National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[Chicog]

The bottom line is no matter what Obama or anyone else says if a maniac wants to carry out an atrocity be it with guns or other means then there is little that any nation's government can do to stop it.

That's just the way it is.

I don't know what you mean by "other means", but certainly with guns you can make it a lot tougher than it is.

Put simply, having a firearm around to settle an argument is a lot less safe than when it isn't.

[MrRealDeal]

The enemy would be crazy people with guns killing people ........ Armed good people is not an unreasonable solution to armed bad people.

Ever been to Canada?

Guess what, they have strict gun laws as we do in the UK. Now run along and check the statistics. The 2nd ammenment needs to be changed

With views yours i can only presume that it will be but a matter of time until the next massacre.

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government ....... The choice is risking that in order to slightly reduce crazy people doing crazy things ......... Yes it is just a matter of time before another crazy person does another crazy thing but I am not willing to change the Constitution over it.

People suggest that in todays world we don't need guns to protect against the government since everything is going so well democraticly and all they seem to not realise part of the reason is the 2nd amendment

The only Argument you can propose is that we don't need the 2nd Amendment because the Government will never become repressive . I reject that absurd idea

Any other arguments are irelevant because they have nothing to do with the purpose of the Amendment. Things like hunting , home defence , crazy people . ect. all have nothing to do with why we have the Amendment

Sorry but I am willing to risk whatever the crazies will bring , I am not willing to risk whatever an out of control government will bring.

However I am willing to consider laws requireing reasonably secure storage of firearms especially when their are mentally ill people living in them.

But getting rid of the 2nd Amendment because of a small number of henious crimes ....... No thanks ..... find a better solution

Yes I have been to Canada and if I liked it better I would move there , Canada is free to do as it wants as is the USA. If Americans want to change the Constitution they will , but for those who think the 2nd Amendment has no place in todays world ......... Wait until you see what happens when it's gone

Edited December 22, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government ....... The choice is risking that in order to slightly reduce crazy people doing crazy things ......... Yes it is just a matter of time before another crazy person does another crazy thing but I am not willing to change the Constitution over it.

...

Or maybe that's just a MYTH of political convenience to defend the absolutely shameful status quo (America's gun saturation and gun death rates situation makes the U.S. a laughing stock to the world)? Nobody is talking about dumping the 2nd amendment. Nobody. The question is what the 2nd amendment actually means!

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.

http://www.washingto...39_story_1.html Edited December 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

It's not a "MYTH" is the reason for it

Obviously revolutions are never sanctioned by the repressive governments and illegal

You might not like the saturation of guns but your myth argument is simply false as is your contention that America is the laughing stock of the world.

[samran]

The enemy would be crazy people with guns killing people ........ Armed good people is not an unreasonable solution to armed bad people.

Ever been to Canada?

Guess what, they have strict gun laws as we do in the UK. Now run along and check the statistics. The 2nd ammenment needs to be changed

With views yours i can only presume that it will be but a matter of time until the next massacre.

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government ....... The choice is risking that in order to slightly reduce crazy people doing crazy things ......... Yes it is just a matter of time before another crazy person does another crazy thing but I am not willing to change the Constitution over it.

People suggest that in todays world we don't need guns to protect against the government since everything is going so well democraticly and all they seem to not realise part of the reason is the 2nd amendment

The only Argument you can propose is that we don't need the 2nd Amendment because the Government will never become repressive . I reject that absurd idea

Any other arguments are irelevant because they have nothing to do with the purpose of the Amendment. Things like hunting , home defence , crazy people . ect. all have nothing to do with why we have the Amendment

Sorry but I am willing to risk whatever the crazies will bring , I am not willing to risk whatever an out of control government will bring.

However I am willing to consider laws requireing reasonably secure storage of firearms especially when their are mentally ill people living in them.

But getting rid of the 2nd Amendment because of a small number of henious crimes ....... No thanks ..... find a better solution

Yes I have been to Canada and if I liked it better I would move there , Canada is free to do as it wants as is the USA. If Americans want to change the Constitution they will , but for those who think the 2nd Amendment has no place in todays world ......... Wait until you see what happens when it's gone

So in other words, 20 children getting shot up up every few months is a small price to pay?

