Author Topic: Ron Paul slams NRA, is against armed guards in schools. (Read 2867 times)

powderman · « **on:** December 25, 2012, 03:04:56 AM »

Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every school Published December 24, 2012
FoxNews.com

Shown here is retiring Texas Rep. Ron Paul. (AP)

Retiring Republican Rep. Ron Paul pushed back Monday against the National Rifle Association's call for installing armed officers in every school, warning that the move could create a TSA-style maze of checkpoints and surveillance cameras -- with limited effect.
"School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America," Paul said in a written statement.
The congressman, among the most libertarian-leaning on the Hill, is the first Republican in Congress to forcefully oppose the NRA's proposal. NRA head Wayne LaPierre on Friday urged federal funding to overhaul America's school security, a plan that would include posting a guard in every school.

LaPierre argued that, in the wake of the Connecticut mass murders, it only makes sense to protect students the same way the country protects banks and elected leaders -- with armed security.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said.
But Paul -- who said he agrees that "more guns equals less crime" and "private gun ownership prevents many shootings" -- nevertheless chided the NRA for its plan, describing it as a government solution that could infringe on liberty.

"Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided 'security,' a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse," Paul said.
Paul, during his more than two decades in Congress and three presidential runs, has earned a reputation for going against the grain of his party. He has been famously anti-defense spending and anti-anything that smacks of too much government.
While chastising Democrats for their renewed calls for gun control, he claimed the call for more school officers is in the same vein.

"Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government 'do something' to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned," Paul said. "The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we're told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped."
He continued: "I don't agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/ron-paul-rips-nra-plan-for-officers-in-every-school/#ixzz2G4XoL600

coyotejoe · « **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 2012, 04:15:06 AM »

Much as I do support the NRA I agree with Ron Paul that armed guards in schools is not the answer. It's just another knee jerk reaction along the same lines as the assault weapons ban except it will cost a lot more and impose on personal liberty of many more Americans.

gypsyman · « **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 2012, 04:17:20 AM »

P-man, while I totally agree with R.Paul on this, only 1 flaw in his arguement. This will take several generations to acomplish this, as it didn't take overnight. So, in the mean time, for the next 10-20 years, as this generation continue's to age, we'll have to do something. I'm still a firm believer that parent volunteers could help out. gypsyman

twoshooter · « **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2012, 04:59:30 AM »

I am writing to my local paper regarding an article, and have given this quite a bit of thought. I suspect that very few teachers have the psychological makeup to be armed effectively. In fact, a sizeable percentage of gun owners also fit into this category, despite their self-estimation of their capabilities. Having someone in the school capable would make sense, and having a secured weapon available to those persons would probably be a good idea. Arming all or many, probably as bad an idea as disarming all. Passive security could be enhanced greatly by building modifications that could be cosmetically disguised and not overly expensive. Nothing can eliminate all of these acts, it is just incumbent on the rest of us to resist the urge to engage in futile though well intentioned acts with far reaching unintended consequences.

Swampman · « **Reply #4 on:** December 25, 2012, 06:04:07 AM »

There's no fool like an old fool.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 25, 2012, 06:15:34 AM »

A federal agency in charge of school security would be as unconstitutional and useless as the TSA. School security should be determined at the town/city level.

The only thing that needs to be done at the federal level is to repeal the "gun free school zones act" so that any teacher with a CCW (and any parent volunteers) can legally carry at school.

BTW for those who don't remember, the "Gun Free School Zones Act" was passed by a Republican led congress and signed by Klinton in 1996. "Real Conservatives" like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum supported this atrocious piece of gun control. The blood of many school children is on the hands of the people who voted in favor of creating these killing zones.

jjas · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2012, 07:15:43 AM »

Quote from: coyotejoe on December 25, 2012, 04:15:06 AM

Much as I do support the NRA I agree with Ron Paul that armed guards in schools is not the answer. It's just another knee jerk reaction along the same lines as the assault weapons ban except it will cost a lot more and impose on personal liberty of many more Americans.

