View Full Version : Question on the NRA - President seems to be a bit extreme
I was about to join the NRA when the NRA President commented about the Presidents kids needing armed gaurds. Look I don't like Obamas policies and voted for Mitt, but the Presidents family need to have proper security. I have no qualms that the secret service protects his kids and mine don't have any armed guards. Not like they could kidnap my kids and hold the country hostage to set off a nuke or something. Even his back pedeling seemed poor. I would have thought the leader of such a large and important organization would have beem more elequant. I was thinking when he announced his press conference he would have been more elequent as this was a great opportunity to stregthen the NRAs image across the nation. I sent the NRA a letter after that and received no response.
I wanted to join the NRA to support our rights. I likiley will join in any case as thats the only group I see that will push it. I would just like the leader to not be as poilarizing, no need for that. He could easily make statements that put the NRA in a better light. He could have said that the NRA will work with the goverment to improve gun safety. Thats a statement that says nothing, could be taken in a positive note and doesnt make them do anything. If they show support on one thing, they can claim success. I am not suggesting give on the gun ban or high capacity magazine, but there were some small no big deal and make sense. The NRA could easily have said they supported the following 3 points to the Presidents plan and dont agree on the gun ban or magazine count. None of the 3 items below impact our rights and only deal with response or helping the mentaly ill.
Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.
Like I said, I will likely join the NRA to help support Gun ownership. I am just venting because I thought the President of the NRA could be handling this situation much better. Members of the NRA support his views, the left wing does not. Like the election, there is a center group on the fence and those are the ones who made a difference in the last election. Thats the group my fellow Republicans forgot in the last election. You don't want those folks to take a position because they are irritated by the tone of the NRA, that would hurt in a future election and also gaining support from constituants.
You can state you are strongly opposed and fight for rights, just don't come out and say stupid things and in my opinion thats what he did. By at least supporting the above 3 items, the NRA can easily say they are working to improve the process and it costs us nothing.
Sorry for the vent. To be clear, I am not dissing the NRA, it's policies or for the work the organization is doing to protect our rights. This vent was about one man and his being the mouthpiece for the organization. I apologize in advance if I insulted anyones view.
I am sure there will be plenty of discussion here and I look forward to a positive discussion. I am hoping to get educated by the forum members in things I am not aware of as I know I am a dumb noobie in this area. It would be great if I could also see the many positive things the NRA is doing that are not widely known.
Prometheus
01-26-2013, 11:30
First of all the nra president didn't write the commercial, in an interview he said when he first read the script he took it in a different light, also hes not talking about the secret service hes talking about how obama thinks its ok that their school has a team of armed guards for all the students, and he is against having armed guards in other public schools that our kids attend
IMO this issue is about the "Gun Free Zones" mandated by the federal government. If you are a law abiding citizen, who has gone through the background check to work in a school, and then take on the responsibility to obtain a CCW permit, why should the federal government prohibit you from having your weapon with you while you are at work? Removing the federal prohibition from allowing school employees from concealed carry costs the taxpayers NOTHING! It may never prevent a crime, but it does allow adults, law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves and others in the event that something like this ever occurs again.
If you say that guns in schools are dangerous, then why has Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC been allowing armed federal agents to possess numerous automatic weapons inside the school for decades? Are the President's children more important than mine? Is the US Secret Service so much more trustworthy than the average citizen?
The best government is less government.
Be safe.
The best government is less government.
Be safe.
AMen!
Government doesn't have to spend any money, just at the very least allow teachers and administrators in schools to carry concealed. NRA and several other organizations offered extended training for FREE. I forgot where it was but some twit said in a news article; "It worries me teachers being armed, what if one of the kids found a teachers gun in their desk and shot people?" That is the stupid factor uneducated crap we are arguing against.
HBARleatherneck
01-26-2013, 11:38
chris is that you?
David Gregory that showed the 30 round AR mag on TV in DC and got off scott free has his kids in the same school. A commercial pointing out the hypocrisy isn't out of order. There was no personal attack against the children, but that doesn't stop the lefties from trying to distract from the issue.
theGinsue
01-26-2013, 12:45
IMO this issue is about the "Gun Free Zones" mandated by the federal government. If you are a law abiding citizen, who has gone through the background check to work in a school, and then take on the responsibility to obtain a CCW permit, why should the federal government prohibit you from having your weapon with you while you are at work? Removing the federal prohibition from allowing school employees from concealed carry costs the taxpayers NOTHING! It may never prevent a crime, but it does allow adults, law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves and others in the event that something like this ever occurs again.
