Additional Titles







Other Metcalf Articles:


Taxing Questions

No Place To Hide

We Don't Need UN's Permission

Is Hillary Lying?

Katie Bar The Door!

More Metcalf Articles:




By Geoff Metcalf

July 7, 2003

The witnesses were prepared. The jury was anxiously alert. The presentation was balanced and concise. The verdict was quick.

However, despite the uncommon demonstration of common sense, reason, and the will of the people�the outcome was and is largely ignored.

The decision wasn't mantled in the awe and pretense of the Supreme Court but rather the product of a mock trial conducted by 5th graders.

After lunch Monday, June 30, 2003, Miss Erickson's 5th graders, at So. Jordan Elementary, So. Jordan, UT, held a mock trial. The issue at trial has been the classic liberal wedge issue of at least the past three decades: Gun Control. More specifically: Should guns be allowed in school?

So. Jordan Elementary School is in Jordan School District where policy is currently being drafted regarding official permission for those who have Conceal Carry permits to guns to school.

Notwithstanding the colossal gasp of Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and the litany of usual suspects, the mock trial proceeded.

Each legal team consisted of five very bright 5th graders. Each side presented charts and facts to the jury, which was comprised of twelve 5th graders, half boys, and half girls. An "expert witness" on each side testified. The principal was subpoenaed for the "no guns in school" side, but he didn't show up for trial.

In the wake of about 45 minutes of intense debate, the jury left the classroom and deliberated behind closed doors for five minutes. The verdict: 12-0 in FAVOR of guns in schools.

Although the trial participants probably have not yet read Shakespeare when they eventually get around to it no doubt the Bard's line about lawyers will hold unique insights.

It is fascinating and insightful that an entire 5th grade class has the common sense and understanding to resolve what has become a wedge issue debate by liberal democrats 'Jonesing' to create a nation of potential victims.

Miss Erickson's class understood the territorial imperative of protecting your turf from criminals. The children WANT law abiding citizens to have access to guns both to protect them from bad guys and to alert the potential bad guys that their would be victims are not helpless. 200307031914.html

I have been ranting against gun grabbers for decades. We have a God given inalienable right to arm ourselves.

Gun prohibition is a concept embraced by politicians and criminals�and for the same basic reason. Both politicians and criminals seek control. It is axiomatic that an unarmed victim is easier to control than an armed potential resister.

Aubrey T. DeVera once observed, "Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is plain."

In the wake of 9/11 and it's horrific results we have repeatedly been told that eventually, inevitably we WILL be attacked by terrorists again in the continental United States. No one knows where, or when, or how, but from the President on down, officials repeat the mantra.

We have been told terrorist training tapes show the bad guys practicing home invasions, raids, and ambushes. We are told likely targets of opportunity will include high population density areas like malls and sporting events.

Terrorists and criminals count on the fact that law-abiding citizens (by definition) will not be armed.

Despite the counter-intuitive ramblings of the anti gun crowd Dr. John Lott has already documented the statistics that demonstrate in communities where it is difficult for law-abiding people to have access to firearms violent crime is high. Conversely in those communities where gun ownership is less restrictive crime is low.

There is a plaque at the Naval War College in Newport Rhode Island with a quote by Goethe: "There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action."

Those Utah 5th graders are apparently more reasonable and insightful than all the legislative and lawyerly pontificators.

At the conclusion of WWII a group of Japanese Admirals were asked if they had intended to invade the continental United States. They said emphatically, "NO!" and the reason was their perception that American civilians were too well armed and skilled in use of guns to "take the dragon by the tail."

After the fall of the Soviet Union a group of CIA types were meeting with some former KGB counterparts and posed the same question. The response was like an echo. "Not unless your government could disarm the people first. Americans have too many guns and know how to use them."

In the wake of 9/11 and the real and present dangers which we face from bad people intent on doing bad things, rather than disarming we the people, our government should be encouraging and promoting gun ownership.

� 2003 Geoff Metcalf - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

"Geoff Metcalf is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host for TALK AMERICA and a veteran media performer. He has had an eclectic professional background covering a wide spectrum of radio, television, magazine, and newspapers. A former Green Beret and retired Army officer he is in great demand as a speaker. . Visit Geoff's Web Site: While you're at it - pick up a copy of Geoff's latest book!  E-mail:








"Gun prohibition
is a concept embraced by politicians and criminals�and
for the same
basic reason.
Both politicians
and criminals
seek control. It is axiomatic that an unarmed victim
is easier to
control than an armed potential