+1. Why not slow down, take a breath. and try to figure out how to do something smart instead of something politically expedient? Do we really want our schools to resemble small prisons?
IMHO, having guards in every school is just an over reaction (and I have two school age kids). Guards didn't work @ Columbine or VA tech so what makes people think having a retired cop or resource office in every school will work next time? What happens when the next nut job does something like this and a guard doesn't stop it? Then what? Full assault teams in every school? 8 foot fences surrounding the schools? Do we ban everyone's guns by type until there's nothing left to ban?
The young man that killed these kids, the young man that shot up the movie theater and killed those people, the young men that shot up VA tech and Columbine and the young man that shot Congresswoman Gabby Gifford (and those around her) all have/had mental problems.
Was it a common med they all were on? Was it an ignored or undiagnosed condition? Was it a matter of meds not being taken? I have no idea.
But what I do see is a pattern of people with little or no criminal history planning and carrying out mass murder. We (as a society) need to try and figure out why (if possible) this is occuring and what (if anything) can be done to prevent it.
The rest is just an expensive waste of time and money and our personal freedoms will continue to disappear in the process.

rickt300 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 25, 2012, 11:20:11 AM »

Why are individuals forced into a situation where they are defenseless? Why can't a teacher or assistant principal carry concealed? I'll bet the adults that were killed wished they had had a chance.

rdmallory · « **Reply #8 on:** December 25, 2012, 01:11:15 PM »

I have an idea of preventing the tragedy such as the one at Newtown, Conn. Currently I am a security engineer by trade and I feel the same principles could be applied to physical security. In the information security world you never set up a demilitarized zone (DMZ) without installing intrusion prevention and detection (IDS/IPS) at the same time.

This has been tested in Texas and seems to be working. By training teachers and school officials to handle armed intruders. This is not just the ability to shoot but also the ability to disarm the situation by talking down the threat and understating all option. This would also go along will well placarded zones notifying everyone that they are in a “guarded” zone.

This could be expanded to malls, movie theaters and sporting events. The guards would be patrons such as store owners, security guards, or anyone normally stationed at the gatherings.

I see this being similar as a CPR certification some civilians hold. Not just a conceal carry permit but full first responder training on how to deal with an active shooter both mentally and emotionally.

Instead of banning “assault rifles” collect a fee for doing a background check to fund the guard training.

Which would you feel safer attending a movie that has a sign no weapons allowed or a sign that states the property is a guarded zone.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #9 on:** December 25, 2012, 01:41:57 PM »

I guess I am the odd man out here but I feel the trained armed guard route is the best at this point.
I am sorry but we don't live in the 50s anymore.
You can't leave your doors unlocked or your keys in your car and expect it to be there in the morning.
The teachers have enough to do teaching and trying to controll our kids and as such are not able to concentrate on a would be assult.
A well trained armed guard at the front of the building where everyone must pass is still the best answere at this time.
Along with other security features would help make things safer.
It's about the only thing we can do to protect our kids!
I didn't say the government had to do it or be in controll of it.
The state or local government could handle this I am sure.

LONGTOM

magooch · « **Reply #10 on:** December 25, 2012, 02:00:42 PM »

Quote from: jjas on December 25, 2012, 07:15:43 AM

Quote from: coyotejoe on December 25, 2012, 04:15:06 AM
Much as I do support the NRA I agree with Ron Paul that armed guards in schools is not the answer. It's just another knee jerk reaction along the same lines as the assault weapons ban except it will cost a lot more and impose on personal liberty of many more Americans.

+1. Why not slow down, take a breath. and try to figure out how to do something smart instead of something politically expedient? Do we really want our schools to resemble small prisons?
IMHO, having guards in every school is just an over reaction (and I have two school age kids). Guards didn't work @ Columbine or VA tech so what makes people think having a retired cop or resource office in every school will work next time? What happens when the next nut job does something like this and a guard doesn't stop it? Then what? Full assault teams in every school? 8 foot fences surrounding the schools? Do we ban everyone's guns by type until there's nothing left to ban?
The young man that killed these kids, the young man that shot up the movie theater and killed those people, the young men that shot up VA tech and Columbine and the young man that shot Congresswoman Gabby Gifford (and those around her) all have/had mental problems.
Was it a common med they all were on? Was it an ignored or undiagnosed condition? Was it a matter of meds not being taken? I have no idea.
But what I do see is a pattern of people with little or no criminal history planning and carrying out mass murder. We (as a society) need to try and figure out why (if possible) this is occuring and what (if anything) can be done to prevent it.
The rest is just an expensive waste of time and money and our personal freedoms will continue to disappear in the process.

