When they pass laws to allow what's already legal you know it's politics. Every politician will want their name on a bill allowing teachers to carry guns. Few voters will know that they've always had that right. When they run for reelection they'll point to this as proof they're making schools safer.

Mr.Steady

I agree with Obama on one thing. We need a new gun law. Federal conceal carry - all 50 states. Get this law passed immediately!

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2012-introduced-in-us-senate.aspx

So, we have so many laws on the books that no one even knows they exist. This is what happens when you regulation freaks just demand more and more laws, rules and regulations.

We don’t need more regulations, we need better regulations that are enforced. The 2009 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations was the largest ever, encompassing 163,333 pages in 226 individual books requiring over 20 feet of shelf space.

This is just the Federal Code, now add this to the tens of thousands of pages in the States Codes and the massive confusion is easy to realize. As the article proves many of the legislators don’t even know what laws already exist.

If you don’t think that massive documentation in our corrupt government creates more confusion than solutions, just look at our Federal Tax Code. In each of the last 2 years the IRS received 110 million calls from taxpayers and they were unable to answer 25% of the questions.

As far as guns being allowed on school grounds, all of you who object just ask the students at Sidwell Friends School in D.C. This is the school where Sasha and Malia Obama and over a thousand other children go. I doubt anyone will be able to get by the 11 armed guards who patrol the school.

Are these children any more important than the 20 at Sandy Hook that were lost?

No!

I do not think that decisions like this should be left to the whims of the principal or administrator of a particular school. This causes uneven standards and can even result in arbitrary changes occurring when the school principal changes and the new one has different views than the previous one. Whether or not to allow teachers and school administrative personnel to carry weapons with them at school should be determined on a district wide or even more appropriately a statewide basis. I am not sure that I agree with individual teachers walking around the school armed. I really think that this should be limited to properly trained security personnel. I am also concerned about teachers doing things like placing weapons in their desk drawers and not properly securing them, thus allowing students to gain access. If teachers are allowed to carry weapons there needs to be some strict rules such as the teacher being required to take some type of certification course on proper gun safety. Also, the teacher should be required to keep the weapons under their control at all times either by carrying it on their person or securing it in an appropriate gun safe that only they have access to or securing it with an appropriate trigger lock. The current situation where there can be different rules at each school with different requirements and where those rules can change at the whim of a principal or school administrator is not a good situation at all. If teachers are to be allowed to carry weapons at school there needs to be clear and unambiguous regulations and requirements that the teacher must meet to be able to do so.

Can anyone please tell me what is going on here ????

Just look at the nation as a whole. More and more homes have bars on their windows and doors, alarm systems, and an arsenal at their finger tips. Also look at our modern world. Everything is designed to keep us in our homes. Pay per view movies and sports, all forms of shopping , home exercise equipment along with telecommuting. Their is no reason to leave the house anymore ( our personnel bunker ). It is no wounder we have become a nation of paranoids. Big brother is alive and well. Turning us into one huge ant colony.

People need to realize that creating a myth based perception of security for a school is not the same thing as making schools safe with actual security. The myths I am referring to are the myths of police protection and the myth of a rule based safe place.

How can there really be such a thing as police protection? Police have a response time. If someone is
pointing a gun at you or someone you love, do you really have the luxury of calling 911 and waiting 5, 10, 15 or 20 minutes for police to come through the door? Simply stated, the time required for police to respond is longer than the time required for a nut that has gained access to shoot people. When someone walks into a building and starts shooting, seconds count, and the police are always minutes away.

Another relied upon myth is that a place can be made safe with rules. There are two basic reasons why a rules based safe place is a myth. First, the rules employed to create the rules based safe place never change behavior anyway. More and that later. Second, the rules used to create the myth of a safe place usually remove the necessary means of neutralizing an intruder should the situation require doing so.
The rules based safe place leaves the innocent totally defenseless which is even more dangerous than relying on a myth for security in the first place.

These “safe places” are known to be gun free zones which invite the terrorist, religious fanatic, or suicidal idiot to come there and shoot without fear of having to deal with someone returning fire. This was certainly the case at Virginia Tech, and seems to have been the case at Newtown, CT as well. One can only imagine the different outcome that either school could have had if the security plan in effect had allowed the necessary means of repelling an intruder to be present and on site at the school and in
well trained hands.

The goal in these discussions should be to arrive at a metric of dead students =0. You don’t get to that metric by relying on myths for your security.

As for rules themselves, rules never work anyway for anything. Anyone that thinks otherwise does not understand the basics of rules and penalties. If rules worked, we would not need penalties for breaking the rules. So why is it then, that when someone creates a new rule, they always create a penalty for breaking the new rule? The only logical answer is that rules don’t work, penalties do, at least to some point. Think about that for a moment and you will realize that rules do not, and have not ever changed behavior on any level. Changing behavior is the purview of penalties but there are strings attached to this purview.

If a law that says you cannot drive faster than 65 miles per hour actually worked, no one would ever drive faster than 65 miles per hour and we would not need traffic cops, courts, and fines. So why then does there exist the need for a penalty for breaking this rule? Because people drive faster than 65 miles per
hour, because a rule changes absolutely nothing. Never did. Never will.

The rule has no value as far as changing behavior is concerned. It is, and always has been the fear of the penalty for breaking the rule that changes behavior, and never the rule itself. And the fear of the penalty is based in the severity of the penalty, the likelihood of it being enforced, and whether or not the penalty is relevant to the rule breaker.

This is why traffic slows when it sees a state trooper on the side of the road. In this scenario, the fear of penalty enforcement is heightened because enforcement is sitting in plain view on the side of the road and the penalty is still relevant. No police around? People speed. It’s the way we are wired.

In the same vein, it is the lack of a sufficient penalty, either because the penalty is too weak, or it is not sufficiently enforced, or it is not relevant to the one breaking the rule that can make rules totally ineffective. Take for example the problem of illegal entry to this country. Are there rules against this behavior? Yes there are. Is there illegal entry into this country despite the rules that state it is not allowed? Yes, obviously. Why is that? It is because the penalties for breaking the rule are insufficient in severity and enforcement to deter the behavior. Since the penalties are not sufficiently severe, nor sufficiently enforced, the bad behavior is not avoided. We have a rule. The rule has no meaningful penalty, and millions come here illegally as a result. So much for rules with little or no penalties.

Therefore, if you want to change behavior, you need to employ a penalty that is sufficient to deter that which you do not want to take place, and the rule and the penalty have to be enforceable, and the enforced penalty has to be relevant to the rule breaker for the penalty to have any chance of changing behavior. If you are an advanced reader, you have already realized that penalties then, are at best only partially effective and have no effect at all if they are no longer relevant to the rule breaker. So when is
a penalty or enforcement of the penalty no longer relevant?

If you are going to fly an airplane into a building to kill people, any penalty man can apply for breaking the rule that says you should not hijack an airplane, or you should not kill people, or should not do any of the other things you are doing that have rules that say you should not be doing this are all no longer relevant to you the rule breaker because you will very soon be dead. So without a relevant penalty, even though there are rules and stiff written penalties, if the penalties are not relevant, the bad behavior simply cannot be deterred. So if the actions to be taken are suicidal, then what penalty can backstop the rule and make the rule relevant? Answer. None. Bottom line here is you can’t make a place safe with rules. Therefore a rules based safe place cannot exist. It is a myth. It is only the perception of security and as stated above, the perception of security is not real security.

These two myths, police protection and the rules based safe place are used over and over to create security for children. They are never used to create security for large amounts of money , politicians, judges, airports, members of congress, the president, very wealthy people, valuable corporate assets and
employees, etc. It also makes no difference how many schools rely on these myths for security, these myths will never provide real security. Got it? In other words, doing something stupid over and over does not make what is being done any less stupid. It only reflects the stupidity of the people that are doing stupid things over and over. Relying on myths for security is just a stupid policy carried out by stupid people. I say stupid people because we have seemingly learned nothing from past events. We have to at some point face facts qs they present themselves, not ignore them and stick our heads in the sand and hope for better outcomes. That will not get to the desired metric.

With over 30 students and faculty murdered in the Virginia Tech massacre, society evidentially learned absolutely nothing. At Blacksburg, a murderer was allowed to just walk into the building unchallenged. He wasn’t even challenged when he chained the doors shut to prevent for a while anyone else coming in to oppose him. And since Virginia Tech had created a rules based safe place, the students and faculty, following the rules of the university, lacked any means of repelling or neutralizing the intruder. Bone headed thinking by those running the university had decided that responsible college students and faculty should not be allowed to possess guns on campus under penalty of expulsion (a very relevant penalty to a student). However, since there was no way to prevent nonstudents from coming onto the campus with a gun, the rules based safe place made no sense. It only protected students from being shot by another student, and then only if the shooter was not suicidal (that nagging relevance thing again).

