NRA Speaks, Announces New Effort to Protect Schools


by Brandon Darby
21 Dec 2012, 3:25 PM

In a much anticipated press conference, The National Rifle Association (NRA) announced today the creation of a new program to defend American schoolchildren from the plague of madmen and mass murderers that has manifested in many nations in recent years, in both those with an armed populace and those in which strict gun control measures are enforced.

The NRA press conference was in response to the recent mass murder of 26 people, most of them young children, in Newtown, Connecticut. The shooting occurred at the Sandy Hook elementary school and was committed by a madman who had illegally stolen the guns he used from a relative.

Almost immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting, left-of-center political groups began politicizing the tragedy in efforts to enact their longstanding policy preferences. The NRA chose to stay silent and release only a brief statement. Mainstream media outlets and Democratic Party political leaders heavily criticized the NRA for staying silent, though many of the same groups and individuals had criticized the NRA for speaking out after the Columbine tragedy, where two young men killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.

Political leaders from the Democratic Party and mainstream news outlets began to immediately call for stricter gun control laws, yet the NRA has called instead for armed security for our nation’s children. Many 2nd Amendment advocates have been quick to point out that Columbine happened during a past era of stricter gun-control measures, and the tragedy at Sandy Hook happened in a controversial gun-free zone which, they say, basically leaves everyone in the zone as sitting ducks for such madmen.
The NRA used today’s press conference to directly challenge the left-of-center and anti-2nd Amendment efforts being proposed by most Democratic Party leaders and a handful of Republican Party leaders.

The head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, spoke at today’s conference and delivered his organization’s statements. He went further to announce the NRA would lead a national effort to lobby and train professionals to protect America’s schoolchildren.

In a surprise move, LaPierre invited former Congressman Asa Hutchinson to the podium and announced Hutchinson would lead the new NRA effort. The National School Shield Safety Program will be headed by former Congressman Hutchinson, who formerly headed the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Such an effort was called for by the NRA after the Columbine tragedy, but was not formalized and fell on deaf ears. Now formalized, the program is intended to reach out to lawmakers and ensure professionals are trained and equipped to have each and every US school protected in the future by armed personnel who can stop a mass murderer before numbers of children are killed.

LaPierre stated:

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. With all the foreign aid, the United States spends, with all the money in the US budget, can't we afford to put a police officer in our schools?”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/21/NRA-Speaks-Announces-New-Effort-to-Protect-Schools

its inteteresting

I always wonder who these 'nra' people are and why they should seem any more trustworthy than the 'government'

how would we feel about the government putting soldiers at every school? what was that about power,,,or does it only prose a threat when in the hands of some,,,,,?


im neither supporting nor condemning their ideas, I just find it interesting how an idea can be enthusiastically supported or fearfully condemned,, based upon who suggests it,,,

This topic is up for discussion, msharmony.
No enthusiasm on my part.
Put your gun away... don't be so trigger-happy!

no trigger

whatcha see is whatcha get

just interesting,,,

I, too, find this interesting.

"Almost immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting, left-of-center political groups began politicizing the tragedy in efforts to enact their longstanding policy preferences. The NRA chose to stay silent and release only a brief statement. Mainstream media outlets and Democratic Party political leaders heavily criticized the NRA for staying silent, though many of the same groups and individuals had criticized the NRA for speaking out after the Columbine tragedy, where two young men killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.

Political leaders from the Democratic Party and mainstream news outlets began to immediately call for stricter gun control laws, yet the NRA has called instead for armed security for our nation’s children. Many 2nd Amendment advocates have been quick to point out that Columbine happened during a past era of stricter gun-control measures, and the tragedy at Sandy Hook happened in a controversial gun-free zone which, they say, basically leaves everyone in the zone as sitting ducks for such madmen.
"

exactly,, its a damned if you do and damned if you dont really

the president faces it when he addresses or doesnt address an issue

and here, the NRA faced it too


I personally feel gun ownership should come with mental/criminal checks and training

but strict constitutionalists would have guns (irresponsibly) in any citizens hands

I find both extremes interesting and scary

1. Everyone who is american has a right to a gun and should have one with no conditions,,,,

2. Noone in america should have guns but those in authority positions

,,,I am still hoping for the day when a logical, rational, middle ground is found between the two sets of (what I consider to be) extremists

I hope the same thing.

Yes, both extremes are scary.

As do I.



That is not irresponsible, because they would not be in "any" citizen's hands.



Everyone lawfully has a right to a gun no matter where they are. What makes the USA special is that the US constitution wisely enshrines that right in law for Americans. However NOBODY said there should be no conditions attached to gun ownership, and in fact the right to bear arms comes from the DUTY to form a civilian militia that negates the need for a standing army. This is what the second amendment is all about. It keeps the people in charge of the government instaed of the government in charge of the people, which is the topsy-turvy situation you now face.



Correct, and the ones in authority should be all of the rational and honest citizens of the nation.



Those two sets, once explicitly defined and reconciled with reason show that neither view is extreme, so there is no logical reason to consider the views extreme anymore…relax.

both views , that EVERYONE should be armed
and that only authority should be armed

are EXTREME

The armed policeman at Columbine didn't help, those boys with their assault rifles shot up everyone they wanted before they killed themselves.

A civilian police state is no better than a government one.

We are all still trapped by the gun violence.

"One of the ordinary modes,
by which tyrants accomplish their purposes
without resistance, is, by disarming the people,
and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

That is entirely contingent on who the authority is and exactly what is meant by "everyone". With the appropriate constraints, the views are no longer extreme, but wise and practical.

And if they didn't have guns, they probably would have used bombs and killed hundreds.

Those views are not rational and have been disproved. That you continue to spout them only proves the case that you are not a rational thinker.