Well let's see if I'm following your logical deductions. The best path to follow would be to eliminate, or imprison all young men. That's probably not where you were going, but I'm also trying to use some Dianne Feinstien sense of things.

I have to agree with those who think the best solution for everyone--considering the political climate and the times--might be to advocate that teachers and administrators be exempt from the "gun-free zone." We can't just stand by and hang our hats on the Second Amendment; we have to have a workable alternative. Otherwise we are the targets of the most strident solutions, which is either selective and repeat banning, or all out total banning when the next really horrific bloodbath occurs.

I also agree that it should be up to local school districts as to what level of security they think they require. The federal government can't even secure our borders. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of schools that have already provided security steps--prior to the Connecticut school shooting.

We (gun owners, the NRA, etc.) had better have a plan B also, because I am as sure as can be that Obama and his crowd will not be satisfied with half steps. We need a very strong distraction. My choice would be impeachment for gross malfeasance of office over the Benghazi affair.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #11 on:** December 25, 2012, 02:01:40 PM »

Guards in schools will NOT prevent school shootings. It won't even slow them down. The crazies of this world will take the guard out before he shoots the students.
Actually, nothing will stop the crazies. They are a part of society. They are like the flu. They are like rats and roaches and rattlesnakes. We don't like it, but we can't stop it. Gun control will have no affect.
The only protected person is the armed person. Students are children and can't be armed. One or two guards per school will not protect them. Those sub-human creatures that will kill children will not be slowed by a guard. What a ridiculous proposition. It's almost as stupid as gun control laws.
People die. Some of the dead are kids. When Germany and England bombed each other, kids died. When Muslim suicide bombers do their thing, kids die. It can't be stopped. We don't live in a world where any gov't can control death. The victims of the latest mass killing are the makings of just one horror. If one of those children was mine, I'd be all over arming schools, but that attitude is a derivative of emotion, not reality.
Someone mentioned TSA. What a joke. Armed guards in schools would be no different.
Let's look at TSA from a common sense viewpoint. How much has it cost us to put TSA in air terminals? How much less expensive would it be to only search those who have Arabian attributes? We have never needed TSA to search caucasians or negroes. TSA examinations have only come about as a result of Arab misconduct. Why offend other races? If we didn't need white people searched before now, why do we need them searched now? As whats-his-name said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.
But noooooo. We can't discriminate by race. Why the hell not? If we are at war with terrorists, and terrorists are Arabs, then Arabs have no right not to be checked, IMO.
Do you know that discrimination is alive and well on the Interstate highways you travel? Police identify those individuals and vehicles known to commonly carry contraband. They find a reason to stop said vehicle. Like a dangling object from the rear view mirror, or a defective tail light that blinks on and off, or a driver that allows one wheel to drift over the centerline; an insignificant violation that most motorists would not be stopped for. They MUST go that silly route because to do otherwise would be discrimination.
Therein lies our doom. We are so afraid of offending the rights of an individual, that we put the public at risk. We have to find a ridiculous reason before we present that offense.
I say if a person with Arabian or Muslim attributes wants to get on an aircraft, then that individual should be subject to a search, and when he screams that his rights are being violated, he should be knocked senseless or at least assaulted until he shuts up.
We have gone so far to the left so as not to offend peoples "rights" that we have brought upon ourselves the very thing that harms us.

ironglow · « **Reply #12 on:** December 25, 2012, 02:21:23 PM »

By now we all should know..RP sits a good horse well, but sometimes he shows up on the wrong side of the fence..

I agree with Longtom..this is not the era many of us grew up in, we can't "assume" schools are a safe haven.
I do disagree that teachers could not be employed with the sense of also being a security source. Most are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.. New hires could be chosen with that in mind..many veterans and likely former security personnel are now studying to be teachers..they could be given priority.