If you say that guns in schools are dangerous, then why has Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC been allowing armed federal agents to possess numerous automatic weapons inside the school for decades? Are the President's children more important than mine? Is the US Secret Service so much more trustworthy than the average citizen?
The best government is less government.
Be safe.
Cstone and I are of one mind here. This comment was how I wanted to reply, but Chuck said it better than I ever could. My kids (now grown) are just as important as his kids are and if firearms inside of a school are so dangerous for my kids schools, then they're too dangerous for his kids schools as well. There is no gray area on this one, it's black or it's white.
XC700116
01-26-2013, 12:45
The commercial and the statements are simply about pointing out that while all the kids that go to Sidwell Friends (Where Obama's kids go to school) have armed security, and yes they had it before the Obama's came to town. The POTUS doesn't seem to think we have the same rights to defend our children with armed security. BTW that armed security is in addition to the secret service detail that the kids have with them at all times.
Thanks for the clarifications. Again, I was not arguing against or for any policy or position by the NRA. I just have not been impressed when I heard the NRA President speak. I understand others wrote the commercial and I can see the point that the school the Presidents kids go to has armed guards even without the Secret Service. I would think they would look for a well guarded school for the Presidents and even speaker of the house kids to ensure they can't get kidnapped as they are much more of a target.
They should have used a different person to get the message across rather than the president (obama) as then the first response would not have been "of course they need armed guards".
Frankly, if someone wants to send their kids to a school with armed secruity, I have no problem with that. If others send kids to schools that don't have armed guards, thats fine as well. Thats a choice
I do get the point of sending your kids to a school with armed security and advocating against it at the same time. That point was very poorly communicated and he should have left the President out of that one. Again, not a fan of the President, but I respect the office and feel who ever is in there should have the best protection for their family even if I don't don't get the same as the stakes are different.
Hypocricy is a negative argument and you can take lots of events in random and paint the argument. It's not as concrete and convincing at least to me. A more positive campaign would convince the more center. I mean afterall, he doesnt need to convince you, you are on board with the NRA. The point of any campaign is to convince and get support from others. At least thats how I see it. The negative item took a moderate/conservative Republican like me who was about to join to show my support and made me cringe.
I am not disagreeing with the Hypocricy comments. I guess my main point I am trying to make is the NRA could be doing a better job at their campaign. Thats really what they should be doing to stop the changes in the law, getting those who have not already made up their mind to support.
BTW- thanks for not taking the discussion down the drain or virtually "bitch slapping me"
chris is that you?
No relation. He is a democrat and I am not
HBARleatherneck
01-26-2013, 12:57
i figured with the trolling question, you were.
jerrymrc
01-26-2013, 12:57
For many belonging to the NRA is not an option. If you belong to a club or range then you have to belong to the NRA.
i figured with the trolling question, you were.
Sorry if it came across as a trolling question. I understand how that goes. I have been a long term member of the offroad community and a moderator for 10 years on one of the forums. We battle many land use issues related to the tree huggers wanting no one to be able to do anything fun
I am a noobie in this area. I have had a 9mm for 5 years and haven't taken it to the range much. I have always wanted an AR-15, but just couldn't justify it. When the tragedy happened and the politicians wanted to take away my right to buy an AR-15, I went out and bought one. I have been learning as much about this Sport/Hobby as I can. When I get into something, I'm all in and this issue with the "campaign" not with the policies bothered me.
I m a Gun owner and proud to be one. I am about to sign my wife and daughter up to a family Safety class with the 9mm and AR-15 so they are comfortable handling it and so I can learn more about them. I also am thinking of getting a CCW permit, but need to do more research. I don't plan on carrying, but want to be able if I choose to.
For many belonging to the NRA is not an option. If you belong to a club or range then you have to belong to the NRA.
I do plan on joining. I know their membership has been growing at a fast pace recently.
"You don’t have to agree with everything the NRA does,but you do need to be a member to be sure Washington knows we’re very serious about preserving our freedoms"
I found this on another site and it made me decide to join today. I signed up and am now a member.
It doesnt change my opinion that the NRA could be implementing a more effective campaign to gain support and that usually starts at the top
Edit: BTW I went through the link on this site so they would get credit
theGinsue
01-26-2013, 13:44
It doesnt change my opinion that the NRA could be implementing a more effective campaign to gain support and that usually starts at the top
I'm an NRA Life Member, but you certainly won't get any argument from me on this point!
Great-Kazoo
01-26-2013, 13:51
"You don’t have to agree with everything the NRA does,but you do need to be a member to be sure Washington knows we’re very serious about preserving our freedoms"
I found this on another site and it made me decide to join today. I signed up and am now a member.