The rules based safe place simply disarmed the students and faculty and since there was no allowance for paid guards nor aother means of dealing with an attacker, a killing field was unintentionally created by the rules employed to supposedly make the place safe. Once the shooting started, the shooting continued because of the reliance on myths. The enlightened academia running the university believed in the myths of a rules based safe place, and police protection. So much for both myths. The cost for proving these security measures to be just a myth was very high. So what was learned? Absolutely nothing!

Years later, in Newtown, CT, an armed intruder walked into the school carrying a long gun. This time the intruder was challenged at the door by brave individuals, but to what end since they had no mens to repel the attacker? Having no means of repelling the attacker because once again, the perception of security was the rule of the day, brave adults lost their lives and the attacker was not stopped. The same two myths were once again being relied upon, and once again proven by events as they unfolded, to be nothing more than myths and only the perception of security, not real security.

Another very high price was paid in Newton, CT for relying on myths for security. What was learned? If you listen to Dianne Feinstein and others of her ilk, you would have to admit that nothing was learned. Ms. Feinstein is trying to make hay with this tragedy as she has done in the past, but her comments on how to actually make a school more secure are few and far between to the point that she has ridiculed the only rational measures as presented by the NRA, instead of offering anything “real” herself.

The same politicians that have long been anti-gun are using yet another tragic event that was allowed to happen by reliance on myths to further their political agenda to ban guns. To them, it seems to not make any difference that banning the gun will not make schools more secure. That is not their worry. They live and work in a cocoon of non-myth security and their agenda seems to be simply that banning guns will make schools more secure.

I don’t care what political persuasion you happen to be, this is really sick behavior on the part of politicians to leave schools unprotected to further a political agenda. Yet this is what they seem to be doing. You don’t see them relying on myths for their own protection do you ?. Yet this is what they force onto our schools.

Politicians that want to ban guns just can’t admit publicly that most public schools are relying on myths for protection, because that would undermine their argument that we need to ban something. Unless we actually learn from these horrible incidents, unless we begin to face reality, unless we move away from the perception of security based in myth and move instead towards real security in our schools, we will most likely continue to suffer more of the same atrocities. It takes an evil person to kill children in a school, but it also takes a willing political power to continue to allow it to happen. Maybe if a few politicians were forced to have their security removed they would think and act differently. Or maybe if all members of Congress were forced to send their kids to public schools without exception, maybe then the myths would be put to rest and real security options would be explored.

In my consulting practice, I find it useful to get to the root of a problem and solve it before wasting energies and resources trying to solve the many derivative problems growing on the problem tree as a result of the root problem being allowed to flourish. Well, the root problem here is simply this. There are really evil people in this world. that's it. We need to protect our children from these people. This is the
definition of the problem we need to solve and you can’t do that with a myth. Focusing on anything else other than this root problem is denying real protection to our schools and kids. This is an intentional act of denying real security, not an accident. So why are politicians doing this? What is it that makes their agenda more important than protecting our kids and teachers in our schools? The shortest answer is
narcissism and greed.

The reality is we can provide our kids with the myth based perception of security while trying to ban guns, or we can actually protect our kids with real security and severely damage the argument for banning guns. It is as simple as that. Here is another thing to consider. The gun ban discussion actually requires the myths of police protection and a rules based safe place for the gun ban argument to seem logical (which it isn’t). This is because the gun ban approach when boiled down is simply this. If we ban assault
rifles, then schools will then be safe. Obviously that isn’t true, but that is what their argument is. Silly
isn’t it? Yet this is the argument being used boiled down to its essential elements and exposing their argument and its total lack of logic.

The gun ban argument ignores the fact that rules don’t work. It ignores the logic that penalties have no
meaning in a suicidal attack. The argument ignores the fact that police response times at Columbine, Lancaster, VA Tech, and Newton, CT all prove police protection is just a myth. The argument also
carefully ignores the fact that even if you ban a gun, the school is still relying on myths for security. The big question to me is why is society so stupid to swallow this drivel in the first place? To admit that our current security is based in myth, is to abandon the reasoning behind why we need to ban certain guns. Therefore, we will not be allowed as a society to have the real discussion we need to have about how to make schools more secure so long as the false argument of banning something is the darling of the media and political circles. Who loses because of this? The next round of kids that die as a result of relying on myths for protection. Their grieving parents. Their teachers. Kids everywhere that hear of these tragedies
and now live and go to school in added fear. A shocked and saddened society as a whole.

But the gun ban politicians never lose because every time something like this occurs, they once again seize upon it to further their careers and their political agenda. They never actually make a single effort to
actually make our schools more secure. They never provide schools with a means of limiting access, nor a means of repelling an intruder, even though they themselves are working and living in a cocoon of protection that does exactly for them what they refuse over and over again to provide for our kids.

Think I am being too hard on politicians? Then ask yourself this question. What have you heard to date
that translates into real protection in our schools from any politician that is discussing banning guns? The only entity that has offered a real world solution to the root problem is the NRA and they were shouted down during the press conference, ridiculed in the biased press, called Nazis and other vulgar names, and mocked by the very politicians in office that have the power to do what the NRA wants to do, but these politicians have chosen instead to rely on myths and protect their gun ban agenda at all costs. Go ahead.
Prove me wrong by citing a name and a public recommendation that amounted to providing real security in our schools.

Personally, I would not trade the life of one child for the entirety of congress. That is how much respect I have remaining for the legislative branch of our government. I have long said to Fire Them All, for cause, for gross negligence, for spending us into oblivion, for mismanaging our nations affairs, for laundering what amounts to bribes through PACs, and now for once again leaving our kids unprotected while attacking the second amendment. All of this is done to further their own careers and pad their pockets because they have no choice. It boils down to who they have sold themselves to and that is not something they can change and remain in office. We really do need to fire them all.

Factually, the only thing standing in the way of protecting our children is the very government that controls the debate, blocks the real discussion on how to make schools more secure, and sets the
priorities that says politicians and judges and government officials and offices are so valuable that their working environment deserves to be protected with real protective measures, but our children are not deserving of any such protective measures. Translation? Our children to them are simply subordinate to their agenda.

Politicians appropriate and fund protection for themselves, but nothing for our kids is inexcusable behavior. Why do we allow it? Are politicians more valuable? We can afford to bail out banks and car companies but not protect our kids? We provide grant money to private businesses in exchange for political contributions but we can’t find the funding to protect our kids? We can fight wars in foreign lands that have little to do with our own security but we can’t protect our kids? Department after department in our government gives out billions of dollars in grants, but we cannot find the funds to protect our kids? We can build schools, roads, and public works in foreign lands, but can’t find the funding to protect our own kids in our own country? Why do we allow this behavior from those that work for us?

The painful and inescapable truth to all of this is simply incidents like Newton, CT happen because they are allowed to happen. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting on the floor of congress? When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the Whitehouse? How about in an airport? Can’t remember? Well, you probably can’t remember any of those things happening because those things were not allowed to happen. Incidents like Newton, CT happen because they are allowed to happen. They happen because up to this point in our history, our children have not been important enough for the most politically powerful among us to see the necessity of providing protection for our children. I am trying to change this. Please help by passing this on to as many as you can. I submit to you that we have elected and appointed the wrong people to serve us and this is another root problem we need to deal with and soon.

I do not think that decisions like this should be left to the whims of the principal or administrator of a particular school. This causes uneven standards and can even result in arbitrary changes occurring when the school principal changes and the new one has different views than the previous one. Whether or not to allow teachers and school administrative personnel to carry weapons with them at school should be determined on a district wide or even more appropriately a statewide basis.

@JS:

I think the whole idea of arming teachers is ludicrous, but feel it should be up to voters in each TOWN to decide whether they want armed GUARDS in schools or not. Then if approved, the voters in the town get to pay for it out of their OWN municipial budgets.

@Glen, holy goodness you must have carpal tunnel after that post! Seriously!

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. That being said, I dont think that every teacher should be armed. First off, the school/teacher would have to commit to constant training and lessons in order to succesfully increase their skills, 2nd: if they were to commit, how long until complacency steps in and takes over? How long before the attitude of "nothing has happened here so far so I am good with what I know"? 3rd) Some teacher do not want to carry a firearm and would not want to use it if they were made to carry one.

Funding is minimal for teachers and schools and firearm training will not be funded or if it was, it will only be funded once. I offered every school in my area FREE safety training. I offer this so they have something in place since they cannot carry firearms. That being said, I cannot offer constant FREE training to these schools because I have to earn a living myself. So a refresher course would be offered every year for free as well but any increase in skills would have to come with a charge, small charge, but a charge nonetheless.

