The NRA Response

But schools are not an extension of the Federal Government

I have now said this repeatedly that Schools are Government buildings and I did say STATE Government buildings.

Wayne LaPierre suggested armed defense against future shootings in all public schools and as soon as you say (ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS) you are suddenly talking about a NATIONAL LAW on who is and isn't an appropriate armed personnel in the NATIONS public schools which supersedes State Government law.

No Federal Government law = No Armed personnel in EVERY public school in America.
 
I have now said this repeatedly that Schools are Government buildings and I did say STATE Government buildings.

And not all State Government buildings prohibit carry. As has been mentioned several times, some states allow carry in public schools (though usually only for teachers). In Texas, not only is it legal to carry in the State Capitol building, but the possession of a concealed carry permit waives the requirement to pass through the metal detectors. My point in this is that, unless you're talking only about Federal government buildings where carry is prohibited nationwide, the laws regarding carry and government building vary more than I think you realize.

Wayne LaPierre suggested armed defense against future shootings in all public schools and as soon as you say (ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS) you are suddenly talking about a NATIONAL LAW on who is and isn't an appropriate armed personnel in the NATIONS public schools which supersedes State Government law.

Where in his comments did he mention that this should be a Federal law? LaPierre also said that this should be done as quickly as possible so that schools could be secure by the time students return from Christmas break which, for the vast majority of schools, would be early January. Given LaPierre's tenure with the NRA and the fact that the NRA has been involved in politics at all levels, including federal, state, and local, I have a difficult time believing that LaPierre would not realize that the Federal Government simply does not work nearly that fast, particularly this time of year. Because of this, it seems to me that LaPierre's comments were directed more at the state and local level.

All that being said, you've still not answered my question. What about government buildings, regardless of whether they're federal, state, or local government buildings, that makes them more dangerous places to carry a gun than non-government buildings?
 
@Webleymkv

I'm finding this conversation incredibly frustrating. I'm sorry, I just am.

I am not the Federal or State Government and I didn't make the rules. I'm just relaying to you what those rules are. If you want to know what makes it illegal to bring weapons, with or without a permit, into those buildings I suggest you look it up. I don't know the answer to that question, all I know is that the rules say "NO."

I KNOW that Wayne LaPierre didn't call for a Federal law. My point is that in order to accomplish Waynes Talking Point a FEDERAL Law MUST be passed or individual districts can say no to "Armed Folks" protecting the kiddies. Thus, no Federal law = no protection nationwide for every school in the United States.

Wayne is a BS artist and gives simplistic sound bytes that accomplish nothing. If we are serious about having every school in the United States protected by armed security of any type (barring Police) a FEDERAL LAW has to be passed or individual counties, States and Commonwealths can simply say "NO" to guns in the school thus leaving the kiddies unprotected in a good portion of the public schools in the United States.

I don't know why I'm having such difficulties expressing the simple facts of this.

If we want Waynes World to be a reality the ONLY way to do it is through Federal Law. Such a Federal Law does not exist so if we decided that we want Waynes vision we have to draft the law, get it in front of Congress, Get it passed by Congress. From there the law goes to the Senate. The Senate has to either pass the new bill, alter it and send it back for a second vote (With Changes) to the Congress, or ignore it all together.

If the law passes the Senate it gets sent to the President who can either sign it into law or veto it. At this point it's usually the end of a bill if it doesn't get signed into law by the President.

Lets say that the Congress and the Senate REALLY love this bill. They can overrule the Presidential veto by a three quarter vote in favor of the vetoed bill, at which point the President is out of the equation and the bill becomes a law. The liklyhood of that happening is about as likely as the History channel finally finding definite proof that Bigfoot exists.

Pardon any perceived snarkyness, I've had a long day and this is basic civics class type of stuff.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, the above is the ultra simple version of what needs to happen to make Waynes vision a reality. There still need to be Federal guidelines set as to what constitutes (under the law) "Armed School Security" and who may and may not constitute this form of security. Thus my statement to Glenn about what he envisions constitutes someone who is acceptable and unacceptable as "Armed School Security."
 
Last edited:
I'm finding this conversation incredibly frustrating. I'm sorry, I just am.

I am not the Federal or State Government and I didn't make the rules. I'm just relaying to you what those rules are. If you want to know what makes it illegal to bring weapons, with or without a permit, into those buildings I suggest you look it up. I don't know the answer to that question, all I know is that the rules say "NO."

I'm aware of all that. However, you've also argued against the idea of allowing teachers to carry and that is what I take issue with.

In post #282, you said this:

We can't ask teachers to do what is being suggested. Lets say a teacher, who carries a weapon regularly, is caught by surprise in her classroom and freezes up when some lunatic starts killing children. Do we now vilify the teacher for not using her/his firearm to save the kids? Do we sentence the teacher to jail time for not performing her/his duty? What about the guilt that such a teacher might carry around until he/she can't take it anymore and eats a bullet.

