+1 veekie.
Also, how about a rival NRA?Continuing on the armed guards thing:
Let's assume this isn't a balls out crazy suggestion for a minute. Let's say that if we did it, it would work. Obviously it won't (there was an armed guard at Columbine when it happened...), but this is fantasy, right, we can pretend. Now, pure cost. 1: who pays for the hardware? Guns aren't cheap. So you need to either hire people who have guns (what?) or supply them with service firearms. And they need certification training, upkeep, regular pay, ammo, etc., etc. all placed on our notoriously over-funded schools, right? 2: what kind of gun are they going to have? Most law enforcement officers have pistols. Weak (but reliable) ones even. Are you seriously going to arm your staff with assault rifles? If not, how would that help in a situation like what happened in Connecticut or at Columbine? The officers would have been tremendously outgunned. Assault rifles? Kids are going to have to walk past guards wielding assault rifles every day? Really? Or are you going to build security bunkers with the big arms, and have them carry around pistols? How about shotguns? Those are used in crowd control, almost exclusively in law enforcement, so no. But, one of the first things the VP of the NRA said was "if the principal had an assault rifle, it wouldn't have happened." so we know they want assault rifles. How laughable of an idea is this? 3: How many guards are at the schools? And at which schools? All of them? Even the schools of 50 kids k-12? That tags even MORE onto the cost of this program. So...where are they stationed, at the entrance? And can people freely bring guns onto school property? If so to both of them, good luck armed guards protecting the kids currently being shot at 300 feet away. And if not allowed to bring guns onto school property, why can't they just hide their guns? Do we now have to search everyone who enters a school? So even more invasion of privacy? There's so many flaws in this plan I cannot.....I just....
It's balls out crazy.@Libertad:
yeah....yeah....
do note that they would never say "it's so we can form a resistance if you guys become tyrannical". Some of the more open ones will say "we need assault weapons because the people need to be able to defend their country", notice the phrasing difference, but most of them will say "I need my guns for hunting and sport". Because that one is popularly accepted. And who needs a military grade weapon for hunting??? I mean come on people! Military grade weapons are worse for hunting than sport guns!
I should note: I am perfectly okay with guns. Guns are sweet. Just...you don't need to be able to do the things that the NRA wants. If you can pass a background check, fine, here's your gun, go have fun. Be safe and go have fun. In a safe place. not in a public area. You want a gun for defense? And you somehow passed a background check mister paranoid (violence has been steadily decreasing, and it started relatively low)? Great, you don't need something bigger than a pistol on you ever. If you would actually need something bigger, you would not have passed the background check. Guaranteed. But guns are sweet. They use
explosions to move things. How is that not awesome? You just don't need one designed for combat. And you shouldn't have one if you're a criminal or are mentally unstable.