I mentioned in FB that I would love to give the training away for free to every state but if I travel I have to charge for food, lodging, etc. As long as I break even, I am good with that. But, some states feel that they are good to go with what they have because they have officers or SRO's at their school, or nothing ever happens at their school. Sad to say but the average person believes that they do not need any training at all because nothing bad has ever happened to them.....but when that something bad does happen to them, they DEMAND change, the DEMAND everyone to stop what they are doing and change the laws and usually come up with a knee-jerk reaction.

Word to the wise: get trained today (it does not have to include firearms) to avoid being a victim tomorrow because once an event happens to you, you will always fear that event will happen again. It is not a paranoia thing, it is a fact. Be safe

Jesus, who writes these polls; "Equal Firepower"? Who's going to vote yes to that? What does that even mean?

Is the fact that teachers are permitted in all of these other states the reason that Sandy Hook happened? How frequently do teachers successfully get these notes?

American's don't need more input from a party that believes our citizens require more social engineering from those on the left or the right. Likewise, we don't require input from politicians that are dead set on transforming a country by decree rather than the ballot. It is time to control the person that carries out these evil deeds restricting them from gun ownership. It is time the entertainment industry share their fortunes to determine whether the violence they profit from is a destructive element that produces these deranged individuals.

Americans are not stupid and know how to protect their families without the need of an agenda driven think tank groups, power driven politicians. We know the difference between solution and social experiments. Giving trusted teachers and adminstrators the ability to protect themselves as well as our precious children is not a new idea.

Guns children and schools don't mix..

Soon enough everyone will teach at home and that w'll be the end to schools in America.

Glenn make it shorter!!!!!

There is no myth about guns in the hands of good people save life , otherwise why we need police, guards, security personal.

To have police or private arm guard protection will prevent those incidents , if we add administrative personal and teacher who want volunteer to be part of a security team those should be trained in the use of guns, that will increase the chances to save more lives.

@ Common Sense

Who in the world said every teacher should be armed?

The issue is not that you nor me nor any other one individual should think they can lay out a universal plan for security in our schools. The entire purpose of my post was to expose the myths relied on for security for what they are - myths, and to get the ball rolling on having a real discussion on how to provide real security in our schools. It is way past time for this real discussion to take place, but it is still being prevented from taking place by the gun ban crowd that keeps shouting it and any serious suggestion down in favor of banning guns and relying on myths until the next time this happens so they can ban more guns.

Where that real discussion goes is up to the adults that are interested in real security. It can come from some sort of close-able cattle type gate to help restrict access and hold an intruder in place, or it can come from a "hired" gun to deal with an intruder if limiting access failed, or it could come from trained and armed teachers, or from other sources. My point is school security can not come from myths.

The metric I want us as a society to get to is dead students = 0, and I really don't know of a dollar limit to get there because there is so much waste in current spending that funding should not be an issue with quality people in office.

Banning guns does not get us any closer to that metric and only consumes energies and resources that could. Those pushing myths as security to enforce the non-logic of banning guns is bordering on criminal negligence that is exposing our kids to real danger needlessly.

This is the message I am trying to get out through the fog of lies, distortions, and agenda ridden distortions of fact from those married to an agenda for political purposes only. That is simply shameful behavior and it is time to put that aside and come to grips with reality and with real solutions for real security.

Oddly, no stories about the economy are showing up on the sheeples pasture...

clwyd-2621393

redvirginia,

Get a little touch of reality. Miss America said it the other night, "You don't stop violence with more violence!'

Who is Miss America?

This is the most stupid comment I ever heard. Police have to use guns to protect people, or you think that police should not carry weapons. If violence is needed to protect child's and innocent people, so be it.

What a sick society we are letting conservatives create in America!!!

Read the constitution before to make comments, please.

TomTom -- Let's hope that if a "teacher snaps" there is another armed teacher available to protect the students and neutralize the "snapped teacher". How many of these schools, that actually allow armed teachers in the classrooms, have experienced a Newtown incident???? O'Bama is a "show President", and is still campaigning. He should start being "Presidential" and stop trying to be a "social butterfly". Butterflies, although being very pretty to look at, have a very short life span.

Arming teachers makes a ton more sense than attempting to remove a very small subset of guns from everyone.

Like Glen said, the rules based security is a myth which is exposed very plainly by our 'gun free school zones' and the mass murders they encounter.

Relying on police is folly too, they are never there when you need them most, always a step too late, also plainly evident.

redvirginia

This is the most stupid comment I ever heard. Police have to use guns to protect people, or you think that police should not carry weapons. If violence is needed to protect child's and innocent people, so be it.

Careful, he is an award winning college professor teaching our children about history. He then bullies them into current event discussions with topics like women's rights, and Republican voter fraud....

Nope, this is not a Federal issue. Each state and for that matter each community should have the right to make their own decision on this issue. One size does not fit all.

The fact that armed citizens in schools, is working in many communities right now, should be good enough for the Fed. They should stay out of local matters.

If schools had as much security as most corporate places of business I'd suspect our children would be much safer. I mean how many businesses have electronically controlled entrances? Plenty. How much more security does almost any Federal building have compared to most schools? Plenty.

Instead of trying to infringe upon the rights of the many for the good of the few by passing laws that likely will have little affect perhaps there should be other alternatives discussed? Do you see any politicians making those arguments? Not that I've seen.

It could certainly be reasonable to discuss additional taxes to fund public school security measures and the private schools could mirror that and fund their additional security with higher tuition for those able to send their kids to those schools, but do politicians propose that? Nope. No politician wants to necessarily rock that boat with taxpayers already touchy about taxes anyway.

It's laughable that some of these politicians are so ignorant they don't even know these proposals they're making are already on the books in their states. Sad at the same time too, these are people that the good folks of this nation have elected to office and they're just as ignorant if not more than their constituents.

However, regardless, if this is their only solution not only are they short-sighted and self-serving but they're unfit to be in office in the first place. People need to remember these things and stop punching the 'party-line' at the ballot box. Make them accountable.

Here is a fact that everyone misses and has been documented many times before. Highly trained individuals like police and othe agency's when confronted with a shoot out situation miss their intended target 70% of the time. A teacher with a shaking hand may be more danger to children that a person he or she may think is a perp. Gun training is only part of the way to train people when you are trying to stop someone from harming others. I see above a comment that say 99% of Americans would not harm children. Guess that means we have 1% that would which I believe is way too high. There are many theory's on why people like the last person do this but most are different. Columbine is not the same as the theatre perons or the kids in the last shooting. Better gun control and by that I mean control not elimination of any bodys rights will go a long way to stopping this. Want to lose your rights? Let the arms merchants keep you wired up and not help formulating reasonible laws that prevent this and thats what you will get.

Well now the Liberal Democrats and the Anti-gun Nuts will be all over this !!!

@Itsabouttime:

Actually, it was mainly Democrats that facilitated mental health deinstitutionalization:

clwyd-2621393,

There are 4 things that will end a shooting rampage in a school:

1. The shooter runs out of bullets or his gun jams.

2. The shooter runs out of live targets and kills himself, or tries to escape.

3. The police are called and arrive in time to kill or arrest the shooter, before they start counting the bodies.

4. Someone already at the school shoots back.

History shows us that before #3 ever happens, #1 or #2 already has happened. #4 is the best option. Why don't you try stopping a crazed shooter, by throwing water on him? Better yet, explain to him that he is in violation of several gun laws. That should stop him.

Why do you think these nuts are so fond of schools and movie theaters? Why don't they try shooting up a casino, or a police station? BECAUSE THERE'S PEOPLE WITH GUNS THERE!!!! It kind of makes you think they prefer shooting up places, where there's little chance of anyone shooting back. I guess they aren't really looking for a challenge.

Can anyone tell me why a persons God given right to self defense should end when you enter a school? Do you ever wonder why these mass shootings happen at all the places that restrict guns? The answer is simple, these cowards predetermine where the most helpless victims are and go there and kill at will until the police arrive to stretch the crime scene tape. No one is advocating arming every teacher but why are you afraid of teachers who may want to choose to protect themselves and the kids in their class? You call gun enthusiasts paranoid!

I agree with TomTom-72 on this one. I don't know why his comment was collapsed. It's a very valid point. MOST teachers are like mamma bears who'll do whatever it takes to protect their students but I remember one particularly unstable teacher when I was in 5th grade who in his anger did actually throw a chair at a student. Several of us students went home to tell our parents what happened but none of our parents believed us. Nobody ever listens to kids.

The don't have police at the school group will have blood in their hands ,if next time a crazy guy armed with a hand gun or shut gun show-up at the next School and kill someone, just because they oppose to have School Guards.

*Bowing and shaking my head in disbelief*

Another knee-jerk reaction proposed by some who are think they are doing the right thing and have nothing but good intentions, but don't realize the gravity of their actions.