Teachers with firearms isn't the answer. Reason being that we're not talking about trained security who are taught how to respond to an emergency of such magnitude. We're talking about teachers, aka amateurs or enthusiasts who practice target shooting maybe but are not trained by any governing body about proper firearm use and handling in a school environment.

Accidents happen and the possibility of one of the children getting a hold of the weapon from an amateur/enthusiast is a very real problem. Lets say that does happen, without clearly spelled out rules and training do we just say "Well, accidents will happen." Or do we go and blame the teacher and run this amateur/enthusiast on the fast track to a prison cell. Or do we just fire him/her and let the families of the victims sue the pants off of this teacher/amateur/enthusiast?

Then in post #285, you said this:

Guys, I am not against having armed personnel in schools. I'm against just "anyone" who buys a gun to be able to carry it in a school and say that they are protecting children.

Yes, it is a huge difference between the bus stop and school grounds. The difference is that school grounds are government property (unless they are private schools) and that means that LOTS of things must be taken into consideration.

In post # 291, you said this:

Can you honestly tell me that you'd be fine with a teacher who never carried a gun in his/her life, heading out on their own, getting a concealed carry permit and bringing their gun to school?

So, it seems pretty clear to me that you're not only pointing out that many places prohibit carry in government buildings, including schools, but you apparently agree with such prohibitions. What I've been trying to get out of you is why you agree with these prohibitions. Why is it OK for a teacher who has a CCL to carry their gun in Toys 'R Us, but not in a school? What is the difference between those two situations other than the ownership of the building?

Wayne is a BS artist and gives simplistic sound bytes that accomplish nothing. If we are serious about having every school in the United States protected by armed security of any type (barring Police) a FEDERAL LAW has to be passed or individual counties, States and Commonwealths can simply say "NO" to guns in the school thus leaving the kiddies unprotected in a good portion of the public schools in the United States.

I don't know why I'm having such difficulties expressing the simple facts of this.

If we want Waynes World to be a reality the ONLY way to do it is through Federal Law. Such a Federal Law does not exist so if we decided that we want Waynes vision we have to draft the law, get it in front of Congress, Get it passed by Congress. From there the law goes to the Senate. The Senate has to either pass the new bill, alter it and send it back for a second vote (With Changes) to the Congress, or ignore it all together.

If the law passes the Senate it gets sent to the President who can either sign it into law or veto it. At this point it's usually the end of a bill if it doesn't get signed into law by the President.

Lets say that the Congress and the Senate REALLY love this bill. They can overrule the Presidential veto by a three quarter vote in favor of the vetoed bill, at which point the President is out of the equation and the bill becomes a law. The liklyhood of that happening is about as likely as the History channel finally finding definite proof that Bigfoot exists.

Pardon any perceived snarkyness, I've had a long day and this is basic civics class type of stuff.

I understand perfectly well how the Federal Government functions. However, it is not true that what LaPierre proposed would require an act of the Feds. State and local governments are perfectly capable of doing this themselves. Things like traffic laws are fairly uniform across the country, but they are state rather than federal laws, so it's been done before. In a more directly related vein, it was not all that long ago that states which allowed CC in any form were in the minority, but now only IL bans it outright. That was done entirely at the state level with no involvement whatsoever of the federal government. Insofar as the feds are concerned, the states can pass any law they like so long as it does not attempt to override federal authority or violate a part of the Constitution that has been incorporated via the 14th Amendment, neither of which would be the case with armed school security or CC for teachers.

Every state legislature could take up the issue tomorrow and get this done if they really wanted to and it would require zero action by the feds. Now, I concede that the chances of all the states doing this is pretty unlikely because the more anti-gun states simply don't want to, but the chances of the feds doing it, particularly in a timely manner, are pretty slim as well. LaPierre proposed something that could reasonably be expected to help prevent another Newtown, it is hardly his fault if the politicians, be they state or federal, won't try it.

This is, however, beside my original point. I ask again, why do you think that schools are more dangerous places for carry and other crowded places?
 
Attached a link to a video with NRA President David Keene on CNN where he clarifies a little bit the NRA’s position on armed guards. He states that the NRA feels armed guards can be just one of many deterrents that schools may implement, but makes the point that it should be up to each school to decide.

This reinforces my view that LaPierre's statements were not meant to be an appeal to the Feds to override the will of the states or school districts, but rather an appeal to states and school districts to re-evaluate their opposition to armed security in schools.
 
Yes, I am against having just any teacher who took a 2 day course to get a Concealed Firearms Permit being allowed to bring that gun into a school.

I am not against the idea of armed teachers but I want to know that they have some minimal basic training to prepare them for the task for which they are wanting to bring that Gun into school.