For Ron Paul to suggest our school choildern don't deserve the same protection as is provided at campaign gatherings, sporting events..or the same protection afforded politicians and celebrities, is a bit disingenuous to say the least. Surely, our school kids deserve as much protection as Rosie O'Donnell or Barbra Streisand!
Both security and citizens have worked to prevent mass killings..
http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/3297401-Jeanne-Assam-It-was-me-the-gunman-and-God/

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2092371/pg1

http://www.gunblast.com/Media_Ignore_Facts.htm

The first one was a trained security person..the following two were just armed citizens..and I bet that trained security gal was probably a volunteer..
I do agree with Longtom that the feds should "butt out" and let the local authorities protect the children if they wish to. When it is painfully realized that armed protection works..then the idea may spread... hopefully before too many kids are killed.
Come on you guys..most of you must read the "armed citizen" results every month in NRA publications!!

45-70.gov · « **Reply #13 on:** December 25, 2012, 02:32:44 PM »

i see an amazing number of kids going to school with out incident

a few nut jobs are nothing compared to what other countries deal with

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** December 25, 2012, 02:53:49 PM »

Mike in VA;
I do agree that there are crazies out there and we must do better at rooting out the cuckoos...but that doesn't mean we must leave the kids unprotected!
The liberals who condemn guarding the kids, prove themselves wrong every day. They don't seem to mind that secret service is guarding the president.. members of comgress , airplanes, sports events and their good buddies in the entertainment industry.
I especially take exception to this statement you made;
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
" The only protected person is the armed person. Students are children and can't be armed. One or two guards per school will not protect them. Those sub-human creatures that will kill children will not be slowed by a guard. What a ridiculous proposition. It's almost as stupid as gun control laws. "
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The news items I posted above PROVES your contention to be wrong..as do many cases every day where an armed person saves lives.

Why do such mass killings not occur at shooting ranges, police conventions or NRA meetings?
Obviously, liberal lawmakers efforts to make schools a "gun free" shooting gallery..are working quite well..
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
No Mike, armed guards and even armed citizens works quite well;
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161

jjas · « **Reply #15 on:** December 25, 2012, 03:01:14 PM »

magooch

Quote

Well let's see if I'm following your logical deductions. The best path to follow would be to eliminate, or imprison all young men. That's probably not where you were going, but I'm also trying to use some Dianne Feinstien sense of things.

Obviously it wasn't where I was going. But you can't ignore facts. And the facts are that many of these mass shooting are committed by young men (mostly white, well educated and many from affluent families). Is that a coincidence? I don't know? But it would seem to be a place to start. As is meds/no meds, previous behavioral issues, and any other similar facts that these killers may share.
I still contend that turning schools into prisons won't change a thing. What happens if one of these shootings happens after school @ a ball game or @ a school function like open house? Then what? Do we start to post guards @ the doors or gates and have everyone pass through metal detectors or be "felt up" like in airports? Do we cancel sports events and hide in our homes? Who really wants to live like that?
Or maybe we look @ who is committing these acts and try and figure out if there is a way to stop some of this insanity before it happens and (as hard as this may be) realize that no matter how hard you try, you simply can't protect everyone all of the time.

ironglow · « **Reply #16 on:** December 25, 2012, 03:14:42 PM »

Quote from: jjas on December 25, 2012, 03:01:14 PM

magooch
Quote
Well let's see if I'm following your logical deductions. The best path to follow would be to eliminate, or imprison all young men. That's probably not where you were going, but I'm also trying to use some Dianne Feinstien sense of things.

Obviously it wasn't where I was going. But you can't ignore facts. And the facts are that many of these mass shooting are committed by young men (mostly white, well educated and many from affluent families). Is that a coincidence? I don't know? But it would seem to be a place to start. As is meds/no meds, previous behavioral issues, and any other similar facts that these killers may share.
I still contend that turning schools into prisons won't change a thing. What happens if one of these shootings happens after school @ a ball game or @ a school function like open house? Then what? Do we start to post guards @ the doors or gates and have everyone pass through metal detectors or be "felt up" like in airports? Do we cancel sports events and hide in our homes? Who really wants to live like that?
Or maybe we look @ who is committing these acts and try and figure out if there is a way to stop some of this insanity before it happens and (as hard as this may be) realize that no matter how hard you try, you simply can't protect everyone all of the time.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Schools don't have to be prisons and kids don't have to be "felt up" (an obvious incendiary statement). Any of these atrocities were committed by easily detectable weapons.. Even without search teams ..a few people with CC permits could save lives..without any argument..any rational argument, that is..
Too many cases as shown above, are where lives are saved by common, armed citizens... Armed citizens and check for nutcases and their causes...can't we do both? How much are our children worth, anyway ?

rdmallory · « **Reply #17 on:** December 25, 2012, 03:32:00 PM »

I wonder how many had CCW permits at the school and was not carrying because of the laws?
I would hate to know that the janitor or another survivor had a CCW and could of lessened or prevented the loss of life.