It doesnt change my opinion that the NRA could be implementing a more effective campaign to gain support and that usually starts at the top
Edit: BTW I went through the link on this site so they would get credit
becoming a member is one thing. Contributing to the NRA-ILA is another. The ILA branch is the one who files and or co/supports law suits etc. The NRA is the lobbying branch. Both need our support.
becoming a member is one thing. Contributing to the NRA-ILA is another. The ILA branch is the one who files and or co/supports law suits etc. The NRA is the lobbying branch. Both need our support.
Thanks for the input. I contribute a lot to the Blue Ribbon Coalition among others to keep our offroad trails open and allow access to places that are not easy to get to. Enjoying some of these places and respecting the land are very important to me. I'll look into this
Captain Trap
01-26-2013, 14:24
Pass this around!
I would much rather have a teacher protect my children with a gun than their body...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248477/She-threw-gunman-save-students-Astonishing-story-brave-teacher-died-protecting-children-deeply-disturbed-killer.html
BPTactical
01-26-2013, 16:40
Back to the original question.
Bullshit on the POTUS's kids needing additional security.
Their lives are no more special than any other childs lives.
They just have the privilege of having hired security at their disposal 24/7.
Our kids have to rely on us and the meager offerings of the public school systems.
ChunkyMonkey
01-26-2013, 17:08
Bert voiced my exact thought. Gtfo my head,Bert!!!
The issue isn't the Secret Service protection. It's the president's kids going to a school that has always had armed security. Same school that the Meet the Press guy's kids go to.
Basically, the secure school with armed guards is good enough for the rich elite, but not for the rest of us. We get gun free zones.
Daniel_187
01-26-2013, 17:27
Why do his kids get it and mine don't? He is a public servant as far as I am concerned.
BPTactical
01-26-2013, 17:42
Gtfo my head,Bert!!!
Its awful dark in here...and sparsley furnished........wait, a door (door opens)..[Toile2]
oops, wrong door.......the rest of this space is vacant......
Why do his kids get it and mine don't? He is a public servant as far as I am concerned.
I am not talking about Obama, but any President. I work in the Defense Industry and I know what powers can be brought to bare by the Presidents orders. What would you do to save your kids if they were kidnapped? He has the power to launch a nuke anywhere at any time without anyone having the authority to stop him. I believe the Presidemts family should be protected. Otherwise, one of those nut jobs would kidnap his kids and force him to blow up Isreal or Turkey or England or .. He is a Public servant, but one you dont want to be put in that position. Again, I am talking any President.
To me, having guards at a school was a seperate subject. I am guessing the school is private and they pay extra in the tuition to pay for the guards. Thats an assumption, anyone know if thats true? If it is then I don't see whats wrong with them paying extra for a private school with guards as long as I have the same opportunity to pay extra for a private school with guards here. Thats an apples to apples scenario. Public school and private school are different. If they attend Public school then thats a different position.
Then the question comes down to would you be willing to have your taxes raised to provide an armed gaurd at your kids school? I would. That would mean a ballot would need to be introduced to raise taxes for security much like they do when they want to do school improvements. That would take a grass roots efforts by parents to get such a ballot going.
BPTactical
01-26-2013, 17:55
I would not pay extra taxes for the simple fact they would be pirated and never used as intended.
You seem to have missed the point.
Just what the hell makes ANY childs life any more or less important than any other child?
Rich child, poor child.
Black child, white child.
Citizen child or non-citizen child.
Makes no difference.
A childs life is a childs life and they all deserve a safe environment in which to learn.
n8tive97
01-26-2013, 18:11
Back to the original question.
Bullshit on the POTUS's kids needing additional security.
Their lives are no more special than any other childs lives.
They just have the privilege of having hired security at their disposal 24/7.
Our kids have to rely on us and the meager offerings of the public school systems.
^^^THIS^^^
HBARleatherneck
01-26-2013, 18:12
Then the question comes down to would you be willing to have your taxes raised to provide an armed gaurd at your kids school?
i already have to pay for everyone else's kids to go to school. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on my children only. But, that's not an option. Cut the school budget back to reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and science. And keep the schools secure.
you want....
music???
sports???
foreign language???
art????
pay for it your damn self. they are electives, my tax dollars would be better spent providing security.
I would not pay extra taxes for the simple fact they would be pirated and never used as intended.
You seem to have missed the point.
Just what the hell makes ANY childs life any more or less important than any other child?
Rich child, poor child.