[endure]

It's not a "MYTH" is the reason for it

Obviously revolutions are never sanctioned by the repressive governments and illegal

You might not like the saturation of guns but your myth argument is simply false as is your contention that America is the laughing stock of the world.

You may not be the laughing stock of the world but many of your foreign friends look on with amazement (and sadness) as you allow this regular slaughter of innocents to continue.

[simple1]

The enemy would be crazy people with guns killing people ........ Armed good people is not an unreasonable solution to armed bad people.

Ever been to Canada?

Guess what, they have strict gun laws as we do in the UK. Now run along and check the statistics. The 2nd ammenment needs to be changed

With views yours i can only presume that it will be but a matter of time until the next massacre.

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government ....... The choice is risking that in order to slightly reduce crazy people doing crazy things ......... Yes it is just a matter of time before another crazy person does another crazy thing but I am not willing to change the Constitution over it.

People suggest that in todays world we don't need guns to protect against the government since everything is going so well democraticly and all they seem to not realise part of the reason is the 2nd amendment

The only Argument you can propose is that we don't need the 2nd Amendment because the Government will never become repressive . I reject that absurd idea

Any other arguments are irelevant because they have nothing to do with the purpose of the Amendment. Things like hunting , home defence , crazy people . ect. all have nothing to do with why we have the Amendment

Sorry but I am willing to risk whatever the crazies will bring , I am not willing to risk whatever an out of control government will bring.

However I am willing to consider laws requireing reasonably secure storage of firearms especially when their are mentally ill people living in them.

But getting rid of the 2nd Amendment because of a small number of henious crimes ....... No thanks ..... find a better solution

Yes I have been to Canada and if I liked it better I would move there , Canada is free to do as it wants as is the USA. If Americans want to change the Constitution they will , but for those who think the 2nd Amendment has no place in todays world ......... Wait until you see what happens when it's gone

You are arguing that a some time in the future a repressive government could obtain power in the USA and the response from armed civilians would be a civil war .Please briefly outline your definition of a repressive government and how such a political entity could get into power in the USA.

Edited December 22, 2012 by simple1

[Scott]

Please stay on the topic, which doesn't include a repressive government sometime in the future.

[LomSak27]

Did Wayne LaPierre say who is going to bear the cost of the security at every school? Not on your life, Even with this ridiculous proposal he skates around who is going to pay.

Obviously gun owners are entitled to their guns and society must pay the cost, in death toll and according to Wayne, in money to protect itself. When he gets out of the entitlement state of mind and says gun owners will bear the social cost of their habit, then I will listen. Now he is nothing but some smirking entitlment child expecting others to pay for him

Edited December 22, 2012 by LomSak27

[Soi Dog]

Thoughtful commentators point out that yes, the gun laws in the US do need tightening but that will not solve the problem. Other contributing factors are a lack of adequate mental health care as well as movies and games that offer gratuitous violence. In reality, if you were to objectively rank the causes, mental health would be number one, movies, games and a general increased acceptance of the horrible would be number 2 and choice of weapons would be number three. However, simplifying the argument to only guns is politically easier and allows the left to continue to portray the right as inhuman, unfeeling baby killers (oh wait, it's the left that thinks it's okay to kill babies, but they call it empowering women so that makes it okay).

In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook, the appropriate response is deep sorrow, hugging your own children that much tighter and encouraging thoughtful dialog. Neither the NRA response nor the cries for banning guns from the left fall into the category of thoughtful or appropriate.

[bigbamboo]

The bottom line is no matter what Obama or anyone else says if a maniac wants to carry out an atrocity be it with guns or other means then there is little that any nation's government can do to stop it.

That's just the way it is.

I don't know what you mean by "other means", but certainly with guns you can make it a lot tougher than it is.

Put simply, having a firearm around to settle an argument is a lot less safe than when it isn't.

Bombings, shootings whatever are almost impossible to prevent if the perpetrator is determined and competent enough as we see in the south of Thailand for example.

As to gun laws in the States I find it diificult to comprehend why a teacher or anyone else for that matter needs or is allowed to keep an assault weapon in their home for 'protection'.

[DocN]

Isn't that the kind of "police state" the right wing nutters are all so afraid off?

Oh no...it is their own crazy people, who guard schools with guns...and malls with guns...and football- matches with guns...and cinemas with guns....