Doug

ironglow · « **Reply #18 on:** December 25, 2012, 04:15:08 PM »

Quote from: rdmallory on December 25, 2012, 03:32:00 PM

I wonder how many had CCW permits at the school and was not carrying because of the laws?
I would hate to know that the janitor or another survivor had a CCW and could of lessened or prevented the loss of life.

Doug

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Suzanne Hupp could have saved her parents an many others in Luby's that fateful evening...had she been allowed to carry her .38 with her into the cafeteria. Since then, with her efforts, Texas now allows CC.. Here is a forward to her book, "From Luby's to Legislature:
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

" Book Description Publication Date: December 1, 2009 On October 16, 1991, Suzanna Gratia Hupp witnessed the tragic shooting of 23 people at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, among them her parents. Ironically she had decided against carrying a small revolver—that could have dramatically changed the day's events—in her purse that day out of a fear of losing her chiropractor’s license if caught possessing a weapon. In this autobiography, she chronicles her evolution from a small-town chiropractor into a national icon for the right to armed self-defense. Her transformation into a high-profile, gun-rights activist began when her impassioned calls for the right of citizens to carry guns for self-protection thrust her into the middle of the gun-control debate. She repeatedly testified under oath against the ineffectiveness of gun-control laws that, in her opinion, disarmed law-abiding citizens, making them potential victims of criminals who did not obey the law. This position on gun legislation paved the way for a decade-long tenure as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, where, in addition to championing Second Amendment and privacy rights, she served as a member of the House Rural and Veterans and Military Affairs Caucuses, Chair of the House Select Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care, and Chair of the Human Services Committee"
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

BBF · « **Reply #19 on:** December 25, 2012, 07:17:07 PM »

Perhaps locked solid doors with a peephole to the classroom would be simpler.

jjas · « **Reply #20 on:** December 25, 2012, 08:18:11 PM »

Quote from: ironglow on December 25, 2012, 03:14:42 PM

Quote from: jjas on December 25, 2012, 03:01:14 PM
magooch
Quote
Well let's see if I'm following your logical deductions. The best path to follow would be to eliminate, or imprison all young men. That's probably not where you were going, but I'm also trying to use some Dianne Feinstien sense of things.

Obviously it wasn't where I was going. But you can't ignore facts. And the facts are that many of these mass shooting are committed by young men (mostly white, well educated and many from affluent families). Is that a coincidence? I don't know? But it would seem to be a place to start. As is meds/no meds, previous behavioral issues, and any other similar facts that these killers may share.
I still contend that turning schools into prisons won't change a thing. What happens if one of these shootings happens after school @ a ball game or @ a school function like open house? Then what? Do we start to post guards @ the doors or gates and have everyone pass through metal detectors or be "felt up" like in airports? Do we cancel sports events and hide in our homes? Who really wants to live like that?
Or maybe we look @ who is committing these acts and try and figure out if there is a way to stop some of this insanity before it happens and (as hard as this may be) realize that no matter how hard you try, you simply can't protect everyone all of the time.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Schools don't have to be prisons and kids don't have to be "felt up" (an obvious incendiary statement). Any of these atrocities were committed by easily detectable weapons.. Even without search teams ..a few people with CC permits could save lives..without any argument..any rational argument, that is..
Too many cases as shown above, are where lives are saved by common, armed citizens... Armed citizens and check for nutcases and their causes...can't we do both? How much are our children worth, anyway ?