Sorry if my information on what Wayne Lapierre said was my basis for my argument but at the time it was all that I had to go on for an armed school force plan.

Secondly, leaving it up to the states does not protect EVERY school in the United States which was the sentiment of Mr. LaPierre.

I'm sorry but the following is unacceptable to me:
1. Purchase gun on Monday.
2. Take basic course for Concealed Firearms Permit on Tuesday & Wednsday.
3. Start carrying gun to school starting on Thursday.

Yes, I know that those three are simplifications for the purpose of making my point.

On top of what I stated above I don't not think we can ASK teachers to do this. They have to WANT to do this a volunteer to be an armed security type of personnel.

Also, this does not solve the problem nationwide. Only in select districts and areas. So in reality it's a very timid response to a very dramatic crime that has been committed already.
 
Last edited:
I KNOW that Wayne LaPierre didn't call for a Federal law. My point is that in order to accomplish Waynes Talking Point a FEDERAL Law MUST be passed or individual districts can say no to "Armed Folks" protecting the kiddies. Thus, no Federal law = no protection nationwide for every school in the United States.

Well, that's like saying we need a federal law or concealed carry won't work. There are 30 or 40 states with shall issue laws now.

Yes, I am against having just any teacher who took a 2 day course to get a Concealed Firearms Permit being allowed to bring that gun into a school.

I still don't understand why this is such a sticking point for you. People do this everywhere else. There are a million people licensed in my state, and it's not a 2 day course, just a one shot requirement. The blood running in the street never happened. So why not a school? Unless, of course, you're against concealed carry in general.
 
Yes, I am against having just any teacher who took a 2 day course to get a Concealed Firearms Permit being allowed to bring that gun into a school.

I am not against the idea of armed teachers but I want to know that they have some minimal basic training to prepare them for the task for which they are wanting to bring that Gun into school.

I'm sorry but the following is unacceptable to me:
1. Purchase gun on Monday.
2. Take basic course for Concealed Firearms Permit on Tuesday & Wednsday.
3. Start carrying gun to school starting on Thursday.

You're still not answering my question, why is the process you describe inadequate for a school, but OK for other places? What difference does it make whether the person with, in your opinion, only minimal training carries his/her gun in a school or a shopping mall?

On top of what I stated above I don't not think we can ASK teachers to do this. They have to WANT to do this a volunteer to be an armed security type of personnel.

And who's said that we should ask teachers to do this? The vast majority of comments I've seen on the matter are advocating that teachers who have a CCL should be allowed to carry if they choose to do so.

Also, this does not solve the problem nationwide. Only in select districts and areas. So in reality it's a very timid response to a very dramatic crime that has been committed already.

Who's said that this is the only solution to the problem? As has been pointed out, armed professional security isn't a perfect solution either and augmenting it by allowing teachers with CCL's to carry if they so choose could help to fill in some of the gaps. No, it's not a panacea, but it is one piece of the puzzle.
 
Last edited:
Don't take this the wrong way but I am so glad you aren't "stupid." When I was explaining how a law is made I was tearing my hair out already.

The reason that having a brand new gun owner with a concealed permit in school is such a sticking point for me is because it is highly unlikely that they have had any training in what is the proper and improper way to handle a weapon in a classroom environment.

This is not something that can be taken lightly and we have to make sure that the people who will be carrying guns in school know the basic safety rules that every gun owner who is serious about firearms basically drills into their own head.

I want to know that whoever is going to have a firearm around children has had the forethought to learn these basic skills and hasn't just picked up a permit and a gun and think they are ready to go to school.

Edit: I'm finding it kind of odd that anyone would argue with me about making sure that the person who brings a weapon into school knows how to be responsible with it.

Edit 2: In other words I don't want a future nominee for the Darwin Award to be carrying a loaded gun in a school. That's essentially the only thing that I'm concerned about.
 
You still have not made any case whatsoever as to why a school should be considered different from any other venue - other than that it is "government."

So carrying at a cub scout encampment is ok, but carrying in those same kids' third grade classroom is bad, why?
 
The reason that having a brand new gun owner with a concealed permit in school is such a sticking point for me is because it is highly unlikely that they have had any training in what is the proper and improper way to handle a weapon in a classroom environment.

This is not something that can be taken lightly and we have to make sure that the people who will be carrying guns in school know the basic safety rules that every gun owner who is serious about firearms basically drills into their own head.

I want to know that whoever is going to have a firearm around children has had the forethought to learn these basic skills and hasn't just picked up a permit and a gun and think they are ready to go to school.

OK, let's break this down. What difficulties would dealing with an armed aggressor present to an armed teacher in a classroom? Off the top of my head:

Chaotic environment full of panicked people
Lots of innocent bystanders to be unintentionally shot
Possibility of mistaken identity by police/security
Potential difficulty maintaining control of the weapon

Now, substitute the school for a crowded Toys 'R Us and what is different? The only difference that I can see is the sign on the building as all four of the possible problems that I described would apply just as much in any crowded place as they would in a school.