Here is a little thought experiment: Sandy Hook...the guy takes a GUN, from HIS MOTHERS HOUSE...puts on a BULLET- PROOF VEST....and thanks to MOMS SHOOTING TRAINING, takes out the 2 guards from a distance...then set out on his killing spree!

What then???

Armed neighborhood patrol?

24/7?

But guess what: the crazy guy STILL had the bullet- proof vest. So...he takes out the neighborhood watch from a distance (remember? he can shoot, thanks to the loonie mother! ) and goes on a killing spree as planned!

What then???

When will you FINALLY accept, that no gun, no guard, will guarantee safety?

He could even take the guards out and steal their guns!

But having his mom denied the guns, on the basis of stricter laws and background checks, would have made it more difficult for him, to get the hands on the guns! is that so hard to understand?

No gun- sales at gun -shows, no second- hand gun dealing to UNCHECKED and UNLICENSED people...might have done the trick!

No,no....you need MORE guns!

Another thought- experiment:

100 people on a lonely island....1 gun! Probability of gun accidents: low!

100 people on a lonely island...50 guns! Probability of gun accident: high!

100 people on a lonely island...100 guns! ...figure it out!

It DOESN'T WORK the other way around!

It is called "logical thinking"!

errm... excuse me but I would dare to say that after applying logic and reason that "100 people on a lonely island...100 guns!" would result in a low probability of gun incidents (let's not disguise the word "accident" as an "incident" in which the shootings were premeditated) because when everyone knows that everyone else is packing a weapon then the likelihood of an attack upon a person or persons would be likely to backfire!

...and as I am not halfway as stupid as you think, I know the difference between "incident" and "accident"...and I picked the word wisely. But as you are on it: I guess, there will also be more "incidents" with 100 guns, than with 1 gun!

[NanLaew]

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government ...

.... but for those who think the 2nd Amendment has no place in todays world ..... Wait until you see what happens when it's gone

Some pretty amazing Jefferson-speak there.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thomas Jefferson is reported to have commented: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Although his contribution to the charter as a Founding Father is undeniable, most of his contributing comments are notably neither a stated nor an inferred part of the Second Amendment.

NB. from the monticello.org website: Quotation: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Variations: "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."

Comments: We currently have no evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" or any of its listed variations.

[NanLaew]

Did Wayne LaPierre say who is going to bear the cost of the security at every school? Not on your life, Even with this ridiculous proposal he skates around who is going to pay.

Obviously gun owners are entitled to their guns and society must pay the cost, in death toll and according to Wayne, in money to protect itself. When he gets out of the entitlement state of mind and says gun owners will bear the social cost of their habit, then I will listen. Now he is nothing but some smirking entitlment child expecting others to pay for him

In among LaPierre's predictable, rather long-winded and unfocused ramblings, he did demand a ridiculous time frame for these armed guards to be in place for school re-opening after the Christmas holidays. There has been a reported surge in gun purchases since the latest school shooting which I assume is usual the knee jerk reaction. So how many nut-jobs, whacko's and generally unhinged people suddenly became 'responsible' US citizens with their brand new firearms? I wonder how many of them are frantically trawling the internet, looking for where they can sign up to be an armed school security guard?

[farangme]

Thoughtful commentators point out that yes, the gun laws in the US do need tightening but that will not solve the problem. Other contributing factors are a lack of adequate mental health care as well as movies and games that offer gratuitous violence. In reality, if you were to objectively rank the causes, mental health would be number one, movies, games and a general increased acceptance of the horrible would be number 2 and choice of weapons would be number three. However, simplifying the argument to only guns is politically easier and allows the left to continue to portray the right as inhuman, unfeeling baby killers (oh wait, it's the left that thinks it's okay to kill babies, but they call it empowering women so that makes it okay).

In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook, the appropriate response is deep sorrow, hugging your own children that much tighter and encouraging thoughtful dialog. Neither the NRA response nor the cries for banning guns from the left fall into the category of thoughtful or appropriate.

Doesn't matter how many mentally ill people are out there. If they can't obtain a tool, i.e. a semi-automatic weapon, that enables them to commit mass murder, they don't pose a threat like they do now. Momma Lanza's gun didn't protect her, now did they?

Sent from my PC36100 using Thaivisa Connect App

[geriatrickid]

Perhaps the alternative of arming students, teachers, janitors, lunch ladies etc. would result in more deaths when someone flipped out?

