the presence or absence of guns. Guns can't shoot themselves.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    The inconvenient truth is that bad guys with killing machines can only be stopped by good guys with killing machines and the police can't protect your children any more than they did at Sandy Hook or any other school. Bad people will always get killing machines and no killing machine control law can or will stop them!

  • not here COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
    Jan. 7, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    Whats to say when your kids are out on the play ground that a crazy don't come a long with his Bush Master and takes them down. Question will the teacher's be packing then and remember a pistol is only good for short distance. Wow decisions decisions do my kids got to school with teachers packing or do i home school them. Hurry and sign your teachers for the four hour class that will make them true marksman and if there was a shoot out how many kids will they take out?

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    When we have armed all of the teachers, administrators and janitors, who will protect the students from all of the now armed teachers, administrators and janitors? I'm quite certain an armed school employee who is deemed sane enough on Friday to have a concealed carry permit is capable of wigging out and going postal on Monday.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    @There You Go Again
    "Bad people will always get killing machines and no killing machine control law can or will stop them!"

    Nonsense, and at the very least we can make it harder for them to get them by doing what would in decent societies' view the obvious idea of closing the gun show loophole.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    If a lot of you think arming teachers is a good idea, and that concealed carry on campuses helps improve safety... then why aren't you concerned about the safety of students at BYU, a school that doesn't allow guns? Obviously the state can't impose that kind of thing on a church-run school, otherwise they would've when they did that for my school (Univ. of Utah) and the other state-run universities but shouldn't you be doing something like signing a petition asking the church to explain their position and consider changing it? It's not like it's a doctrinal stance the church has taken anyway and just asking isn't a bad thing. Don't BYU students deserve to be safer too?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    I get tired of repubs talking about what we "can't" do. Anything for the good of the people is just "too difficult." When it comes to education, security, economy, etc.

    We can't protect schools so why even try? We can't change our gun culture (as if Germany didn't have a violent past) so why even try?

    Hilarious!

    Why then when it comes to tax cuts for the rich, bailouts, and wars in the middle-east do repubs suddenly become can doers? But anything for the middle-class? They just "can't? do.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    JoeCapitalist2

    Nice diversion, but I'm talking about guns in the classroom here, not the right to own guns at all. Stay on topic. Unless of course you don't have a logical rebuttal to my original point. Which seems likely since you didn't offer one when given the chance.

    Mountanman,
    "Then who is going to protect our children? "

    Your understanding of risk and probability leaves a lot to be desired. The fact is, in 99.999% of the classrooms, our children don't need protecting. Introducing a gun into the classroom provides a risk that was never there before. So, do you increase the risk in every classroom in the hopes of preventing a very rare but very serious mass shooting in a very small number of classrooms? The only classroom made safer by a teacher with a gun is the classroom another shooter comes into. Every other classroom is made less safe. This isn't hard to understand.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 7, 2013 5:14 p.m.

    But it's ok to have armed faculty at prominent schools. These anti-2nd amendment authoritarians are such hypocrites. They want everybody else to get rid of their guns while they keeps theirs and their armed security.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    JoeCapitalist2

    Nice diversion, but I'm talking about guns in the classroom here, not the right to own guns at all. Stay on topic. Unless of course you don't have a logical rebuttal to my original point. Which seems likely since you didn't offer one when given the chance.

    Mountanman,
    "Then who is going to protect our children? "

    You need to understand risk and probability. The fact is, in 99.999% of the classrooms, our children don't need protecting. Introducing a gun into the classroom provides a risk that was never there before. So, do you increase the risk in every classroom in the hopes of preventing a very rare but very serious mass shooting in a very small number of classrooms? The only classroom made safer by a teacher with a gun is the classroom another shooter comes into. Every other classroom is made less safe.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 7, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    If you want gun control, go to the gun control utopia of the world known as North Korea.

  • Salsa Libre Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    Mountanman Hayden, ID

    A great argument for allowing people to have heavy weaponry and nuclear arms, too. Since government cannot protect you 100% of the time from an aggressor, people should have their own nuclear deturrent capabliity. Just think, a suitcase nuclear weapon in every home.

    No one is going to come through your front door. Not with the ability to blow the whole neighborhood sky high. You can't trust the military to keep you completely safe in case of war. We saw the effects of the nuclear bomb in Japan. If a terrorist got a nuclear weapon, you can't be sure you won't be a target. So, get your own nuclear weapon. At least the terrorist will go when you go!

    Of course, shooters with assault weapons don't expect to survive their attacks after the police arrive, so why should you're having an assault weapon with a 100-capacity clip deter them (assuming you decide to put yourself in harms way to protect other innocents; remember you are not the police with a commitment to put your life on the line) and stop the carnage?