Black child, white child.
Citizen child or non-citizen child.
Makes no difference.
A childs life is a child's life and they all deserve a safe environment in which to learn.
I don't feel any child's life is worth more than any other. I awas looking at it from a National Security point of view of what could happen if his kids are not protected. In the same manner they protect the Pilots with door locks and not allowing you to approach the bathroom on a plane while the Pilot is out, so no one can take the plane over and crash it into a building. The Pilot doesn't have any more right to the bathroom than I do.
I also agree strongly that any child deserves a safe place to learn and no one deserves one more.
Someone thought this was my original point and its not. I used it as an example of the current campaign being used. Its works for you and many on here. My point is the campaign needs to be targeted for those that are not clearly in this corner and can be convinced to move to this side. I am with you man, not against you. My kids deserve the same treatment as the Presidents. My kids deserve and I expect them to have a safe environment to learn in.
The point is the campaign. Maybe I don't understand and the target for the NRAs campaign are the NRA members. If so then this entire thread was a waste of bits. If not, then yes use the argument about they have guarded schools while being against it at the same time. Many will see the Presidents kids (not more valuable) in a different light because of National Security and that defused the point of guards in school because the whole discussion became about the Presidents kids and why or why not they should be protected
i already have to pay for everyone else's kids to go to school. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on my children only. But, that's not an option. Cut the school budget back to reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and science. And keep the schools secure.
you want....
music???
sports???
foreign language???
art????
pay for it your damn self. they are electives, my tax dollars would be better spent providing security.
I would be fine with cutting the budget back, but I doubt the school adminstrations would do that.
If I could have my druthers they would drop some of the bs crap they do at schools and put guards on duty. I deal with a lot of bueracratic BS at work and know that schools are even worse from trying to deal with stuff with my kids school.
I didnt mean to stir a few of you up. The internet is a 2 dimensional medium and meaning is being taken that was not my intent.
To the best of my knowledge, every public middle and high school in Colorado already has an armed police officer present during school hours. They are School Resource Officers (SRO). We have been paying for them since just after Columbine. They are expensive, armed, and cannot provide a safe environment for every student regardless of how high-speed and low-drag they might be. SRO's are as effective as any police officer. They can protect you if they are there when the attack happens. Otherwise they just have a faster response time than all of the other officers who will be responding by vehicle from wherever they might be when the attack happens.
If guns in schools are bad, why are SRO's armed?
If some trained adults in schools with guns are good, why aren't more trained adults with guns in school even better?
My preferred option is that law abiding citizens perform the functions of self-defense and defense of others where they are present and at no additional cost to the tax payers. This function is an unpaid, volunteer position, like performing CPR or the Heimlich maneuver for someone in need. If I was suffering a heart attack, I would rather receive first aid from someone who is right there next to me, with an expired Red Cross card than wait for a trained EMT who is only 10 minutes away.
I realize that not everyone shares my opinion, however, that does not in any way lessen the value of my opinion. It is worth exactly what you paid for it [Coffee]
Be safe.
james_bond_007
01-26-2013, 18:33
Cstone and I are of one mind here. This comment was how I wanted to reply, but Chuck said it better than I ever could. My kids (now grown) are just as important as his kids are and if firearms inside of a school are so dangerous for my kids schools, then they're too dangerous for his kids schools as well. There is no gray area on this one, it's black or it's white.
Ginsue, I see a possible "gray" area here...and I'll ask before I being, that you try not to take my comments the wrong way. I'm not DISagreeing, but trying to point out something that may have been overlooked.
First, I am in favor of having trained armed personnel to help protect our students. I am reaching a bit, but assume* that these "guards":
are trained in Close Combat urban situations (...I said "reaching " right ?)
have access to Intel. during a situation (radio to other members of the team to find out what's going on around them, radio for backup, etc.)
train as a team
have weapons retention devices (holster locks and lanyards attaching pistol to duty belt, etc....again reaching)
etc.
*(this means I would HOPE they have taken some of these measures...)
I would be opposed to having Barney Fifes with 1-bullet serve as a guards.
I am generally OK with teachers having CCW permits carry in schools, but am concerned that they might need additional training, beyond that to obtain a CCW.
I don't think they could operate in the same capacity as what I outlined above for the guards, without more training, equipment, and organization.
I know MANY people who have a CCW, but don't practice or train at all...so just "having" a CCW does not, in my opinion, make them the "ideal" persons to wield a firearm to protect my kids.
Then there are other CCW holders that I would not hesitate to entrust using a firearm to protect my child's life.
