.@TGowdySC is 100% WRONG!
Trading freedom for safety is a false choice—our rights are non-negotiable.
Gun control fails because criminals, by definition, ignore laws.
As a former School Resource Officer, I know the real solution: ARM TEACHERS AND STAFF TO PROTECT OUR SCHOOLS. pic.twitter.com/xxK9xZ6Vfh
— Luis Valdes (@RealFLGunLobby) August 27, 2025
Our system is reactive. Something bad happens and we react to it. And what people are crying for now is, ‘How can we prevent this? How can we stop it?’ And the only way to stop it is to identify the shooter ahead of time or keep the weapons out of their hands. So we’re going to have to have a conversation of freedom versus protecting children. I mean, how many school shootings does it take before we’re gonna have a conversation about keeping firearms out….
It’s always a young white male. Almost always. I mean, did anyone this morning think, ‘I wonder if that was a female?’ Did any of y’all think that? I mean, there’s been one school shooting involving a female. One. At Tennessee. But other than that, it is usually young white males.
— Former GOP Congressman Trey Gowdy
I live in Connecticut, gun laws do not work, they never have. There are shooting almost every night in the large cities in CT. We have a democrat majority that has eroded our gun rights. They are not stupid, they know exactly what they are doing, they want the chaos, it is what they run on. They cause the problems and then they come up with the answers. We used to have open carry if the owner was a holder of a permit, I am not an advocate of open carry, but the state took that away because it scared certain people. Making laws that only the law abiding need to follow is one way of controlling the opposition. They enact these laws because they are the majority, they have an agenda and it is only the tip of the iceberg of what they want to do. Treating all gun owners as criminals is a political strategy. CT has a lenient sentencing guideline and criminals are coddled. They majority doesn’t want to penalize their constituency. Trey Goudy is WRONG, it is usually gangbangers that boost up the stats, but they are criminals and it reverts right back to criminals are going to do what they want because they are criminals. The only thing that stops a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, it has been proven over and over again.
This guy is literally an actor. He has acting credits for some law and order show. I believe he was a real lawyer and politician but he’s also an actor.
Everything he says is suspect.
I’ve always thought that all the Republicans who suddenly left Congress as soon as they gained some power after Trump was elected the first time were highly suspect. Among them, Gowdy has always been overrated. I thought he was a bit of a drama queen, so it makes sense that he acts.
Did he just misgender the shooter? Bigot!
Gowdy has always been a squish in disguise.
“Arming Teachers” is a disastrously stupid idea.
I don’t want to arm any leftist lunatic who’s generally busy pushing gender idealogy on kindergartners. And I certainly don’t want those gun-hating psychotics (who refuse to train or even use the pistol) to have it in their classroom. Nothing good will come of that.
And it’s a very divisive term. Frankly it scares the hell out of most teachers, and it should. Those are the teachers who can imagine being pushed over the edge and shooting a student, so they project that idea onto everyone.
So let us forever banish the idea of “arming teachers”. Let’s instead just do away with Gun Free School Zones, and the problem will automatically sort itself. Teachers, coaches, counselors, administrators, and staff who already believe in armed self defense, will naturally, gratefully, and thankfully strap up to do the job nobody else will do. Hell, plenty of us retired grandfathers would probably love to volunteer at our grandkids’ schools. Beats sitting at home watching Hallmark movies!
For all people of the gun, the mantra must be to banish “gun free zones” in schools.
About,
Well, interesting take you have there on inherent personal rights. I deplore mass shootings as much as the next person, and I even more deplore the idea of removing the inherent rights of a group based on the actions of individuals. I think a productive conversation could (should!) be had about restoring ‘gender dysphoria’ to the status of a diagnosable mental illness (it is, and only drooling idiots, like MajorLiar, think otherwise).
But probably everyone on this site was outraged when the VA and the Biden Administration was seeking to remove the 2A rights of veterans SIMPLY because they sought help managing their resources. Yes, I personally think (and there is plenty of empirical evidence to support my belief) that most of today’s ‘educators’ are flipping lunatics. But until we have an agreed-upon standard for what level of what specific mental issues are necessary to disqualify one from having the inherent right to keep and bear arms, I’m sure not keen on applying it situationally to any group. Again, remember the vets.
If the RKBA is an inherent right (and I think it is), it should not be denied or removed from someone without full due process. In general, I think PERMITTING school personnel to CHOOSE to be armed (if appropriately trained – yeah, if I’m payin’ their salary, I can damn sure require that they be trained to carry a gun around my kids), is simply consistent.
Thought experiment: If a conservative, religious school, located in a deep blue state, had a policy that permitted (not required, but permitted) school personnel to be armed while on duty, and the Leftist/fascist blue state AG went after the school to force them to reverse the policy, I’m hoping you’d oppose that. I equally oppose barring all Dimocrats from the RKBA. It’s either an inherent right, or it isn’t. If you want to have a discussion about what level and type of requirements about mental competency we should place on the right, I’m happy to have that discussion . . . but the issues around that are for more complex than what you are suggesting.
I frequently complain (loudly) about the inherent dishonesty, hypocrisy, and outright derangement of the fascist Left, but I’ve never suggested restricting their rights (to speech, RKBA, etc.) just based on their clearly absurd world view. Let’s be more intellectually honest and consistent than they are (shouldn’t be a problem; that’s a VERY low bar!!).
Whoa friend, I never said anything about taking away anyone’s rights!
What I was trying to get across is: if a purple-haired antifa-supporting nonbinary loony leftist teacher hates guns, why on earth would it be a good idea to “arm” that teacher? That’s what people hear when we say “arm teachers”; they’re hearing us say that packing a gat becomes part of the job description. FORCING someone to carry a gun is a personal rights violation!
I will say that I expect somewhere around 80% of the opposition to “arming teachers” is centered around that idea — “I don’t want to carry a gun”, “I don’t want to have to shoot somebody”, “I’m a teacher, not a cop”, and on and on. To that I say “fine — we are not ARMING you! You don’t have to do anything.” They have their 2A rights, but they are under no obligation to exercise those rights.
All I’m advocating is that we stop DISARMING teachers. Because that’s what we do. I expect that there is at least one teacher on every campus in America who would prefer to be armed to protect his flock. I’m talking about the same thing churches are doing now — many churches have removed the stigma of “you can’t carry a gun here, it’s a church!” So now there are armed citizens, and we’ve seen news stories about how they’ve intervened and saved countless lives when some lunatic thought that church would make a target-rich environment.
When I say “I don’t want these lunatics having guns”, I’m not saying one single syllable about taking away anyone’s rights. I’m saying “If someone is mentally unstable to the point where they’re hoplophobic and terrified of what they might do if they found a weapon in their hands, if they have so little self-control that they could actually imagine or see themselves reaching a ‘breaking point’ or ‘snapping’ and actually shooting children, then yeah, I’d prefer that that person not actually have a weapon, and that they get treatment for their mental instability.” The last thing I would want to do is take someone like that and declare “now I am arming you and making it part of your job to defend these children with a gun”.
One statement is proactive – actively “arming” teachers. I say that’s a stupid idea. The other statement is rights-reinforcing – stop “disarming” teachers. Let those who want to defend themselves and their students do so.
Hope that clears it up.
The dark money has bitten him.