There is something very screwed up about those seeking to turn schools into armed zones instead of gun free zones.

[BWPattaya]

If the NRA wants armed security in all the schools I hope they will agree to pay their wages.

[Rimmer]

Inflammatory attack on another member removed

[Chicog]

The bottom line is no matter what Obama or anyone else says if a maniac wants to carry out an atrocity be it with guns or other means then there is little that any nation's government can do to stop it.

That's just the way it is.

I don't know what you mean by "other means", but certainly with guns you can make it a lot tougher than it is.

Put simply, having a firearm around to settle an argument is a lot less safe than when it isn't.

Bombings, shootings whatever are almost impossible to prevent if the perpetrator is determined and competent enough as we see in the south of Thailand for example.

As to gun laws in the States I find it diificult to comprehend why a teacher or anyone else for that matter needs or is allowed to keep an assault weapon in their home for 'protection'.

I don't see what the south of Thailand has to do with it. It has a poorly secured, porous border with a muslim neighbour, and extremist muslims as you know are not averse to using explosives, even when they are in the immediate vicinity.

We are talking about America, and I believe that in the wake of McVeigh's slaughter, the materials used to make bombs are regulated and monitored?

[Mitker]

Given that a nutter with a gun managed to kill 13 and injure 29 on a US military not so long ago which I assume had one or two armed guards about I am not sure how effective this solution would be. Any self respecting nutter would obviously target an armed guard first you would think.

Indeed.

I also don't believe such a single guard would be enough to prevent the mad murderer to make his way into the place and kill scores before being reached and gunned down by the guy on duty. Don't expect him to be "scared" neither, most of these murderers know that day will be their last day anyway.

And as for turning the school into a (weapon-)secured place; IF it worked, it would just make the mad guy select another target. What will be next: put armed guards at any entrance of any hospital, retirement home, movie theater, supermarket, gas station, restaurant...?

Nonsensical "solution" from a dubious lobby, IMO.

[JemJem]

Shame on the fascist NRA !

[Potosi]

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government .......

Actually, the major reasons were participating in law enforcment and militias, defense against insurrections and invasions, and self-defense, such as against private tyrants who usually run businesses. The founding fathers also explicitly warned against the rich, banks, and the Christian religion. You can't just pick the sections that fit to your ideology.

So who's gonna finance the NRA suggestion if it becomes reality? There are 100,000 schools and 4,000 universities in the US, for a credible determent at least 2 guards per school? Don't know what they make per year, if I assume $ 30,000 we are talking about $ 6 billion in wages per year.

[Scott]

Your costs might be too low. Some of those schools have more than one building and certainly most Universities do. Now, figure in health insurance, and other related employment costs and it might be wise to get them a good life insurance policy.

[Orac]

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government .......

Actually, the major reasons were participating in law enforcment and militias, defense against insurrections and invasions, and self-defense, such as against private tyrants who usually run businesses. The founding fathers also explicitly warned against the rich, banks, and the Christian religion. You can't just pick the sections that fit to your ideology.

So who's gonna finance the NRA suggestion if it becomes reality? There are 100,000 schools and 4,000 universities in the US, for a credible determent at least 2 guards per school? Don't know what they make per year, if I assume $ 30,000 we are talking about $ 6 billion in wages per year.

You are clearly just nit picking here. There is a rather obvious answer, given that the assumption has been made that the way to deter crazy murderous types is to arm everybody, and that is just reassign all those TSA types enforcing those ridiculous rules that say I can't carry my arsenal of weapons on a flight in case there is someone a bit iffy on it.

[NanLaew]

The 2nd Amendment ensures the Rights of the Citizens to own and bear arms to protect them from the possibility of a repressive government .......

Actually, the major reasons were participating in law enforcment and militias, defense against insurrections and invasions, and self-defense, such as against private tyrants who usually run businesses. The founding fathers also explicitly warned against the rich, banks, and the Christian religion. You can't just pick the sections that fit to your ideology.

So who's gonna finance the NRA suggestion if it becomes reality? There are 100,000 schools and 4,000 universities in the US, for a credible determent at least 2 guards per school? Don't know what they make per year, if I assume $ 30,000 we are talking about $ 6 billion in wages per year.