In short, I don't think the CCW is a sufficient minimum requirement to allow teachers to carry in schools.
My concern is as follows:
When we speak of schools, we include K-12 and colleges. I'm thinking about the high school and college students.
In more troubled/rough areas, having gangs and other organized student groups, it would be pretty easy for a group of students to gang up on a teacher and disarm the teacher...or teacher(s). This would now pose a different kind of threat to the rest of the students, rival gangs, other students and teachers, administrators, etc. It would "kind of" (again reaching) be like a prison riot situation.
In summary, the gray area is perhaps teachers, under-trained, perhaps careless about allowing access to their weapon (in a desk, in a purse, in a backpack, etc. ), could pose an internal threat, if they are overcome by a student uprising (not the K-4 students, but high school and college students). I would be more comfortable with allowing teachers to carry in schools if the teachers had to "train and pass" some additional training requirements to carry in a school. At this point they are no longer carrying just for SELF defense, but for the defense of their peers, students and administrators. They have essentially become the "guards". I believe they need the additional training as such. ALL teachers would not have to carry...just those that want to and can meet the training requirements.
Your thoughts ?
sabot_round
01-26-2013, 18:39
To the best of my knowledge, every public middle and high school in Colorado already has an armed police officer present during school hours. They are School Resource Officers (SRO). We have been paying for them since just after Columbine. They are expensive, armed, and cannot provide a safe environment for every student regardless of how high-speed and low-drag they might be. SRO's are as effective as any police officer. They can protect you if they are there when the attack happens. Otherwise they just have a faster response time than all of the other officers who will be responding by vehicle from wherever they might be when the attack happens.
If guns in schools are bad, why are SRO's armed?
If some trained adults in schools with guns are good, why aren't more trained adults with guns in school even better?
My preferred option is that law abiding citizens perform the functions of self-defense and defense of others where they are present and at no additional cost to the tax payers. This function is an unpaid, volunteer position, like performing CPR or the Heimlich maneuver for someone in need. If I was suffering a heart attack, I would rather receive first aid from someone who is right there next to me, with an expired Red Cross card than wait for a trained EMT who is only 10 minutes away.
I realize that not everyone shares my opinion, however, that does not in any way lessen the value of my opinion. It is worth exactly what you paid for it [Coffee]
Be safe.
^^^^AGREED^^^^
First, I am in favor of having trained armed personnel to help protect our students. I am reaching a bit, but assume* that these "guards":
are trained in Close Combat urban situations (...I said "reaching " right ?)
have access to Intel. during a situation (radio to other members of the team to find out what's going on around them, radio for backup, etc.)
train as a team
have weapons retention devices (holster locks and lanyards attaching pistol to duty belt, etc....again reaching)
etc.
*(this means I would HOPE they have taken some of these measures...)
...
Your thoughts ?
Since The Ginsue and I have apparently established this psychic bond, a mind meld if I may [ROFL2]
Most cops do not have training in CQB. They have access to radios, which may or may not transmit/receive clearly in every location they are required to work. Most of the Intel the po-po receives is either generic like the information you get from reading the newspaper or watching TV, or specific like recent criminal trends in certain locations or types of businesses. You get that at the beginning of your shift and you may get a few over the air broadcasts if anything is actually noticed and passed along. Very few in LE train in groups of more than two. Most cars are manned either in ones or twos. If multiple cars show up for something, you are assigned different areas of responsibility and rarely will you be working in groups larger than two. Tactical teams are an obvious exception and many officers are not interested in that type of work. Weapons retention is important and thumb keepers are especially important when wearing a duty gun in a duty belt, exposed. If no one sees it, they aren't likely to make a grab for it.
As for working in bad areas, those are the areas where the concealed weapon is most necessary. If a school employee necessarily displays their concealed weapon, there should be progressive discipline. First offense could be as simple as, "Don't let it happen again." If the employee has a habit of showing of the gat to the kiddies, that employee has other issues and they should be addressed through psychological counseling and progressive discipline.
I expect adults in school to have the simple decency to look after minors in their care. Most police officers never fire their gun outside of a range. Most school employees who carry concealed in a school wouldn't be any more likely to use their gun at work. I believe we do a disservice to our children and other citizens when we assume that by accepting the responsibility for their own safety and those around them, they are making society more dangerous.
Again, just mine (and The Ginsue's) opinion [ROFL2]
Be safe.