I just happen to have served in the military and a law enforcement agency (13 years total) and taught in the public schools (8 years). I just happened to be on the Va. Tech campus the day of the tragedy, however, I was on the other side of the campus from the shootings. So I have some particular insight into this matter.

A note from the principal or school board? Are you kidding me? Who are they to decide who is armed and who isn't? What makes them any more qualified to make this decision than let's say, A REAL LIFE WEAPONS TRAINER???? At least Rhode Island requires a CCP (conceal and carry permit). But that is not even close to the training one would need to handle an "active shooter" situation. I can see the notes now for a request to carry a weapon on school grounds

--Dear Principal, I should be considered to carry a weapon on campus because I was around guns all my life. I went hunting with my father and have been to a shooting range on many occasions....

Well I was around guns all my life and went hunting with my father and shot at a range before I went into the military, but that didn't make me anywhere near qualified to be in an active shooter situation!

It's all well and good on the shooting range. You are firing at a piece of paper. You have all the time in the world to aim and shoot. Well as all those vets and law enforcement officers who "have been there" will tell you, it's a whole new ball game when your target is shooting back. You don't have all day to aim and when self preservation kicks in and someone is not properly trained to handle a tactical situation, there's no telling what could happen. Even with the hours upon hours of training, I've seen "well trained" soldiers and officers panic, run the other way or curl up into a ball when the bullets start flying in their direction.

I won't get into the "what if" scenarios; there are too many to count. However, my question is, what is the responsibility of a teacher who is armed? Are they to actively pursue the shooter? Maintain a defensive posture? What about the students in their charge? Are they to get the student's out of harm's way first or engage the shooter? Even with my training, I couldn't imagine what would/could happen should I be placed in a situation such as this. I mean I know what "to do" but with students in the mix and the panic that is bound to set in among the students, how would I control students, keep them (and myself) safe and deal with a deadly threat all at the same time? A situation such as this is fluid and ever changing. Without proper training in tactical situations, the results could be disastrous even for a combat veteran trained in tactical situations.

To properly a tactical situation such as an active shooter on school grounds, one must be trained in various areas such as: target selection, field of fire, conceal and cover, muzzle discipline, to name just a few. All of the CCP classes I had to take never covered all of these. They were mostly about the legalities of carry and firing a weapon should the need arise. There was no "combat" training.

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. Even before I started my teaching career, all of the schools I taught in had an SRO (school resource officer). However, I did notice that none of the elementary schools had one. Even where I live now that is the case. Maybe this is why the shooter picked an elementary school in Newtown. It would behoove lawmakers to require SRO's at all schools now. Yes, this is going to hit the taxpayers in the pocket a little, but I would be willing to pay more and have my taxes go toward having a properly trained officer at the school than three or four untrained teachers!

I find it amusing that these idiot Republican governors are so eager to jump up on their pulpit that they couldn't have taken 30 mins to send an intern down to the law library to make sure they didn't already have the law.

/SMH

CLWYD-2621393 Wrote in a previous ignorant rant;

"The 2nd Amendment cearly starts with the words. "to form a Militia!" That does not mean all of us. We already have a National Guard that is a militis and it should stop there! Stop the sluaghter, stop the guns!"

And yet again today rants!!;

"What a sick society we are letting conservatives create in America!!! The Wild West will be here again if they have their way. I see some gun clubs saying that we need assault weapons as many of their members need it for their sport. The 2nd Amendments does not talk about SPORT it talks about only for a militia! Sickos!"

And yet again I say:

Nice try but that's incorrect. The constitution was written long before the National Guard was established. (National Guard=January 21, 1903. Bill of Rights, in effect December 15 1791) Nowhere in the 2nd amendment or the constitution for that matter does it in any way say, or imply. until such time as the National Guard is conseeved..., when the government has a better idea, or when CLYD-2621393 decides to puke what he doesn't know to the rest of the world. BTW The National Guard is run by the Federal Government meaning that, it can and will be used against ''YOU''. (See Slaughter at Kent University.)

Try You tube as well, they may have a video of it for you.

Militia:

If you look up militia, (USDOJ) you will find that it includes ALL able bodied men, both military/ organized, and non military/ UNORGANIZED, including from the citizenry from 17 up. (Women too) .

The Second Amendment

There is no confusion as to its meaning as you imply. It means what it has always meant.

Well regulated means well supplied and trained. Obviously, you've never heard of the term "regulations" when used in reference to the daily ration of beans, coffee and salted pork that each soldier/ volunteer was to be allotted per day in accordance with army "regulations". When the "UNORGANIZED" militia is called into service, the federal government is required by "REGULATION" to feed, arm/ supply ammo, clothe and train them. Hence the term, "well regulated".

"That does not mean all of us."

Yes it does!!

I personally find it despicable that politicians are trying to use the deaths of these children in Newtown to advance their long held agenda of gun control. It shows that our politicians today have no scruples and will use anything, and I mean anything, to advance their political agenda. They didn't even allow the children to be buried before they began! America had better wake up soon!! Our politicians aren't concerned with the people at all!! They are only concerned with their particular political party and how they can gain financial advantage and power over the other one. Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, not so we could protect ourselves from each other, but so the people could protect themselves from the government!! Read it!!

conceeved = conceived. In post 1.41 My apologies.

What a fantastic idea. Lets give every single "teacher" in the United States the "right" to "stand there ground" against any unruly threat to them or any students they feel obligated to protect.

I remember when I was in school, there was a pretty troubled girl (one hell of a baddass, though) that flipped during class one day when she was provoked by two bullies(both guys). She bucked up to one of the guys and he grabbed her by the throat and sent her flying back to (and over) her own desk. The throat thrower followed her to continue his physical onslaught (enter the "baddass" part), which ended up being a big mistake. The troubled girl lunged straight back to her feet throwing two wild (yet oddly right on target) hooks to the bullies jaw and temple(at least that's where the bruises were when he returned to school, she actually swung to fast for me to see where her hits landed) as said bully tried to grab hold of her for what looked like another throat toss, and he went stiff and fell flat on his face to the surprise of the entire class.

--Enter the teacher: It all happened so fast, and none of us in the class realized at the time that the teacher had missed nearly the entire exchange except for when she knocked out the scrub throat tosser (6+ feet tall, 200+ lbs). So imagine our further surprise when the teacher ran up and yanked her away by her blouse, ripping it... AND bra open. Needless to say, THAT is when we saw just how angry she could be. She gave the teacher a couple of elbows (as he tried holding her from behind) then one good hook all to his head, and blood instantly started raining from his nose as she scream "I'll F****ing kill the next mother f****r who touches me" and pretty much went into battle with a teacher who seemed convinced that she was an immediate and primary threat to the entire class (having ignored the bullies who taunted then attempted to beat her, fyi the second bully tried to join in on the physical exchange all the way up until his buddy got knocked out). Of course that fact just made her lose it even more, and he became even more intent on subduing her with nothing but shear physical force... her bared breasts (which he outed) be damned. Eventually, he was able to restrain her, under heavy verbal assault from nearly the entire class, threatening to have her arrested and most the class expelled as he dragged her out and to the principal's office..... but not before she'd broken his nose, bitten a chunk out of his arm and stomped one of his feet into obvlivion. And, half the class followed him as he limped carrying her to the office, where we endured threats of expulsion and arrest as we enacted an impromptu sit-in to fight the teacher's and principal's insistance that she be charged with assault on that throat tosser or the retarded pervert of an idiot teacher. Because of us, what ended up happening was that the school officials had to go through back channels to keep the idiot teacher from being charged with assault, molestation, and neglect of a minor in his care. That was his last semester as a teacher in our school district.

--During my next two years of high school, during which I served a class rep and student council member and teacher's assistant, I often overheard conversations between faculty members (who'd become far to comfotable with my presence) refering to how that girl deserved worse and the teacher was unfairly handled and should have done more to defend himself.
When I'd first heard of the Trevon Martin incident, the first thing that came to my mind was, "do they allow teachers to carry guns in school, while having a stupid law like that?"

Anyways. I'd just like to say that I wish all of your children well during their school time with teachers whom wield assault weapons on school grounds. I know that my kids will only attend private or charter schools that have STRICT policies against such foolishness and actually make an effort to keep children safe (like making sure that they don't employ some middle-aged gun nut lady who has a half-insane son living at home with her that's familiar with the school."

God bless America.

The normal liberal response to these shootings is MORE gun laws. We don't need more laws, we need the ones on the books ENFORCED and real jail time might also help. Close to where I live a career criminal was let out of prison against the advice of prison officials because of his "odd" behavior. Within 4 hours he had killed his mother and tried to rape a young woman. Guns didn't cause this, stupidity caused this. When they quit blaming guns and start to work on the REAL problems we might get somewhere.