And don't forget that this helpful 'solution' from the NRA must be in place for school re-opening in January 2013.

Here's a thought... how many millions do schools plough into their high profile and lucrative sports and athletics programs? More than they care to pay for the safety of their students I would wager. Look at the quality of US school buses; a basic design that hasn't evolved with the higher passenger loads, higher speeds and greater exposure to potentially fatal accidents.

Edited December 23, 2012 by NanLaew

[chuckd]

There is a very simple solution about funding.

Cut foreign aid and military assistance aid across the board by 10%. The US government spent $55.7 billion in the 2010 budget for these items. Cutting it 10% would keep $5.5 billion at home to spend on school protection.

If that isn't enough, cut some more from the assistance.

.

[Pacificperson]

Given that a nutter with a gun managed to kill 13 and injure 29 on a US military not so long ago which I assume had one or two armed guards about I am not sure how effective this solution would be. Any self respecting nutter would obviously target an armed guard first you would think.

Indeed.

I also don't believe such a single guard would be enough to prevent the mad murderer to make his way into the place and kill scores before being reached and gunned down by the guy on duty. Don't expect him to be "scared" neither, most of these murderers know that day will be their last day anyway.

And as for turning the school into a (weapon-)secured place; IF it worked, it would just make the mad guy select another target. What will be next: put armed guards at any entrance of any hospital, retirement home, movie theater, supermarket, gas station, restaurant...?

Nonsensical "solution" from a dubious lobby, IMO.

Sounds like the Philippines.

[NanLaew]

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

A very good point indeed. Why do we have to google for these 'good citizen' stories? Before we lambast the liberal media, does the likes of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh EVER highlight these frequent but obviously under-reported but very true stories? Why doesn't the significant gun lobby maximise the potential of these 'feel good' stories instead of latching onto the mall and school massacres?

Fox recently pointed out that Germany matches the US for school atrocities like Sandy Hook and almost gloat that Germany has much stricter gun control laws. However, after the horror, revulsion and public outcry, the laws are revisited and once again, the laws are validated. There is no accounting for the deranged individual that somehow gets their hands on firearms in any society. However, only in the US does such a heated debate on the basic freedoms ensue with such soul-searching, pain, rhetoric and anguish. Placing school and mall shootings aside, the volume of senseless and needless deaths from firearms is way, way out of proportion. So school teachers in Israel carry assault weapons. That is because for over 60 years, their nation has tried to exist in the midst of foes and terrorists. The US has existed for over four times as long with only two friendly nations on their borders and is still so insecure with the citizen next door and their chosen government that everyone must still have a gun?

Edited December 23, 2012 by NanLaew

[DocN]

"Fox recently pointed out that Germany matches the US for school atrocities like Sandy Hook and almost gloat that Germany has much stricter gun control laws."

Oh really, did FOX NEWS do that!

Hmmmm...let's see: Germany had 9 school- shootings, with a total of 47 casualties.

3 of them are dated 1913, 1964, 1983...

Yeah, that is really almost the same as in the USA!

[koheesti]

I am a criminal madman and I want a job as armed guard in a school.

The second amendment was about maintaining an armed militia in America at a time when the standing army was very small.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

The first words concern the maintenance of the militia. it is not about allowing lax licensing of guns in some states to anyone that walks in. Nor about selling huge amounts of ammunition for assault rifles to individuals.

The Swiss militia has been much reduced in the last years but every member has an assault weapon under his bed or somewhere. No ammunition.

If the USA were to follow the second amendment out to the letter, people would be walking about with assault weapons on their backs, seems to be what a lot of people would like, because they are the good guys.

The Swiss are also among the highest in the world in terms of gun ownership(and I don't think this number includes the militia provided assault rifle). And yet, they don't seem to have any gun massacres.

There's something wrong about America with all these killings and its unfair to blame it solely on gun ownership and the NRA.

We had a gun massacre in 2001, the legislative in Kanton Zug was attacked by a guy, 14 legislators killed. In answer to another poster, the Swiss militia do NOT, since 2007, have ammunition at home. 53 homicides in 2010, 40 due to guns. With a population of 7 million, this would be the equivalent of about 2400 homicides a year in the USA. Not the 16 000 that they have now.

16,000 gun homicides in the US? Maybe half that.