Great-Kazoo
01-26-2013, 21:31
I am not talking about Obama, but any President. I work in the Defense Industry and I know what powers can be brought to bare by the Presidents orders. What would you do to save your kids if they were kidnapped? He has the power to launch a nuke anywhere at any time without anyone having the authority to stop him. I believe the Presidemts family should be protected. Otherwise, one of those nut jobs would kidnap his kids and force him to blow up Isreal or Turkey or England or .. He is a Public servant, but one you dont want to be put in that position. Again, I am talking any President.
To me, having guards at a school was a seperate subject. I am guessing the school is private and they pay extra in the tuition to pay for the guards. Thats an assumption, anyone know if thats true? If it is then I don't see whats wrong with them paying extra for a private school with guards as long as I have the same opportunity to pay extra for a private school with guards here. Thats an apples to apples scenario. Public school and private school are different. If they attend Public school then thats a different position.
Then the question comes down to would you be willing to have your taxes raised to provide an armed gaurd at your kids school? I would. That would mean a ballot would need to be introduced to raise taxes for security much like they do when they want to do school improvements. That would take a grass roots efforts by parents to get such a ballot going.
I don't have a kid in school anymore, thank god, allah, creator, buddah, what ever diety you choose.
What i don't have is an issue with is ARMED & TRAINED SECURITY At every public and private school in the country, EXCEPT NY, CT, CA and any other liberal gun grabbing in the name of safety, state.
Hell i'd gladly step up to the plate and VOLUNTEER MY SERVICES. Complete with a release form, which disconnects the PSD from any liability, IF a Valid Threat presented it self and i was able to stop said threat, one way or another.
I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS out there who would do the same.
sabot_round
01-26-2013, 21:37
I don't have a kid in school anymore, thank god, allah, creator, buddah, what ever diety you choose.
What i don't have is an issue with is ARMED & TRAINED SECURITY At every public and private school in the country, EXCEPT NY, CT, CA and any other liberal gun grabbing in the name of safety, state.
Hell i'd gladly step up to the plate and VOLUNTEER MY SERVICES. Complete with a release form, which disconnects the PSD from any liability, IF a Valid Threat presented it self and i was able to stop said threat, one way or another.
I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS out there who would do the same.
Amen Brother, Amen!!
I'm glad you ended up joining the NRA, now donate to the ILA so we can fight gun grabbing. That, I believe was the whole point. Our tax dollars pay for armed security, yet he and lots of folks in DC feel that we don't deserve the need to defend ourselves and our children.
If we are going to create armed security for every school it needs to be done on the same budget. This is easily accomplished by allowing teachers to conceal carry on property. Training can be accomplished by the generosity of gun groups such as RMGO and the NRA and NRA certified instructors across the country. It can also be accomplished at police ranges which are already paid for with our tax dollars.
The other thing I have thought of, but haven't completely thought out would be the idea of an so called enhanced concealed carry for the average joe. Just like pretty much anyone can get a drivers license, the next class up is say a motorcycle endorsement or a CDL. The same could be applied to a concealed carry permit which could have federal oversight. again this hasn't been thought all the way through, just an idea so don't bash me...offer suggestions. But it could be done so your endorsement requires extra training and evaluations so you are permitted to carry anywhere in the country, be it school property, federal property, USPS, etc, essentially everywhere. You can still get a standard CCW, but this is also an option.
Honestly I would prefer to be able to carry anywhere and everywhere already as I believe that is my constitutional right, but as things are, I think this could possibly be an enhancement in the right direction if implemented correctly.
BTW- thanks for not taking the discussion down the drain or virtually "bitch slapping me"
-that has to be earned! :)
Great-Kazoo
01-26-2013, 23:03
-that has to be earned! :)
No it don't, ok maybe, unless you're one of those flag burning liberals. Did you hear there's a new AWB proposed?
http://2.s3.envato.com/files/27302805/nuclear%20suitcase_preview.jpg
I'm not really into getting nuked over some kids. That said the more power you acquire the more security you need. Perhaps it's just because I went to school in lafayette but we always had an armed cop or two on our campus, plus actual school security... I think a lot of public schools do have a police presence.
Thanks for the discussion
Thats good to know that many schools do have an armed guard on campus.
I also see the other perspective about paying for some kids security and not others. I hadn't thought about it that way, but I see the point.
Not sure I would want just any Joe with a CCW to stand guard, I agree with the post about better traiung for those individuals and equipment to call for backup.
I will look into donating to the ILA
Great-Kazoo
01-27-2013, 00:06
http://2.s3.envato.com/files/27302805/nuclear%20suitcase_preview.jpg
I'm not really into getting nuked over some kids. That said the more power you acquire the more security you need. Perhaps it's just because I went to school in lafayette but we always had an armed cop or two on our campus, plus actual school security... I think a lot of public schools do have a police presence.