    Remember, Rambo only needed a knife . . . a huge knife, at that!

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 7, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    Someone mentally ill may not fear a gun. However any case at least someone with a gun could save many a life from those type of people. As for the person that said answer is homeschooling, The vast majority of people go through the public school system and are safe and do ok. People could murder in your home too. Few people ever see a murder that go through the public school system just hear about the unfortunate ones that do.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID 1:03 p.m. Jan. 7, 2013

    An excellent reason to have extensive background checks, limits to access for mentally-unstable individuals (perhaps having regular psycholocical evaluations as a condition of gun ownership) and extensive training requiring re-certification at, perhaps, five-year intervals.

    This would deal well with those crazies who want to keep their hands close to their semi-automatic weapons in case the government comes after them in those black helicopters. It's true that guns don't shoot themselves. It usually takes a finger. But high-capacity, rapid-firing guns in the wrong hands can do a lot of damage. A lot more than if they had only a single-shot, maximum five bullets to do their terrible deed.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 7, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    Redshirt - I saw the statistics you are talking about and noticed that without question, those countries that have a higher gun related death rate are third world countries, perhaps with the exception of Brazil, although much of that country could be considered third world as well. I guess I was just hoping we were more advanced than those countries. Mountainman says it is just the culture of our country that causes the disparity in the numbers between us and other developed nations like Japan and the UK. In either case, that doesn't bode well for our country and is quite a sad commentary.

    But having said all that, I still think the availability of guns, especially assault type weapons, has to play at least some part in the sad story of the United States beating all other nations in gun related deaths except El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Columbia, Brazil, Panama, Mexico. And how many of those countries get their gun supply from their next door or near next door neighbor, the United States of America?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 7, 2013 7:41 p.m.

    Some studies of NYPD and LAPA reveal law enforcement officers hit their intended target 30% of the time. When being fired upon, the rate drops to 18%.

    Now imagine in a school situation, (assuming the same skill level as law enforcement officers) with armed teachers and personnel firing back where will the 70%-80% of bullets be landing?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    Oops. Correction: it should be LAPD--Los Angeles Police Dept. (not LAPA)

  • IamMathman Tooele, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:31 p.m.

    Our resource officer addressed the faculty today about safety procedures during lock downs. He recommended, almost begged us, that we do not approach or go after a shooter if we are armed. He stated that the responding police officer doesn't know if you are a bad guy with a gun or a good guy with a gun and if he sees you in the hall with a gun, he will shoot you dead. Why would any sane person want to make a situation any more difficult for the police officers responding to an emergency?

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:35 p.m.

    @Redshirt I think comparing a 3rd world country like Honduras leading the world in murders in 2010, with 6.2 guns per 100 people to England, Germany etc is an insult to our intelligence.

    Australia is not Socialist but they did a buy back of semi-automatic guns after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 and have not had a mass shooting since.

    As a cautionary thought they recently had a person beat up a Police officer to steal his gun so they could kill themselves. So an armed teachers is going to be easy picking.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 1:19 a.m.

    Re: Dwayne: Excellent, heartfelt responses. I agree with your reasoning. Competent teachers who are judged to be stable, level-headed, strong, and well trained are in the best position to stop-short these rare-but-horrific situations. If they meet these criteria and want to carry concealed, they should be allowed to -- with the blessing of the administration.

    Some of you seem to think that if teachers are armed, they will go nuts, or start shooting wildly, or chase a gunman down the hall, or will accidentally kill a lot of students, etc. Apparently I have more trust in our teachers than some of you. Not every situation will turn out perfectly, but on the whole I think we'll have fewer shootings and more lives will be saved.

    When teachers are properly trained, they'll know what to do and what not to do. And when I say "trained," I'm not talking about a 2-hour lecture, I'm talking about a 3-day, intensive, hands-on course, with periodic refresher training.

    Our wonderful teachers are already right there on the scene. Let's let them protect the kids, for Pete's sake.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 3:24 a.m.

    dwayne,
    Your lack of concern for bystanders getting struck by stray bullets scares the bejeezus out of me. Not everyone is OK with their children being considered "collateral damage" in your hero fantasies:

    "Would I be so selfish as a parent to blame teachers who killed my child before successfully killing a child killer? No."

    You don't get to make that decision for my child. Period.