Sure we could, but we won't. Mental health issues always get pushed back as gun control and security talk always takes precendence. And due to liablity issues, I highly doubt that you'll see any widespread use of non-professional security in schools. Police officers and licensed security firms will be what most school corporations will want.
And do you ever stop to wonder how much of this new security will be paid for? I have a feeling that gun owners will be paying for a big chunk of any changes made. How? Through new taxes paid for every new gun sale, box of ammo purchased and new taxes on reloading supplies too. Throw in new regs that require private gun sales to be completed through NICS (and charge a fee for that too) and a re-issue of the ban on any mag that holds more than 10 rounds.
So in the end, the NRA gets to say that no guns were banned and there will be more security in schools than ever. The anti-gunners get to brag about the new "sin" taxes that are helping "make schools safer", and how private sales are now subject to background checks and that "loop hole" is now closed.

And in the real world, not much will change......and so it goes........

ironglow · « **Reply #21 on:** December 25, 2012, 11:11:47 PM »

jjas;
As you stated earlier, we should delve deeper into the root causes of such violence and I heartily agree. As you indicated earlier; in our "Brave, new world" of a drug saturated culture, thereis no way without honest investigation, we can possibly expose and treat the real problems. The root causes of mental illness may even be defended by some!
Here; reasearch indicates a possible link with much of the recurring violent acts:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/25/us-kids-psychosis-idUSBRE8BO07D20121225

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20100302/longtime-pot-smoking-may-raise-psychosis-risk

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1305438--son-found-not-criminally-responsible-in-murder-of-his-mother

Now, suppose some university were to start research upon the subject..and suppose they found these assessments to be true. Can you imagine the whining and accusations which would come from some people.. even some very influential people?
Sure, everyone who puffs pot may well not suffer this psychosis, but if only 1% or 3% do, that could make for some very colorful murder scenes.
Now that this research has come to light, I will have to assume that our 2nd amendment rights are very possibly in jeopardy because some folks who should know better, keep denying the obvious truth.

Just watch..a whole bevy of "potters" will now jump in, screaming about how benign recreational drugs are..proving my very point!

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 26, 2012, 02:05:25 AM »

I believe NRA leadership went a little excess on the security guard thing. Do it locally, on an ad-hoc basis. No need for another alphabet soup federal agency, which will be another rice bowl/patronage for retired cops and soldiers. We've got plenty of that already.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #23 on:** December 26, 2012, 02:29:03 AM »

every solution has merits
and every solution has drawbacks

you got the cost in $$
and the cost to freedom

armed guard.....sigular stupid..he will be the first target
armed guards....plural... VERY EXPEN$IVE..a team..some kids can still be killed but not so many
....this may also challenge the attacker and draw even more attacks

REPEAL gun free school zone act.............free.....no co$t....descrete armed teachers [if they choose]

remote locks on secure doors....an auto lock down system....several teachers control wireless
........will take time and wont be an on going cost like guards
will work fine until
the next attacker has a shopping cart full of Molotov cocktails and no one can get out

there are things we can all do.....with little or know down side
get a safe if you don't have one....don't let YOUR gun be the next one to fall into a nuts hands
never mind the cost ...just do it....you will have years of peace of mind for it
help keep democrats out of office.
..they are most likly to disarm you and make you depentent for protection and food and housing

for the most part things are really good.....
yet democrats[and now some republicans] want to upset things with a bunch of control laws

ironglow · « **Reply #24 on:** December 26, 2012, 03:52:32 AM »

I seem to be speaking to non-hearing people.
1) We certainly do not need another federal agency. That would be the wrong way to try to solve the situation.

2) We do need to hire and maintain trained, qualified teachers. As I said, there are combat vets in college right now, who will be looking for a job, most well trained and experienced. Chances of any given teacher facing such a shootout would be slim..and concealed carry is not a problem for many. So, keeping sharp and a bit of incentive pay would make for good coverage...absolutely no need for another wasteful federal or state program. It doesn't HAVE to be restricted to any ONE teacher either. Between the principals, coaches, janitors, maintenance people and teachers..several could easily be armed..let any idiot willing to attack..guess who is armed. ....Chances are the nutcase would seek a softer target.

BTW: One man or woman well armed can make a HUGE difference..this small woman did..just read it:
http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/3297401-Jeanne-Assam-It-was-me-the-gunman-and-God/

Here is a whole list of cases where one person armed, can make HUGE a difference:
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
You can read them every month, in American Rifleman or American Hunter.