Only when they're yaking D.A.R.E
james_bond_007
02-01-2013, 23:51
Since The Ginsue and I have apparently established this psychic bond, a mind meld if I may [ROFL2]
...
Again, just mine (and The Ginsue's) opinion [ROFL2]
Very informative....thanks (...I state that sincerely).
What concerns me is that I don't feel "just" a CCW course is sufficient training for teachers and other school staff.
Yes, 4+ hrs of CCW training meets the state requirements to get a CCW. (I don't believe live fire is even a requirement...at least it wasn't a few years ago.)
Yes, it is better to have someone available to respond immediately to a threat than no one, even with minimal training.
But I think with some organization and additional/regular training, teachers that carry could be more effective, safer, better prepared, and feel more comfortable in an additional "guard" role.
For example (and maybe not the best example, but it illustrates more privileges might be granted with more training ) Mississippi is now allowing those CCW holders that obtain additional training endorsements to carry in more areas ("courthouses, polling places, government meetings, any school, college or professional athletic event, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, any elementary or secondary school facility, any junior college, community college, college or university facility, inside the passenger terminal of any airport") than those CCW holders that have not had said endorsement training. See http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=3972
Also, when people have infrequent social contact with each other, I would agree with "If no one sees it, they aren't likely to make a grab for it." But in a school situation, where there are stronger relationships (both positive and negative) and regular encounters, I think that it would only be a short time before the students know which teachers carry and which don't, even if the teacher is careful to keep things concealed.
Again, I support teachers being allowed to carry, but believe there should be additional and regular training requirements in addition to that required for CCW, to help make any "gray area" more black or white.
clublights
02-02-2013, 04:12
Ok yes no child is no more important then any other..
But lets be realistic.... The kids of a high ranking government official or a prominate person in the media are a LARGER Target. Of course they need EXTRA protection.
But as history has shown ANY Child is a target to these wackos ( Columbine, Newtown, VA tech( tho not children per-say .. young folk) )
EVERY child deserves SOME protection ( and history has also shown that gun free zones are the opposite of protection they are an invitation for these wackos)
I believe the commercial is showing the hypocrisy of the left that they see the need to protect THIER children but the rest of us.. Well Good Luck .
I read a story recently, about fathers and grandfathers on their days off just being at the school interacting with the kids.* They not only reduced the bullying at the school and the kids were more relaxed, due to the extra guys there keeping an eye out for them. Thought it was pretty interesting. Yes, it was in Utah, where people with a CCW can carry concealed at schools.
* http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/17oabr/so_at_my_kids_school_some_dads_have_made_a_huge/
RMGOdirector
02-02-2013, 09:15
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/david-keene-nra_n_2494358.html
Keene is extreme? Read article -- here he's endorsing Brady.
Bailey Guns
02-02-2013, 09:47
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/david-keene-nra_n_2494358.html
Keene is extreme? Read article -- here he's endorsing Brady.
WASHINGTON -- The head of the National Rifle Association says the organization has no problem with tighter background checks of gun purchasers.
But association president David Keene also says too much emphasis has been placed on banning certain firearms.
In an interview on "CBS This Morning" Thursday, Keene argues, quote, "The real question that needs to be addressed is not what we do about guns, but what we do to make our schools safer."
The NRA has come under close scrutiny in the wake of Newtown, Conn., shootings that killed 20 children and six adults.
Keene said officials should focus more attention on a "devastatingly broken mental health system in this country," if they genuinely want to end gun violence.
He said the NRA has been "generally supportive" of stronger background checks.
Maybe I'm missing something here, Dudley, but can you point out where Keene is endorsing Brady in the above article, please? As is typical of almost everything you say about the NRA you're being a bit intellectually dishonest.
I've supported RMGO for the past several years despite your constant attacks on the NRA. The NRA is not the perfect organization. Granted. But none is. Not even RMGO. I'm sick and tired of your constant bashing of the NRA. It's offensive to me as a Benefactor Life Member.
I was about to contribute $35 to the RMGO for 2013. I'll pass now. When you get 4 million members get back to me. When you stop being part of the problem by constantly attacking pro-gun people and organizations and start trying to work with other organizations instead of constantly working to fracture the work they're doing, get back to me. Maybe then I'll consider contributing to RMGO. Until then, I'm done supporting RMGO, I'm done recommending others support RMGO and I'm done referring other gun owners to RMGO's website. I'm not going to actively work against your organization but I'm sure as hell not going to work for it.