Actually, an argument could be made that dealing with an active shooter inside a school may be easier than doing so in a crowded retail store. This is because because a classroom has more limited points of entry and exit for the shooter and because children can be more easily moved to a safer location by a teacher they know and trust than a bunch of panicked strangers could.

So, I still fail to see why someone who is qualified to carry a gun in any crowded public place is not also qualified to do so in a school. Now, if your argument is that the qualifications for a CCL in general should be more stringent then your position makes a bit more sense, but that's not what you've said. Even if that is the point you're trying to make, I would point out that many states have equally if not more lax qualifications for a CCL than those you've described (as I mentioned before, Indiana has no training requirements at all nor do states with Constitutional Carry) and it seems to work out fine for them.
 
@MLeake

I'm not saying it's necessarily "bad." I'm saying that currently it isn't legal. Since I didn't make the laws it's not up to me to argue about why it is and isn't legal currently.

As far as the difference between the Scout and a School is that The Scouts is something voluntary and it's a call that parents must individually make for their child.

School on the other hand is something that children MUST attend and there is no choice in the matter.

That is a fundamental difference between extracurricular groups and activities like Scouts and a Public School.
 
I don't agree, but I can accept your rationale that the requirement for your kids to be there can change perspective.
 
@MLeake
I appreciate that.

You and I are not that far apart on any of the issues really. What we're talking about is really the fine details as we are in agreement on the big picture.
 
As far as the difference between the Scout and a School is that The Scouts is something voluntary and it's a call that parents must individually make for their child.

School on the other hand is something that children MUST attend and there is no choice in the matter.

That is a fundamental difference between extracurricular groups and activities like Scouts and a Public School.

There is a flip side to that argument. I, for one, feel that the presence of an armed, law-abiding, responsible adult enhances rather than diminishes the safety of a child. If I feel that my child is not adequately protected at an extracurricular activity, I can choose not to allow my child to participate. School, however, is mandatory in all states and, unless I have the time and resources to send my child to a private school or to home school, I have no choice in whether or not to send my child to public school regardless of how well protected I feel my child is in the classroom.
 
@Webleymkv

I am not against teacher having a concealed weapon in school and I would feel safer having my kids in a place where I know that they are very protected.

The ONLY thing I want is to make sure that the School has made sure that the teacher is a responsible person who knows the safety basics of carrying a gun. That is all I am concerned with.

We've all been through public schools and we've all had teachers who were "questionable" in regards to their maturity. I've had teachers where it was questionable if they were even sane.

I've had teachers who were irresponsible with everything they did but since they had been at the school for so long it wasn't an option to fire them.

I've also had great teachers who I thought the world of.

That is the basic issue I have. I don't want my kids sitting in a classroom with a teacher who has questionable sanity as well as a gun.

I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to want to know that the teacher with a gun isn't going to be irresponsible with it.

Is it so wrong to be concerned about that, and want to know that a teacher in question is not a safety concern themselves?
 
The use of the Newtown tragedy to call for any major policy shift ignores the realities of the world. Tragedies do and always have happened. Before Newtown, the three most deadly school shootings were in the Europe.

It was a tragedy and one we should learn from. Spending mountains of taxpayer dollars to put police in schools will do little to nothing but cost money and be a TSA-like form of security theater.

There are real issues to be addressed and LaPierre missed a chance to really talk about them.

It's time for the NRA to get a new spokesman who doesn't have a habit of sounding like a drunk uncle who, while really smart, can no longer be considered worth listening to.
 
@JBeechel

It is no secret that I am certainly not a fan of Wayne LaPierre as of late and I question his leadership not to mention is problem solving skills. He's certainly not doing a bang up job of representing us to the rest of the country.
 
No1der said:
I'm sorry but the following is unacceptable to me:
1. Purchase gun on Monday.
2. Take basic course for Concealed Firearms Permit on Tuesday & Wednsday.
3. Start carrying gun to school starting on Thursday.
You're right.

It's much better to do nothing. Let the children fight off the attacker by throwing their cell phones at him.

No1der said:
Those are rules that have been set by your STATE GOVERNMENT. We are discussing a nation wide armed people in Government Buildings situation.
That is correct. And now we are discussing changing those state laws. There is a difference between changing the laws of fifty sovereign states to create a nationwide "situation" (to use your term) versus enacting a Federal law that is binding on fifty states. What would/could a Federal law do? The current Federal gun-free school zone law doesn't apply to people who hold carry permits from their home state, so in reality (and in theory) the only two states where it's not at least allowable in theory to carry in school as far as the Feds are concerned are Vermont and Illinois. Every other state provides (at least on paper) for carry permits.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top