Saturday, December 22, 2012

Poll:Would you choose a secure school or a "gun free" school for your children?

As a parent of two young sons, I'd rather send my children where there is armed security along with strict rules for allowing entry to the premises. If the president's children, celebrity children and other wealthy children are able to send their kids to secure schools our children deserve equal protection. Our children aren't worth less or less important, they are our future and should be equally protected.
CBS:Parents of children who survived the deadly massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School speak to CBS News about NRA head's call for armed security guards in every U.S. school.
NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre rejected calls for more gun restrictions, and instead stated that "gun-free" zones made schools less safe by inviting criminals with guns into unprotected areas.LaPierre insisted, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."He called for the presence of armed guards in every school across the U.S. "We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protect program proven to work, and by that I mean armed security," LaPierre said.LaPierre went on to add, "When it comes to our most beloved innocent and vulnerable members of the American family -- our children -- we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless."

Lapierre's comments also drew quick reaction from politicians, many of them sharply criticizing the gun lobby's response.
But the reaction to the NRA's public stance was more tempered in Newtown, Conn., as parents grapple with finding a resolution that will protect their children at school.
"There are some people I am sure who will say, 'Let's put more policemen in our schools, or bullet-proof doors or windows in our schools," Andrei Nikitchyuk, the father of a third grader who survived the Sandy Hook school shooting, told CBS News' Elaine Quijano. "What I could tell them would be, 'Do you really [want] to have a shootout in our schools like the OK-Corral, in our schools?'"
But another Sandy Hook parent says the NRA's rallying cry for such school security measures is a step in the right direction.
"We are a nation of strong opinions and strong beliefs," said Desiree Vaiuso, whose daughter survived the shooting. "And some of us are changing our minds."

Breitbart reports, the Democrats and mainstream media...
has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking:

Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.
 The media is not only so driven to ensure Sandy Hook is used to win this round on gun control that they've become morally blinded to what really needs to be done to immediately secure our schools; they've lost their grip historically and politically.

Unfortunately, under Obama, funding for school security was cut. Obama Let 1 Billion Dollars in School Security Funds Lapse Before Sandy Hook Mass Shooting. Instead he chose to send billions overseas to fund terrorist countries and supply jihadists, enemies of the US, with weapons to remove Gaddaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria.

Since the Newtown shooting, membership in the NRA has gone up as well a sells of guns and ammunition for self protection indicating many Americans are concerned about Obamas emotional reaction to regulate weapons. People want the right to defend themselves and their families. Gun control laws have failed everywhere they've been tried, leading to high crimes in Chicago and DC, as well as Mexico and have led to genocide in other countries throughout history. In addition, like Chicago, Connecticut already has strict gun laws, but Adam Lanza stole his mother's weapons when he was denied the right to buy his own because he refused a background check. Therefore proving criminals and the mentally unstable will find other ways to obtain guns legal or not. They don't care about the law when the are already willing to steal, kill and break into private property or school property to commit a heinous crime.

Laws do not stop criminals and crime, only a "good guy with a gun". We don't expect the police to arrive unarmed when we call them to stop a criminal/ why should we be expected to be unarmed and have to wait for protection?? When seconds count we can't be expected to wait for police to arrive. Most police arrive after a crime has been committed, especially with many budget cuts in cities and states and shortages of first responders in rural areas. Therefore we must have the right to defend and protect ourselves and families with the same force our police would use.

Additionally, the second amendment was designed to protect us not only from criminals but a tyrannical government: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We have the right to bear arms equivalent to police because our founders also believed in the people creating their own militia to fight against tyranny. God forbid we ever need to face such tyranny, but the founders knew what tyranny was like and designed a Constitution that would protect the people from the government.

In the end,I believe more parents would rather their child have the best protection and security available and one way to do this is to provide trained armed security who can be volunteer or paid parents or NRA members,retired law enforcement or ex military. One way to fund training and security is to use teacher's union dues. The NRA has over 11,000 certified police instructors who are available to provide training.  It's time to consider common sense security in our schools. As the NRA leader said,  we protect presidents, money and buildings with armed security why not our most precious, irreplaceable and one of a kind children?

I think as parents, we should have the right to decide whether our schools are protected by armed security or not and states need to have the right to make these decisions along with school boards, PTA's and the parents themselves. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let parents have a voice and a choice in these decisions. Those parents who don't want armed protection for their children can send their kids to such schools and those who would feel better about having their child in a school with armed protection should have the choice to send their children to those schools. 

When it comes to school safety and security parents should have more of a voice and a choice in these decisions, not the federal government. I bet more parents would choose the armed/secure schools over the unarmed schools. Which would you choose and why??

Why should parents send their kids to unprotected schools??Would you choose a secure school or a "gun free" school? Share in the comments why or why not.


Remarks from the NRA press conference on Sandy Hook school shooting, delivered on Dec. 21, 2012


Since 1950 Most Mass Shootings Occured in Gun Free Zones--Making People

FBI data:the average American is more likely to be killed by “hands, fists” or “feet” than "assault"

Connecticut Mental Health Bill Defeated Months Before Deadly School Shooting-ACLU said 'infringed

on patients rights'...

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

blog comments powered by Disqus  


Newer Post Older Post Home