Maybe I'm missing something here, Dudley, but can you point out where Keene is endorsing Brady
Got to agree.
The head of the National Rifle Association says the organization has no problem with tighter background checks of gun purchasers.
Everyone knows that the Brady Handgun Control Act was to relax the existing laws regarding background checks[Dunno]
hollohas
02-02-2013, 12:07
Again, I support teachers being allowed to carry, but believe there should be additional and regular training requirements in addition to that required for CCW, to help make any "gray area" more black or white.
Perhaps make the program similar to what armed commercial pilots participate in? Those guys must get fairly extensive and regular training. Regular trigger time, shoot/no shoot scenarios, force on force, etc.
RMGOdirector
02-02-2013, 13:04
"He said the NRA has been "generally supportive" of stronger background checks.""
Brady IS the NICS check. Keene is saying he supports tighter restrictions on who can own/buy guns, via Brady.
And LaPierre announced the NRA is supporting a mental health database.
I remember 1992, when the Brady bill was THE litmus test (even for the NRA) on whether a candidate for federal office is pro-gun or anti-gun.
And now, the discussion is about how to expand Brady, not repeal it.
Dude, if you can rationalize that, YOU support new gun controls.
If it offends you that we point it out when politicians or groups/orgs support gun control, then yes, you shouldn't be an RMGO member. That's what we do.
HBARleatherneck
02-02-2013, 13:10
And LaPierre announced the NRA is supporting a mental health database.
this concerns me alot. sure, everyone wants to ensure that somebody who is criminally insane doesnt have access to a firearm. but, that is a pipe dream. what it would really do, is allow abuses by an allready anti gun AMA to proliferate. It would be a tremendous resource for screwing almost anyone and everyone out of firearms ownership. Fuck that.
Maybe I'm missing something here, Dudley, but can you point out where Keene is endorsing Brady in the above article, please? As is typical of almost everything you say about the NRA you're being a bit intellectually dishonest.
I've supported RMGO for the past several years despite your constant attacks on the NRA. The NRA is not the perfect organization. Granted. But none is. Not even RMGO. I'm sick and tired of your constant bashing of the NRA. It's offensive to me as a Benefactor Life Member.
I was about to contribute $35 to the RMGO for 2013. I'll pass now. When you get 4 million members get back to me. When you stop being part of the problem by constantly attacking pro-gun people and organizations and start trying to work with other organizations instead of constantly working to fracture the work they're doing, get back to me. Maybe then I'll consider contributing to RMGO. Until then, I'm done supporting RMGO, I'm done recommending others support RMGO and I'm done referring other gun owners to RMGO's website. I'm not going to actively work against your organization but I'm sure as hell not going to work for it.
Thanks for stating what many of us feel. RMGO's constant attacks are becoming boring and are not helping.
Dudley says we should not become members.....that's one thing we can all agree on.
Bailey Guns
02-02-2013, 16:01
"He said the NRA has been "generally supportive" of stronger background checks.""
Brady IS the NICS check. Keene is saying he supports tighter restrictions on who can own/buy guns, via Brady.
And LaPierre announced the NRA is supporting a mental health database.
I remember 1992, when the Brady bill was THE litmus test (even for the NRA) on whether a candidate for federal office is pro-gun or anti-gun.
And now, the discussion is about how to expand Brady, not repeal it.
Dude, if you can rationalize that, YOU support new gun controls.
If it offends you that we point it out when politicians or groups/orgs support gun control, then yes, you shouldn't be an RMGO member. That's what we do.
If you watched the video Keene explained in pretty simple terms what he meant by that. I'll take your advice re: disassociating myself from RMGO. You've made the decision easy. My $35 just went to NRA/ILA.
If you watched the video Keene explained in pretty simple terms what he meant by that. I'll take your advice re: disassociating myself from RMGO. You've made the decision easy. My $35 just went to NRA/ILA.
Same here. Y'just shot yerself in the foot there Dudley. See ya. Y'wanna be divisive, that's your right. But with the 2A under attack, now is not the time nor the place. Every single organization that supports gun rights needs to come together and you've pretty much proven you don't have a clue in that regard.
Perhaps make the program similar to what armed commercial pilots participate in? Those guys must get fairly extensive and regular training. Regular trigger time, shoot/no shoot scenarios, force on force, etc.
not a bad idea, but pilots go to one location for the training and can do follow up training at several locations. they also fly for free. massive massive massive cost associated with that for teachers. only thing I would say for the teachers is local training with local LEO or NRA certified instructor types with an approved course and maybe annual or bi-annual recurrent.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.