Question on the NRA - President seems to be a bit extreme

[Romer]

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]

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

[cstone]

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.

[Skully]

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]

chris is that you?

[Romer]

chris is that you?

No relation. He is a democrat and I am not

[HBARleatherneck]

i figured with the trolling question, you were.

[RMGOdirector]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2494358.html

Keene is extreme? Read article -- here he's endorsing Brady.

[theGinsue]

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.

[james_bond_007]

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 ?