We have highly trained Vets that can not find jobs in the private sector. Why not put them on a fast tract to get a teacher’s certificate and then special training on urban warfare in the school. They could be paid an extra $200 or so to be the concealed- carry specialist on campus and also lighten the class load number. I would rather have to explain to my child why a terrorist was shot at their school instead of grieve at their funeral. It is already against the law to kill, More laws will do nothing to stop the whacko-idiot!! A well placed shot would!!

I am a concealed carry permit holder that also teaches on a college campus (Economics). What I find interesting is the state of Florida tells me they are comfortable in me carrying my weapon virtually everywhere I go and confident I will do so in a safe manner EXCEPT for 12 hours a week (when on campus and in the classroom). I find that odd that the state DOES trust me except for only 12 hours a week? What makes the state NOT trust me while in my classroom?

And, BTW, it is called CONCEALED carry. Not "on a holster" carry or "in my military vest" carry. It is called CONCEALED carry. When you are behind me at Walmart you don't know I am carrying. When buying lumber at Home Depot you don't know I was carrying. What is wrong with me carrying on campus? Nobody would know - it is called CONCEALED carry. The students wouldn't know. Other teachers wouldn't know. The Dean might know if we were allowed and had to inform the Dean otherwise HE wouldn't know. So where is the increased danger of me carrying on campus.

Secondly, liberals do not think this logically through. Gun control will not solve this problem. In fact take ANY other scenario and "banning" would not be discussed - how to keep the students safe would be.

For example let's say a student brought chlorine into a classroom and created a panic and injury. Then "copycats" started. Would we be talking about banning chlorine? Of course not. We would be talking about how to protect the children and keeping chlorine out of the schools. What if there were an attack using a machete and copycats started? Would we be talking about banning machetes? Of course not. What if there was a car used to run over children at a bus stop and copycats started? Would we be talking about banning cars? Of course not.

We should be talking about what we can do to protect the kids and have a REAL and HONEST discussion of the primary topic - protecting kids and what can we do NOW!! I heard an idea on a talk show this morning that was a GREAT idea and is something we can immediately do and does not require allowing teachers to carry (although I think a good idea I understand the hesitancy of those who do not "like" guns). The caller said install "bear mace" in each classroom.

I thought the idea was brilliant. Bear mace looks like a small fire extinguisher. It sprays from 7ft to 30ft and will immobilize a bear (so definitely will immobilize a person). So have "bear mace" in each classroom and if something like this happens the teacher can grab the bear mace and can reach across the classroom to immobilize the person intending harm. In the unfortunate scenario where other students might get sprayed there is no damage or injury and will of course immobilize them as well. But the assailant is immobilized, can be tied up or constrained, and wait for law enforcement and medical services to arrive to take assailant in custody and give assistance to anybody injured.

When I heard that idea I thought "now THAT is a person trying to find a reasonable and immediate solution". THAT can be an immediate short-term solution. Much better than "gun control". Any laws would take months (even if it were approved) but would have no affect because only affects FUTURE purchases. Would not affect the 300 million guns already in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Folks, stop with the "gun control" debate. THAT is not a solution. Bear Mace is a GREAT short term solution and then longer term discussion on securing the schools themselves and NOT the idea of "banning" guns to law-abiding citizens.

The fact that this shooting happened in Connecticut, a state with some of the strictest guns laws in the nation, is a testament to the effectiveness of gun control laws in itself!! Gun control laws aren't about preventing something like this from happening again.......all they do is help our feelings so we can pretend something like this won't happen again.

When you see politicians on both sides advocating gun control laws, it should be eye opening and lead to the question....why do our politicians want to prevent us from arming ourselves? Think about that one for a moment. If the citizens of this nation are disarmed, who could stop them from doing whatever they want? The 2nd Amendment is exactly about that!! It's the right for private citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of government!!

Get a little touch of reality. Miss America said it the other night, "You don't stop violence with more violence!' I say, "If a person is drowning you don't throe more water on them!"

It's a shame Miss America wasn't around in 1939. I'm sure she would have had lot's of non-violent ideas for dealing with Hitler. Idiot.

Good Ol' Dog

to TomTom - yours is another " What if.......?? " post with no rational or achievalbe goal attached -

If you want to live in a "gun free" culture then move to another country and take that dispicable little prick Piers Morgan with you !!

Excellent post Good Dog...this fool needs to move to Austrailia...gun crime is thru the roof since they (the good guys) gave up their guns (but not the bad guys)

Jim 1953...

The National Guard is run by the Federal Government

Not Correct! The National Guard is actually run by the Governor of each state. They mostly come from people who have served in our national military full-time, but now wish to only serve as a reserve (used to be required) or part-time for extra money. The risk of being in the national guard is that you will the first called to active duty if more people are needed for any foreign crisis.

Other than the required 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks in a year, these guys only are called to duty by a governor for riots and natural disasters to minimize looting and property damage in conjunction with the police.

In may 1970 Goverernor White called up the national guard to handle a union riot. Before these National Guardsmen could return home for rest, Governor White sent them to Kent State University Campus to quell the rioting students. The rest is history.

The information on this article is not very thorough.

Pennsylvania already had unarmed guards in schools, but now many schools have now armed them.

Some very good posts on here! I will start by saying it is no surprise that we have politicians standing up demanding changes or new laws when they already have those very laws on the books. Just points to their low caliber and how they are doing nothing more than seize the moment hot topic grandstanding and looking for brownie points with the uneducated easy to fool part of their electorate. Can't even bother to look, well have one of their grunts look, to see what current laws are in place. That or they did and ignored it and went back to the aforementioned grandstanding above. Again no shocker there.

As to the specific topic at hand of teachers carrying guns I will say I have to disagree with it, not because I don't think there needs to be an officer or someone of the like on the grounds with the proper training but because they are teachers not combat soldiers or a swat team member. Not to mention I had teachers from middle school up that were smaller than the kids and would've been easily overpowered should a kid try to take the weapon. Read post 1.39 above by Zapain, I think he covered it and then some. That is the main issue and arming the teachers is no better than the knee jerk reaction of those on the otherside screaming no more guns IMO. I'll include too what JS said about not having a written set of standards vs leaving it up to administrators preference?? Makes no sense and is just waiting for a policy failure and breakdown.

That and I think we also need to look at the access points for schools and how that is controlled thruout the day. Won't be a perfect solution but if you can at least slow down someone who has intent to harm that will give police more time and if you have a trained person onsite they can get to that location.

The issue though will be cost and how to deal with it, but I think there is plenty in the DOD budget that could go to this, that wouldn't be missed, and afterall isn't it still protecting and defending citizens?

Then I also think there is the issue of do you have uniformed people or are they plain clothes. I would say we need to be somewhat sensitive to the message we are sending. Certainly don't advocate walking around with an AR or holstered firearm on hip but want kids to feel safe. A little give and take there.

Finally last thing to point out is, we have some issues yes, and no solution is going to be perfect but this can be manageable. Just keep in mind that school shootings are not as likely as you would think or the media wants you to believe. This isn't some rush that we have to fix tomorrow. Certainly don't need to take longer than needed or delay but we have time to make educated and common sense solutions to these problems. So for all our sake, lets please do.

It is time

ItsAboutTime-3704531 Comment collapsed by the community

and if we can also 'reduce' the number of assault weapons on the streets of america, and prevent EVEN ONE more "Sandy" Hooks i that also not worth it?

Why do you guys even bother with this nonsense? It's NEVER going to happen. Even the most anti-gun liberal politicians aren't suggesting that. They like to throw around the word "ban" but that's just more politician-speak, remember even under the previous "ban" so-called assault weapons were never actually banned.

The new high school in my county in KY has had 2 armed Sheriff's deputies in it since it opened a few years back. I am grateful for their presence and feel that they are a BIG deterrent from anything like Sandy Hook ever happening in that school.

oh wow i can see the headlines now teacher shoots bully child for not doing home work , teacher goes postal for being fired , teacher and principal have shoot out in hallway , teacher shoots angry parent for failing child , teacher shoots parent in hallway thoght was intruder , asalant overpowers teacher and shoots children

i dont think teachers should be put in the position of having firearms. i do think ex military or retired cops would be helpful on a volenteer basis. start pushing training in every school. weather someone is there or not the thought that someone might be armed is a big deturent. .these people that commit this crimes are cowards if they even think someone might shoot back they wont go after soft targets!

Arming teacher's (like everything else) is way more complicated than it sounds. It's not as easy as saying, "Ok, Miss Benotz you can bring your firearm from home tomorrow when you teach your second grade class. If you have to use it make sure you shoot the bad guy." There is a tremendous liability issue. Arming anyone in the performance of their duties requires training and a qualification process. As well as an annual requalification process. Because you're dealing with deadly force, they need to be instructed in the "use of force continuum" and what happens to the body when the sympathetic nervous systom is activated. What happens when a teacher fails to qualify or requalify with their firearm? Are all teachers going to be armed? Is the arming voluntary or mandatory? If not all, who and how many? Do you really want your tax dollars going to buy firearms to arm teachers? Most school districts struggle to buy learning materials.