I fear federal or state programs would only pack such programs with "politically favored" flunkies..

ironglow · « **Reply #25 on:** December 26, 2012, 04:07:18 AM »

Let's see how it works in Utah & Kansas..
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55524114-78/shooting-utah-teachers-weapons.html.csp

52bagman · « **Reply #26 on:** December 26, 2012, 09:05:31 AM »

Or had a CCW and died because they coudn't use it

I wonder how many had CCW permits at the school and was not carrying because of the laws?
I would hate to know that the janitor or another survivor had a CCW and could of lessened or prevented the loss of life.

Doug

LONGTOM · « **Reply #27 on:** December 27, 2012, 06:18:25 AM »

Let me just put this out there.
Looks a little strange doesn't it!!!
I guess it works?

School Obama’s Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/school-obamas-daughters-attend-has-11-armed-guards-2/#ixzz2GGtHoSQl

sidwellfriendsSecretService

Is their kids any better than ours?
Do they deserve any better security than ours?
Guess who is paying for this.
If I am going to pay then it may as well be to help protect our own kids!

My point is armed guards will work.
Don't need to be this extream but put 1 or 2 just inside the main entrance where everyone must enter, put them behind a thick piece of Lexon, train them well, arm them well, give them a panic button that locks all the class room doors and sets off an alarm at the police station.
Maybe they will be the first they try to take out.
I would rather have them shooting at the guards then the kids!
I am sure some teachers could handle the task of security while teaching but how do we make sure the right teachers are armed?
Not all them could handle it.
Ex military as guards might work well in this environment, not sure.
We are treading where we have never gone before and need to do all we can to make sure we make the right choice what ever it may be.
Here in VA where I live many of our schools already have a visual police presence and yes they are armed.
They are at many of the after school activities also.
We have chosen to do so and we pay for it through our taxes so I am no stranger to having to pay for services.
They have handled themselves well over the years whenever the need has occurred.
These things need to be done on a local level and the feds need to stay out of it.
No matter what we do we will never stop all the violence, but we can't just sit back and do nothing, and I surely don't want the government calling all the shots because we all know what their answer will be to all this.

LONGTOM

dukkillr · « **Reply #28 on:** December 27, 2012, 06:51:49 AM »

The most damaging thing about this whole story is that so many people suddenly believe that the government must do something.

We don't. And beyond the simple but complicated idea of allowing CCW in schools, we shouldn't.

Here's the short version: Stuff happens. Horrible stuff. Stuff you really really really wish didn't exist. Mom's crack, slit their kid's necks, and drive the car into a lake (Texas). Dad's accidentally shoot their son with their handgun (Here). Good people get addicted to drugs or alcohol. Terrorists attack Americans at home and abroad. And deranged murderers attack schools.

But if you want to live in a free society, you have to do so with some risks. Our freedoms, declining as they may be, will always make bad things possible. If you don't like it, move. Don't look to the government to save you. Do your best to save yourself, your family, and your friends, and help protect the freedoms we have, dangerous though they may be.

Also, take a real look at what is going to kill you. My theory has always been that we should proportion fear to the likelihood of the thing we are fearing. For instance, I don't worry about being struck by lighting on a sunny day. I don't worry about being killed by a mountain lion. But I do put my seatbelt on every single time I get in a car. Statistically, kids are way more likely to be killed in a car accident, a DUI, domestic violence, gun accident, fire, cancer, suicide, you name it... Those things are all way more dangerous to kids than a deranged gunman. Remove the emotional concern and think about it.

I never hesitate to send my kids (I have 2) to school that didn't have an armed guard. In fact, I'd rather they spend that money on education. That the teachers are armed never even crosses my mind. In the list of things that may kill my children, a shooter isn't even in the top 50. When I've solved that 50 maybe I'll look into it... Of course by then I'd have to have them duct taped to the couch in a sterile concrete bunker somewhere...

Matt · « **Reply #29 on:** December 27, 2012, 09:14:22 AM »

RP said the fed government SHOULD NOT PAY FOR THE COPS. He did say on a local level he sees no problem

We must protect our children, guns are a good source of protection and a armed responsible adult should always have eyes on or be within close proximity of our children.
Matt