When Wayne LaPierre suggested putting armed guards in schools, he was denounced as being a raving lunatic by the Establishment Press.

SubmarineDoc on January 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM

That’s because the Establishment Press is as dumb as a box of rocks. (Oops… I may have offended rocks!)

Our local schools have uniformed officers around on a regular basis… introducing themselves in elementary schools, running DARE programs in the middle/high schools, and routinely patrolling the high schools. Local armed officers are already doing this job. Only the Press could be so dumb they didn’t know that.

I witnessed several assaults in classrooms and halls, on students, teachers and administrators with fists, chairs, and other weapons, and can’t you just see a couple teachers finally holding a violent student at gunpoint?

cane_loader on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

If a student is violent, and the teacher is fearing for their life, or the lives of their students… I’m ok with this!

That’s what guns are for… protecting the innocent… or have we forgotten that many of these actions have been committed by actual students? Columbine comes to mind…

And those students that have traditionally terrorized the teaching staff and their fellow students will learn that they are no longer the final word.

Also, here in Ohio a shooting range offered free CCL and tactical training for the first 30 teachers/admins after Newtown… over 600 applied! So don’t try to make the argument that teachers aren’t willing to attempt to defend themselves and their students using the appropriate training…

The left mocked this idea after LaPierre’s presser last month

When Wayne LaPierre suggested putting armed guards in schools, he was denounced as being a raving lunatic by the Establishment Press.

Of course, when BHO suggests doing the same thing, he is hailed as the Super Genius of the Universe by the same press whores.

Amazing how that works.

I witnessed several assaults in classrooms and halls, on students, teachers and administrators with fists, chairs, and other weapons, and can’t you just see a couple teachers finally holding a violent student at gunpoint?

I said I was playing devil’s advocate. it’s not out of the realm of possibly. Then watch the media explosion.

cane_loader on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Sorry to hear that you had to teach in such a cesspool.

Of course, not every school is that bad. I agree – in some school districts, an armed officer would be needed. Not in all districts, though – this is why the security of a school is a local issue, not a federal one.

On the other side of the coin, I suspect that assaults on teachers would go way down, if the scumbags among the student population knew that some random teachers – MIGHT – be packing heat.

So the NRA was right… However this should not be done on federal level as it will cost at least $ 20 billions a year… Use the current police force in each town where they sit doing nothing for most the time and have some its officers guard the local schools… This will not incur any major additional cost to the tax payers…

mnjg on January 16, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Exactly right. Our school district has a resource officer who is a member of the local police department who is permanently assigned to the high school. On school days he is here at the school, otherwise, he does regular rounds just like the other officers. He dresses a little differently at school, not in full uniform, but he does have his sidearm and cuffs. So far as I know he has never used the sidearm but I have seen the cuffs deployed. (I work at the school.) Our city pays for it and is looking to station one at the elementary school, in light of recent developments. If towns think this is a good idea for their schools, they will find a way to pay for it. No reason to get the feds involved.

Why is this an issue for Washington DC to deal with? Why isn’t this handled at the State, or even the school board level?

Yet another opportunity for DC to manage and control at the local levels, making centralized BigGov that much more monstrous.

However this should not be done on federal level as it will cost at least $ 20 billions a year…

Ya got that right. Maybe a new bureaucracy, akin to the TSA and managed by the Dept of Ed. with federally trained and provided government union guards, akin to the TSA, cause we all know how well TSA is working out. And with that federal money comes yet more dependency attachment to the fed and its rules.

Leave this issue to the locals.

Federal funding for armed guards in schools is a trap.

Pork-Chop on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Doubly so. It’ll pad the SEIU rolls nationwide while giving Democrats something they can bash Republicans over the head with, either for being intransigent and refusing to pass an idea that started with them, or for not being the anti-spending crusaders they made themselves out to be and passing expensive federal legislation while stonewalling Obama everywhere else.

How committed to a tough fight can the White House be if they’re already signaling that Obama will sign a gun bill that lacks an assault-weapons ban?

He’s not like you and your GOPe puppet-masters ya dolt…

He actually MEANS what he says…and WILL follow up.

Lord your friggin’ thick.

Have we forgotten what Federalism means, too?

Likely not at all akin to LaPierre’s ‘every school in America!’ rant.
More likely something, you know, rational.

verbaluce

Somebody’s already in CYA mode, lol.

Likely not at all akin to LaPierre’s ‘every school in America!’ rant.
More likely something, you know, rational.

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

You’ve got to love liberal logic.

If conservatives say that if schools are concerned about security they should arm teachers or hire armed guards or make arrangements with local law enforcement then liberals have a fit.

Obama will suggest the federal government should fund guns in schools (with strings attched of course) and the idea is now brilliant.

gwelf on January 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I think you should love more making an argument against an invented ‘liberal’ points.
Where have I ever said armed security was never a good idea?
Where has anyone said ‘never have armed security’?
I suppose all those same folks that have said they wanna take all the guns away.
Again, Obama’s proposal won’t be LaPierre’s…by a long shot.
And it wasn’t just ‘liberals’ dismissing La Pierre.

Obama is a one trick pony.

A nation of idiots approve.