I think we might be better served conducting threat assessments locally, and improving physical security measures, electric door strikes, close circuit T.V., blast proof/ shatter proof windows, education for the school staff on physical security standards and safe guards.

you can gauge the intelligence and how informed the people are by the reactions and calls for action, sadly. FBI statistics state that suicides make up more than half of all firearm related deaths each year, the majority of the rest are crime related and more specifically, handguns. Lets ban howitzers too, they could kill a lot of people if the used those. oh, and nuclear weapons, better ban those too. When will people get a clue? Seems like never.

Note: Another ban does nothing but placate the chicken liytle's, and the politicians know this thankfully. The old ban did nothing but make people buy extra mags that were high capacity since any gun they bought didnt come with them. Our government is obviously not as stupid as the people screaming for something to be done, I like that they will appear to enact something, but it really doesnt do anything. I think they should have just waived something big and shiny on TV after all this to distract the morons calling for more legislation, instead of wasting tax payer dollars on a resolution/s that do nothing but inconvience the rest of us. Peace

Jim Spence,

Your statement about Sasha and Malia Obama are no more important than the twenty children killed in Newton is true.

However, in your resentful post you neglect the fact that Sasha and Malia's family has received over 45,000 death threats since their father has been in office.

I would say that qualifies them for more personal security guards than the average schoolchildren.

Chris from Yucaipa

I find it amusing that these idiot Republican governors are so eager to jump up on their pulpit that they couldn't have taken 30 mins to send an intern down to the law library to make sure they didn't already have the law.

I find it amusing that these idiot liberals are constantly crying out for more and more laws even though it is impossible to keep track of the ones we have now. Yo genius, if we need to hire people just to check and see what laws are already on the books even a simpleton could see there are far too many laws on those books.

Sorry, Backcountry, perhaps you are responding to another poster, but if you are responding to my post, I cannot see your comments because I have you on Ignore Author. I can only see your name. I rarely do this and only to posters who use persistant vulgarity or immature language and have no substantive remarks to add to the discussion.

Btw, I highly recommend the Ignore Author option to everyone on the Vine. I find that I enjoy posting in this forum much more without the trolls and excess profanity.

Pistol Instructor and ProBusiness

I'm somewhat surprised by your comments but do understand them. First off I will say Bear Mace is one of the most assine things I have heard. This would be death or darn near it for any student or teacher with cardiac(heart) or pulmanary(lung) ailments. A student or teacher with moderate to advanced asthma would be dead winthin minutes even if they were in the hallways.

Pistol Instruc., do you realize the costs involved with equipping every school with blast proof dor and windows would be? Also what grade do you go with? by doing this you then have a box that traps people in and if this school is breached then everyone has all but a couple egresses.

I don't really consider police the answer unless they under go advanced weapons training. I about force continuum and training as I have been through much advanced firearms training. A friend is a POST instructor but has also gone into advanced weapons training and tatics for civilians as most police forces and cops would not spend/allot the money for training. Now this person trains about 75 civilians in advanced tactics rifle and pistol to every 1 peace officer(cop). This does also not include the civilians that he trains in long distance hunting and shooting.

I know what can go wrong in a situation when crowds are present, just look at NYC in front of the Empire State Building when the cops fired off 16 rounds, 9 of which hit passersbies. Cops then lied, The New York City police, led by Commissioner Ray Kelly, immediately joined with Mayor Michael Bloomberg to justify the shooting, finding no fault with the firing of 16 rounds and the wounding of innocent bystanders. Initially the police claimed that Johnson had fired at the pursuing officers, but they later admitted that was not the case(after video came out to the public showing otherwise). It was also suggested that some of the injured were hit by bullets fired by Johnson, but the authorities soon acknowledged that was also not true.

What I am saying is that Bear spray is in no way the answer as a gas mask totally neutralizes that. Police can help but no better than a trained civilian and civies are more likley to get advanced training or even shoot in comps like 3 gun. You don't build a prison that traps people in just so you may keep one out, also one fire alarm also neutralizes all that safety.

I do feel that teachers with proper training and testing is part of what is needed. Look at the amount of schools that allow it now. How many teachers or officals have gone postal? None There needs to be training in force continuum-either pursue or protect-. Every case is different and not everyone can be covered but disarming folks(gun free zones) is not the answer, that myth has been proven false way to many times. Also how is an assault weapon ban going to stop shootings or make folks feel safe, again another myth-it's not going to help folks BE SAFE.

We say we don't have the money for training or guards yet the US can spend billions making other countries feel safe, we arm them, build them offices, pay off officals, build schools and highways but have no money to protect our children. This is just utter Bullshlt

Glenn you post above hit the nail on the head, unfortunatelythat requires people to investigate(work) for how their politicians lie and it is just far easier for those people to feed on the main stream media's and politicians lies. Just like it's easier for them to give their kids a pill(poison) instead of spending the time needed to work with them. Heck how many of you folks even cook a real dinner, eat at the kitchen table with the family and talk about issues that occurred or how your childrens day went.

DP Akron

It part. In all it remains in control of the U.S. Department of Defence. Governors were granted authority to utilized state members, training, officer appointment etc.

Excerpt;

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 375th birthday on December 13, 2011. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

www.nationalguard.mil/about/

Also a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

I agree with Obama on one thing. We need a new gun law. Federal conceal carry - all 50 states. Get this law passed immediately!

Already got one:

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

Oh wait! You're used to reading it in legal phrases and not in sentence form. Either way it means the same thing.

"Well Regulated" is defined as: well equipped, well ordered and well trained...

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. -- Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition

*"Esp. by a state" is separated because the law does NOT REQUIRE it to be managed BY the state. HOWEVER, private militias MUST follow and abide by Constitutional Law.

They left Missouri off the list. If you have a CCW you can have it in your vehicle on school grounds as long as it's not visible. You can't take it inside without previous permission of school administrators. I don't know if our local schools have given anyone permission, but there hasn't been any mass shootings at Missouri schools, either. When I went to high school in Iowa in th 70's we had a "liason officer" who was a city police detective whom I'm assuming was armed. That was long before all of these nutjobs went off in schools. Now it's a big deal for police in schools? It is when you can make a political statement out of it.

Silverton

You always jump on any repub about being vial or what not but don't do the same for libs. Whay is that.

You also calim that you have relatives in Vriginia and any nut, insane or criminal can just walk in and buy a gun anywhere. This is a LIE....

Virginia’s approach to firearms records checks does not infringe on an individual’s ability to purchase or possess a firearm, while those individuals who are prohibited by State or Federal law are denied legal access to firearms.

The Virginia Department of State Police developed and administers the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program© (VFTP). This program became operational on November 1, 1989, and provides for a timely, point-of-sale, approval or disapproval decision regarding the sale or transfer of all firearms (except antiques) based upon the results of a criminal history record information

You claim there are "gun show loop holes" This is also a LIE as all transactions for required items must have a Backround check performed. Now certain items sold don't require a check just like anywhere else. In some states guns can be transfered from one non FFL owner to another as long the receiving person(buyer) also lives in that state.

Basically you just repeat everything the lib media spews out as fact while a little check on the FBI or certain states webite would prove that it is a lie.

You claim that anyone who questions what the media spews out about an event as wearing a "tinfoil hat" and a conspiracy theOrist. Well that would then make you a "ANTICONSPIRACY THERIST" Which is a person that believes everything printed/spewed out by MSM. You also claim eyewitness' to the events as liars or just confused/delusional

Get a little touch of reality. Miss America said it the other night, "You don't stop violence with more violence!

What an inane statement, and patently untrue.

Why do you think the US spends more on its military than on its education or health programs? Why do you think any city or town that can afford it has a SWAT team?

One thing I would like to know is why did the Dept. of Homeland Security need to purchase over 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition in 6 months(and this was back in Sept. 2012) This includes 450 million rounds of .40 hollow point, 200 million rounds of .223 rifle ammunition, and 176,000 rounds of .308 168-grain hollow point boat tail (HPBT) . Hollow points are illegal for use in war under the Geneva convention but I quess it's alright to use on American Civilians.

Our undeclared Foreign War in Iraq Consumed about 70,000,000 (70 Million) Rounds of Ammunition Each Year, which would take about 20 years to consume 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition ordered by the Department of Homeland Security alone, not including all the ammunition ordered by the weather service, Social Security, etc! 20 Years To Use All 1.4 Billion Rounds Of This Ammo? YES SS and the weather service, Homeland Security purchases are in addition to a controversial 174,000 bullets purchased by the Social Security Administration.

Is the Department of Homeland security to protect us from foreign terrorists, or to protect the central government from the American people?