    About Aurora: do you really think that having frightened, amped-up citizens with handguns blasting into the dark, crowded theater would have ended happily? One thing you can almost guarantee: the death rate of "1 to 3 victims per minute" would have gone up and the killer himself would have used a whole lot less of his own ammunition to accomplish it. Same with Tucson. Not every mass shooting can be stopped by armed citizens.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    EMajor, the statistics actually tell a different story. You have just succumbed to the Kool-Aid of the anti-gun lobby.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    ECR, you can quote all the statistics that you want. The bottom line is, in a free society, people have the right to be evil, stupid, and anything else they want to do. You can't stop people from doing evil things regardless of the restrictions that are put on society. More gun laws are not the answer and the bad/crazy people don't worry about the law anyway.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 8, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Flashback - I am not quoting statistics to make a point. I am quoting statistics to ask a legitimate question that no one seems to want to answer - Why are gun related deaths in developed countries similar to our own (ie. Germany, Japan the UK) so significantly lower than they are here? Are they not subject to the same cultural influences as we are?

    And contrary to your belief, I'm not claiming that limiting or eliminating gun rights is the answer. I just want us to ask those types of questions as we consider what needs to be done to stop the violence. And for the record, I believe that doing nothing is not the answer. Allowing another tragedy like Newtown to occur without any actions being taken is simply unacceptable to me. I hope it is to you as well.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Re: "Your lack of concern for bystanders . . . scares . . . me. . . . You don't get to make that decision for my child. Period."

    So, you'd prefer having a deranged killer making that decision for your child, rather than a trained, caring teacher?

    Hmmmmm.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT

    So, you'd prefer having a deranged killer making that decision for your child, rather than a trained, caring teacher?

    Hmmmmm.

    10:39 a.m. Jan. 8, 2013

    ===============

    Speaking for myself,

    No,
    I'd like to see military type asssault rifles banned from the general public,
    and not even have to worry about teachers having to carry hand-guns to protect my kids at school
    just so Billy-Bob can keep is bogus 2nd ammendment rights.

    If you want those rifles, join a "well regulated militia".
    If you're gonna keep and defend the Constitution, you must do so for ALL of it,
    not just cherry pick the parts and snippets you want, and ignore the rest of it.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    I don't want the government to limit people's gun rights much more than it already is.

    Mostly just because these gun nuts are already in a frenzy and need to be given some space. They all think the government is coming for their guns but can't pinpoint who exactly would do that deed. But they still believe it, that's clinically crazy.

    I want people to realize how dumb it is to think a gun makes you safer on their own and how dumb it is to think that if everyone had a gun we would be safer. It's just insane

    If gun nuts have been so easily led to this paranoid point, I don't think it will take much more to set them off. Clearly many of them ARE going off one by one killing their families before themselves.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 9, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    I can do more damage to a tank, truck, hum-vee or airplane with a molotov cocktail made with a glass coke bottle, gasoline, and a rag --
    than all you Anti-American, the Government is coming to get me, bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle, paranoid types combined.

    Sigmund Freud was right about guns being a symbolic extensionn to compensate for male insecurity.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    Arming teachers is silly. Most teachers couldn't being to handle a gun. HOWEVER - having at least 2 armed concealed weapon carries in a school is a GREAT idea. These two individuals would be trained and would pass all background checks. Having 2 armed protectors in a school makes total sense - it could be a custodian or a principal or an aide. the bottom line is you need to arm citizens to protect themselves and others.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    I am NOT a gun person: Although the fact that most of these massacres seem to occur in "gun free zones" is a fact that should be noticed.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    @dwane -- I think it's fabulous that you are ok with a teacher shooting your kid. But frankly, that's you and it sure isn't me. If a teacher shoots my kid because he is an untrained Rambo wannabe, I want him in jail. Period, end of story. Same with you. If you come to my "rescue" by shooting me, I want you in jail. If a person feels a need to carry a gun, then they need to take responsibility for how they use it. The consequence of shooting an innocent person should be jail time.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 10, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    If people follow gun safety rules, a gun at home is more likely to kill an intruder than to kill any of the occupants.

    I teach my family members gun safety, i.e. not to ever point a gun at anybody unless necessary, because a gun should always be treated as if it is loaded.

    Likewise, if people follow car safety rules, and drive defensively, they can expect they will have a safe experience in an automobile. Likewise with knives.

    Let us not ban, cars, knives or guns because there are those few who misuse them.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    I find it interesting that conservatives are now the teachers best friend, praising them up and down and saying how they are the saviors of our children.

    But I distinctly remember, just a little while ago, when conservatives could not say enough bad things about public school teachers. How horrible and worthless and lazy they all are.

    And where are the conservative when the teachers are asking for a raise? And where were the conservatives when the uh, conservatives were destroying public school teachers retirement program?