1. A good piece of legislation needed to protect lawful Hoosiers. Thankfully, all of the rabid anti’s screaming and wailing didn’t deter the legislators from acting responsibly. The Rabids don’t seem to be sharp enough to understand criminals aren’t law abiding, which makes all the “education” associations against it scary. These people are responsible for public education and they don’t comprehend what criminals are.

2. “The National Rifle Association supports the bill, while it is opposed by the Indiana State Teachers Association, the Indiana Association of School Principals, Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents, Indiana School Boards Association, Indiana Urban School Association, and the Children’s Coalition of Indiana.”

   That paragraph sums it up right there.

   NRA = MURICA (:

   • I’m all for the NRA, but when I verified who was oppose of this as mention above, I thought differently.
     Seams practical with guns being lock in a vehicle. But then again, if the teachers, principals ect. that are at these schools all day, and are not comfortable with this. Maybe this law needs to be revisited?

     • Comfortable ??? So now the comfort factor of the sheeple is to take precedence in justifying the infringing of a constitutionally protected right? When did this start ? Oh…..never mind !!!

       Hint: Yer warm and fuzzies are not guaranteed.

3. Let’s have more guns on school property. Great policy. Just brilliant.

   • In retrospect, a cold black Glock .45 housed in the trunk of a strong, brave football coach would have proved useful in several schools in the last few years. The bad guys aren’t so bad when they’re met with their own medicine.

     • A cold amber Colt .45 w/frosted mug would be a less lethal option for those good school children. The brave football coaches could be cowering in the ceiling, preoccupied with wiring their cameras in the girl’s locker room to be of much help.

       Fewer guns on school property, that’s the way to go.

       • Fewer guns is the way to go if other security measures are in place. Until then, taking a gun free zone to a gun fight will not work.

       • Correction, “No guns” is the way to go. Fewer guns have resulted in only the bad guy being armed.

       • So, you’re a football coach, eh?

         • No, I am a law abiding citizen who has no indication or intention of gunning down students or teachers, with constitutional right to posses firearms. I do not want to find myself stripped of that right and facing the muzzle end of a criminals firearm.

           If we are going to have a gun free zone, then we need to 100% insure that 0% of firearms can penetrate that gun free zone. That has not and is not the case.

         • But I could pick off a football in mid flight. Bad idea though.

   • The brilliance part is why you can’t get your mind around it, eh?

4. I see the simple minded troll disaffected is out doing what it does best.

   • Truth.

   • Sometimes it is pointless to bother with some of these people. Indiana is going to do this because of the fools that swallow the NRA’s garbage.

     • Or, just maybe, these people aren’t swallowing the leftist fear mongering garbage and are thinking through a situation and not jumping to conclusions. Law abiding folk should be allowed to have a weapon, contained in their vehicle, when doing business/visiting school. Do you numb skull folks actually believe that a school shooter is going to curtail his plan, because a law says they can’t carry a gun on campus. Last time I checked, killing is already against the law. Criminals break laws, so making more of them will not stop an incident form occurring. But that is way too simple and makes too much common sense for you lib sheep.

     • I always thought the Constitutions were garbage in your mind. Thanks for finally being truthful.

     • No, Indiana is going to do this because the state is one of the few remaining bastions of freedom and self determination. Shrill delusional socialist notwithstanding.

   • But you make it so easy with your simple little posts, trollette.

5. Rules for Radicals.Alinski’s ideas for creating a social state:

   There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained:

   1) Healthcare –Control healthcare and you control the people
   2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you
   are providing everything for them to live.
   3) Debt –Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
   4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
   5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
   6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
   7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
   8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be
   easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

6. right on…….right on……brandon……barry obomachev and his commie minions are well on their way to the 8 levels….http://www.usdebtclock.org/

7. It would have been a blessing if Alinski’s mother had aborted him.

Comments are closed.