It is the type of ammunition and not necessarily the quantity that is troubling.

All of the sniper grade ammunition is being used by trained, or in-the-process-of-being-trained snipers. Adding up the number of lethal bullets tallies a potential 135,384 kills for the snipers, based on U.S. Army and Marine figures from the Vietnam War, when soldiers used 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each verified kill.

Homeland Security’s purchases of the huge arsenal is both worrying and ironic given that Americans are being harassed and treated with suspicion for buying a couple of boxes of ammo at their local gun store.

The U.S. Army has been preparing for rebellion in the streets, and a Military Police training manual, entitled “Civil Disturbance Operations” describes how to suppress riots and kill civilians when confronting “dissidents." The manual states, “Warning shot will not be fired”.

1.4 billion rounds weigh around 28,000 tons. It takes over 1,200 18-wheel trucks to move that much ammunition. That's the equivalent to a line of single trailer trucks, parked end to end, almost 14 miles long.

Of course the Government has declined to comment on the need for this ammo purchased which I will also add is on top of what they already have/had in their arsenal

Keep drinking the Kool-aid folks, it's a shame that so many want to disarm the public and do away with our rights

word about these ammo purchases -- which total over 1.4 billion rounds of ammo when you add up all the contracts -- has begun to spread so far and wide that the mainstream media was forced to try to destroy the story.

So in a desperate effort to try to diffuse this story -- which is really a story about the U.S. government stockpiling ammo to be used against the American people -- the media is focusing on the Social Security Administration ammo purchase of 174,000 rounds... a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the 1.4 billion rounds of ammo so far acquired by the Department of Homeland Security.

The SSA, it turns out, explains away the 174,000 rounds of ammo it purchased by saying, essentially, "We needed the ammo."

The SSA has hundreds of armed agents running around the country with guns, didn't you know? As the SSA itself states, "These investigators have full law enforcement authority, including executing search warrants and making arrests. They use traditional investigative techniques, and they are armed when on official duty."

Okay, so wait a second. First of all, since when did the social security administration need hundreds of armed agents with .357 rounds of hollow point ammo running around the country? What exactly are they doing with these guns? Shouldn't they technically be calling local sheriffs if they need assistance from peace officers? I'm pretty sure that when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in 1935, it didn't say anything about the SSA having "hundreds of armed social security agents running around the country with hollow point ammunition." Somehow, the SSA granted themselves this power and just ran with it.

But the bigger fact is what they're not telling you: 174,000 rounds of ammo is almost nothing compared to the 1.4 billion rounds of ammo being purchased by the DHS. And to my knowledge, nobody has explained why the DHS needs 1.4 billion rounds of ammo.

In case you haven't yet done the math, that's enough bullets for the government to shoot every single American more than four times.

But the mainstream media only wants you to focus on the single "B" -- the 174,000 rounds of ammo purchased by the SSA. You're supposed to ignore the other 8,000 "B's" representing the bullets being purchased by the DHS.

This is called media sleight of hand, and it's a mind game being played by the mainstream media, incThe federal government, when asked about the ammo, essentially says, "We need it!"

And why do they need all this ammo? For their own "safety," of course. "[Armed SSA personnel] also are called to respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees, and customers," explains the SSA. So the government, in other words, needs ammo for its safety.

So why are American citizens who "stockpile" ammo for the exact same reason considered "radical" or "extreme" or even "terrorists?"

When the government buys ammo for the safety of its workers, that's a good thing, you see. But when YOU buy ammo for the safety of your own family, that's a BAD thing, we're told. Citizens don't need ammo. Only the government needs ammo. That's the big media lie you're being told right now.

This idea of the government having a monopoly of force is, by the way, the principle arms control argument of Adolf Hitler, who penned his famous "Nazi Weapons Law of 1938" which was copied virtually word-for-word into the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.

Just as in Nazi Germany, the modern U.S. government believes only the government needs ammo, not the citizens!

f hill

i dont think teachers should be put in the position of having firearms. i do think ex military or retired cops would be helpful on a volenteer basis.

Why is it that EVERYONE wants something for FREE???? Teachers are already PAID to be present. They should have the OPTION to carry concealed. A firearm is not NECESSARY to be a deterrent only the POSSIBILITY that one may be present. BTW how do you propose we screen those volunteers? First you want them there for free and next you want them to pay for their own background checks... maybe next you want them to buy insurance????

Why is it that EVERYONE wants something for FREE???? Teachers are already PAID to be present. They should have the OPTION to carry concealed. A firearm is not NECESSARY to be a deterrent only the POSSIBILITY that one may be present. BTW how do you propose we screen those volunteers? First you want them there for free and next you want them to pay for their own background checks... maybe next you want them to buy insurance????

volenteer basis. What a jerk. I agree with you Trust-Verify. Not to get on any Vets case but How would this knuckle head except to pay for the screening. Heck look at the number of of suicides we have had with combat vets, they can't even get the care they need from the military. Maybe f hill proposes we should use REMFs to lesson the chance of PTSD. Listen if the damn politicians would worry about our children half as much as they worry about taking care of corporate lobbists and contributors while spending Trillions overseas, laxing regulations and corporate taxes and just plain old giving away our $ to these companies then we would not be in the trouble we are in. There woud be excess money to take care of everyone when the are really in need.

silverton-2953905

However, in your resentful post you neglect the fact that Sasha and Malia's family has received over 45,000 death threats since their father has been in office.

I would say that qualifies them for more personal security guards than the average schoolchildren.

Sidwell maintains that staff of security regardless of the attendee’s.

Sasha and Malia have their own Secret Service protection on top of the Sidwell force.

If guns kill people then: pencils misspell words, shot glasses make you drunk, spoons make people fat, matches result in arson, water drowns kids, heights make people fall, and socialism makes everybody rich.

Was that too “resentful” for you, Spanky?

Well, Jim, perhaps if you had multiple deaths made to you and your family every day you might be glad for a little extra protection.

Or maybe you think Sasha and Malia Obama ought to do without the extra security and just arm themselves with assault weapons in their backpacks at school?

LOL

And btw, in Virginia (which borders Washington, DC) you can be mentally insane and have a criminal record and walk into any gun show and buy assault weapons and ammo without any background check. You might have to flash a driver's license or some form of ID. Gun dealers pose as private sellers all the time there. I suppose they do in other States as well.

I read recently that the gun laws in Kansas are even more lax than in Virginia, but I can't say for sure since I have never been to a gun show in Kansas.

Obama thinking...let's see what can i do to distract people...while i throw trillions away in my second term...cause i ain't got enough sense to fix the problem's of this country...let me guess threaten to take away their guns...

plain bob,

The President is only doing what the majority of American citizens have asked him to do since the massacre in Newtown.

Don't you ever watch or read any news other than Fox? It would broaden your knowledge about simple issues like this if you did.

And btw, in Virginia (which borders Washington, DC) you can be mentally insane and have a criminal record and walk into any gun show and buy assault weapons and ammo without any background check. You might have to flash a driver's license or some form of ID. Gun dealers pose as private sellers all the time there. I suppose they do in other States as well.

I was waiting for you to post that yet again!

Actually, the mentally insane can buy guns at almost ANY gun show because the government has failed to include that group in the list of ineligible purchasers class under BATFE guidelines. And from what I've read in news reports today, those guys at the NRA, as well as other groups, have been trying to get the government to add them to that list for quite some time now. So technically it isn't the vendors at the gun show causing the problems. It's the government FAILING to follow recommendations from sane people...

BTW - The president does NOT have the power to violate the Constitution... If he does, he CAN go to prison for doing so. No immunity. No protection. {Unconstitutional Official Acts -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256} That ain't faux news, buddy. That's the law...

”The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them … the weak will become prey to the strong.” -- Thomas Paine

”The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!” -- President Theodore Roosevelt

Every time reasonable people ask for rational gun laws, they are shouted down, villified, mocked, and bullied by the NRA and its fanatic supporters.

When will the NRA stop violating our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH?

(And btw, spiddas, thank you for finally admitting that we need new gun laws to prohibit the criminally insane from buying these weapons at gun shows.)

Simpleton 2953905 Wrote;

"And btw, in Virginia (which borders Washington, DC) you can be mentally insane and have a criminal record and walk into any gun show and buy assault weapons and ammo without any background check. You might have to flash a driver's license or some form of ID. Gun dealers pose as private sellers all the time there. I suppose they do in other States as well."

Nonsence!!!!! You are in error!

You suppose? In order for the dealers to sell at the shows they are REQUIRED to do a NICS check. Thats FEDERAL.

The "Loophole" does not exist. The term has been created to lure the ignorant. I have been to HUNDREDS of gun shows in the Commonwealth of Virginia, because I live here, and can tell you the places are SWARMING with cops from all branches. From feds to troopers to local and deputies. Including plain clothed. The Background checks are done in a back secluded area, so in the event a person that should not have a firearm tries to buy a firearm they will be pounced on instantly. The confusion lies strictly on the private sale of a weapon. That is private property and should remain that way. The interference of private sales will include removing the ability to either gift, grandfather, or be left to someone. ("WILLED"). It is already illegal to knowingly sell or give a firearm to a felon. NO other law is needed.

Also I want to add that generally, When I present my CHP, I should be immune from the NICS check. I have NOT yet been passed over from the check. Due to the rules set forth by the FFL licence. They are required to do it anyway. And they do. So your "supposition' is without merit.

What SHOULD be considered is this... If a person has been deemed >"THAT"< dangerous, >"THAT"< much of a menace to society, via mental illness or violent criminality, they should be kept LOCKED UP, and/or EUTHANIZED,rather than return them to the streets to eventually kill.. >"THAT"< would curtail a huge amount of these problems. We can't punish the masses for the actions of the few.

As Spiddas explains your government who implemented the NICS check failed to include mental illness since the 80's. Who's fault is that? Until these people either do something wrong, or are diagnosed at an early age, and/ or proven to be a danger, they are free. As you well know in >"THIS"< country we are innocent until proven guilty.

"No free man shall be barred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson

We had a child in our family sexually molested, Shall we come and hold YOU responsible, because YOU are so equipped?

Gun dealers pose as private sellers all the time. Time to tighten up on that.

Silverton wrote;

"Gun dealers pose as private sellers all the time......"

You are not a truth teller! Show me!!!

(And btw, spiddas, thank you for finally admitting that we need new gun laws to prohibit the criminally insane from buying these weapons at gun shows.)

Never said we needed new laws. Only said to instate the lunatics on the prohibited buyer class. Don't twist what I said.

And most gun dealers I've met have a personal collection they sometimes change around. Why some of these people have so many guns is beyond me, but that's THEIR CHOICE. Go to Colonial Williamsburg and see just how important the gun was in the early days of this country! IIRC, In the Governor's Mansion they have one particular stairway that's got to have at least 100 guns in one display on the ceiling. And THAT'S the way is was back in those days!

”To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” -- Wilson v. State

Silverton- wrote

"Time to tighten up on that"

It is already aginst federal law to knowingly sell a firearm to a person barred from having one. Creating and inverted law that does the same thing is a waist of time. I'm not saying it hasn't happened but as Ive said we can't punish the masses for the actions of the few. And the few SHOULD be punished. If criminals can't buy them legaly they will steal them from the law abiding. Or get them from Eric Holder. Did you read what happened to one of the people on the Journal News Papers outing of gun owners list? The house was broken into and an attempt was made to steal the gun safe. But isn't there a law that makes breaking into someones home? Isn't there a law that makes it illegal to steal firearms? MANY!!!!!!! But they did it anyway... Why is that? Its because they are not interested in following rules or laws. Come on kid get it right!

Ummm, Spiddas, these were your words:

"Actually, the mentally insane can buy guns at almost ANY gun show because the government has failed to include that group in the list of ineligible purchasers class under BATFE guidelines."

So, again, thanks for agreeing with me.

Only I did not realize the criminally insane could buy guns at almost any gun show. I just knew they could do it in Virginia.

Yep, time to change that.

Hey, Jim, I agree that it is wrong to publicly post the names of gun owners.

Bad idea.

Ummm, Spiddas, these were your words:

"Actually, the mentally insane can buy guns at almost ANY gun show because the government has failed to include that group in the list of ineligible purchasers class under BATFE guidelines."

(And btw, spiddas, thank you for finally admitting that we need new gun laws to prohibit the criminally insane from buying these weapons at gun shows.)

It does not require a law to make the necessary change(s). Only a modification {amendment} to the current law. Now if you can agree that this simple "change" needs to be made, rather adding to the 28,000 plus {ineffective} laws on the books... Great. Then you would be in agreement with most of the pro-gunners out there, because that's pretty much all they've been asking for...

”I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can’t agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don’t wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them.” -- Hugh Downs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that it is wrong to publicly post the names of gun owners. Bad idea.

Glad to hear it!

Silverton wrote;

Only I did not realize

Thats a bad habit you have there ;o)

Only I did not realize the criminally insane could buy guns at almost any gun show. I just knew they could do it in Virginia.

You are not a truth teller.

Yep, time to change that.

Not going to happen.

Hey, Jim, I agree that it is wrong to publicly post the names of gun owners.

Bad idea.

You're damed right it is!!! And thank you!

I repeat;

The "Loophole" does not exist. The term has been created to lure the ignorant. I have been to HUNDREDS of gun shows in the Commonwealth of Virginia, because I live here, and can tell you the places are SWARMING with cops from all branches. From feds to troopers to local and deputies. Including plain clothed. The Background checks are done in a back secluded area, so in the event a person that should not have a firearm tries to buy a firearm they will be pounced on instantly. The confusion lies strictly on the private sale of a weapon. That is private property and should remain that way. The interference of private sales will include removing the ability to either gift, grandfather, or be left to someone. ("WILLED"). It is already illegal to knowingly sell or give a firearm to a felon. NO other law is needed.

Silverton-

You claim we all listen to FOX news? Who have >"YOU" been listening to?

Eric Holder 1995 "Brainwashing" against guns

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/18/Holder-Outlines-How-To-Change-Public-Opinion-On-Guns

Looks like youve been duped

Dupe;

1. trick somebody: to persuade or induce somebody to do something by trickery or deception
2. victim of deceit: an object of trickery or deceit

Synonyms: sucker, mug, victim, target, fool, fall guy

I listen to a variety of news channels and radio stations, but try to avoid Fox News. I used to think it was more like Entertainment Tonight, or a news tabloid rag, but in the last several years I have come to realize it is a dangerous form of brainwashing propaganda.

Sure, there are some other media outlets that push their own agenda as well. I used to love listening to NPR, but am getting a bit annoyed with their extreme liberal views on everything. I also enjoy a certain Christian broadcasting station, but they have gotten to where they are promoting Fox News too much. So, I try to find a good balance reading different magazines, watching various news channels, and listening to a variety of radio newsbroadcasts.

Oh, and I also like to get out there with just every day folks like myself and see what they're thinking and talking about.

I have come to realize it is a dangerous form of brainwashing propaganda.

You should see the video.

And you should get some new friends.

Jim,

You mean like you and Spiddas?

LOL

Silverton

You mean like you and Spiddas? LOL

LOL? Easily entertained are you?

If you like! We seem to be the only ones patient enough to try to educate you. So far I have done well teaching my son (and daughter.) He is now in the US Coast Guard. Must have done something right. I never lied to him and told him straight up right from wrong. I didn't need news media or anyone else, to tell him the truths about life. He knows what it means to "have your back". Not only is he >"MY"< boy.... he's the >"BEST"< boy....well, a man now. Daughter is a manager of a cancer medical facility. Granddaughter (12 and gifted...REALLY!) loves to come and sit with Grampy and hear what I have to say of the goings on in the country. Asks a ton of eyebrow raising questions. I look at Mom or Dad and they say "have at it Dad!" Sometimes I let her see the comments of the ignorant on these boards, then take her to show her the truth. She is going places I tell ya!! We have some really in depth conversations. Very easy to forget she's 12. Very good shot at the range too! It's all about the education, don't you agree?

Stick around if you like.. I wont lie to you either. Got to go now. Have a great evening and God bless.
And thanks for listening. Good night.

Silverton:

You mean like you and Spiddas?

Now that was good! Thanks for the chuckle, I needed it. Especially followed by:

Jim:

Easily entertained are you?

That thought hit my mind before I scrolled down to see it already there!

One quote that struck me a few months ago was:

"Judge a man by his questions, rather than his answers." -- Voltaire

And Silverton has had some legitimate ones. I believe that virtually any problem can be solve with enough dialog using solid facts and an open, willing mind.

We may not come to a complete agreement, but it should be close enough to satisfy everyone envolved!

jim: "I let her see the comments of the ignorant on these boards, then take her to show her the truth."

probusiness (1.47): As much as it rankles me, I'll stick with my vow of reason. The bear spray you mentioned - and supported - sounds like an excellent idea. Believe it or not, I was thinking the same thing the other day. If that stuff will, indeed, stop a bear, it would likely stop a bad guy, even one whacked out on crack, meth, or some rambo/call to duty fantasy.

Someone mentioned that law enforcement accuracy with firearms is 1 in 7 on target. I believe I've read that statistic as well. Contemplating a good guy/bad guy classroom shootout with 6 of 7 rounds (or worse) looking for something to hit is horrifying.

Those entertaining the fantasy of Marshall Dillon dropping the outlaw in his tracks are simply romanticizing a very real potential disaster.