PDA

View Full Version : Gun organizations need to go on offense


JimWest
12-16-2012, 12:34 PM
In the wake of this latest tragedy that has become a political football, I believe an aggressive strategy might be necessary to counter probably the most effective anti-gun campaign we are about to see. What would it be? There should be a coalition between all groups such as CRPA, NRA, ILA, CalGuns, SAF to contact legislators, governors and media. The tactics of the propagandists in control of this government as recently are well thought out, well funded and extremely effective. The fundamentals of these tactics can be used similiarly to counter them. Here is what I would present as method to employ right now:
All groups and individuals contact politicians and media. Voice concerns that the issue will incite irrational legislation and over-reaction. It will lead to more gun purchases and contradictory laws. Call for an immediate period of silence out of respect for the families and quell mob reaction against gun owners. Strategy #2: The politicians should be made aware that they are using this for political gain and to attack the Constitution. Strategy #3: Immediate and on going program to educate the public short term and long term- Guns do not commit crimes it is the nature of what our society has become (much written on this and some strategies to address it are well known); Turn the argument-are you going to regulate Hollywood's glorification of violence also?; I believe organized gun groups should be constantly before the public demonstrating responsibility-Advertisements that reflect the role Hollywood, video games, drugs, cultural violence do to create gun violence not the honest/citizen gun owner. I would like to see ads that encourage people not to own a gun (it presents an image of self-responsibility).
OK, that's enough. I am asking you here not to disagree with me or crap on my thread. These are just my ideas and I would like to hear your NEW/OTHER ideas directed at forestalling the greatest onslaught of our 2nd rights. My point here is that I see a very urgent need to get a very effective program going. And do you think it will happen? Who will take the lead?

selfshrevident
12-16-2012, 1:13 PM
Good points. Here's my 2 cents.

The NRA really does need to go on the offensive here. They need to make this into a strong case against GUN FREE ZONES. This is what the discussion should be about!!! All of these shootings happened in GUN FREE ZONES. They have a strong case to make here.

They need to point out all the laws he already broke, or in that case that all the shooters have broken in the commission of these crimes, and ask "So why would throwing MORE laws at people who break them have any sort of effect!?" The anti's always love to say "More guns are not the answer!" Well I counter argue by asking how more laws would be the answer when previous laws had no effect whatsoever.

We solve the problem by EXPANDING and RESTORING the RIGHT! The right to carry a gun for self defense. Expand the right. Do not limit it.

selfshrevident
12-16-2012, 1:13 PM
Good points. Here's my 2 cents.

The NRA really does need to go on the offensive here. They need to make this into a strong case against GUN FREE ZONES. This is what the discussion should be about!!! All of these shootings happened in GUN FREE ZONES. They have a strong case to make here.

They need to point out all the laws he already broke, or in that case that all the shooters have broken in the commission of these crimes, and ask "So why would throwing MORE laws at people who break them have any sort of effect!?" The anti's always love to say "More guns are not the answer!" Well I counter argue by asking how more laws would be the answer when previous laws had no effect whatsoever.

We solve the problem by EXPANDING and RESTORING the RIGHT! The right to carry a gun for self defense. Expand the right. Do not limit it.

wjc
12-16-2012, 1:26 PM
Agreed.

As I've been watching the news and political commentary on this I've noticed a lack of inclusion by the firearms/liberty groups to step up.

It's even more insidious when the commentators appear to be middle of the road but still use tactics to garner an emotional response to this.

dieselpower
12-16-2012, 1:28 PM
gun free zone = fish in a barrel

wjc
12-16-2012, 1:32 PM
gun free zone = fish in a barrel

yup.

Delusional thinking at best.

freonr22
12-16-2012, 1:34 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/time-for-serious-debate-about-guns-and-school-safety?CID=examiner_alerts_article


Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, on Friday issued this statement: "How many more tragedies does it take before we do something,” he demanded. “How many more children have to die before this country realizes that No-Gun Zones create perfect locations for violence? You can not stop criminals and mad men with laws, you can only stop violence with the fear of armed victims."


Seems like they are on it..

wjc
12-16-2012, 1:35 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/time-for-serious-debate-about-guns-and-school-safety?CID=examiner_alerts_article


Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, on Friday issued this statement: "How many more tragedies does it take before we do something,” he demanded. “How many more children have to die before this country realizes that No-Gun Zones create perfect locations for violence? You can not stop criminals and mad men with laws, you can only stop violence with the fear of armed victims."


Seems like they are on it..

Thanks for posting the link!

Vlad 11
12-16-2012, 1:40 PM
Agreed.

As I've been watching the news and political commentary on this I've noticed a lack of inclusion by the firearms/liberty groups to step up.

It's even more insidious when the commentators appear to be middle of the road but still use tactics to garner an emotional response to this.

I dont think now is a good time

The media is disgustingly exploiting this tragedy to further a preordained agenda. Trying to respond to highly charged emotion-based and already biased entitys is counterproductive at this point.

The news cycle will dissipate sooner than later. The challenges will be better addressed with rational thought and truth at that time.

wjc
12-16-2012, 1:45 PM
I dont think now is a good time

The media is disgustingly exploiting this tragedy to further a preordained agenda. Trying to respond to highly charged emotion-based and already biased entitys is counterproductive at this point.

The news cycle will dissipate sooner than later. The challenges will be better addressed with rational thought and truth at that time.

I can see your point. It would be insensitive to start hammering at the opposing players.

What I was getting at would be inclusion in the discussions. I feel we are being under represented here.

bwiese
12-16-2012, 1:51 PM
The NRA (and even NSSF) are being respectfully quiet now, to not dance on the grave like the Bradys are.

I'm sure plans are being made.

CalTeacher
12-16-2012, 1:54 PM
I think its time gun owners take their case public in a way antis can understand. It's time gun owners do so with the same arguments many liberals and conservatives rightly had against the Patriot Act.

If gun owners could simply get antis to understand how passing further federal gun control measures is a bad idea just like granting the federal government further unjust powers under the Patriot Act after 9/11, then I think we could win this battle of ideas. We need to get our legislative and executive branches to understand that the 2A is every bit as important as the 1A, and that any violations of any of the basic rights of citizens under the auspices of "security" is simply unacceptable.

We need to learn from our past legislative mistakes like the Patriot Act to prevent further unjust violations of our civil rights. But we NEED to engage antis in a way they understand instaid of the "cold dead hands" jive they have come to despise.

CessnaDriver
12-16-2012, 2:04 PM
Spending spending everwhere except on security for Benghazi and oh yeah, our schools by the way............


Obama administration, Congress quietly let school security funds lapse
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure


Beneath the expressions of grief, sorrow and disbelief over the Connecticut school massacre lies an uneasy truth in Washington: over the last few years the Obama administration and Congress quietly let federal funding for several key school security programs lapse in the name of budget savings.

Government officials told the Washington Guardian on Friday night that two Justice Department programs that had provided more than $200 million to schools for training, security equipment and police resources over the last decade weren't renewed in 2011 and 2012, and that a separate program that provided $800 million to put police officers inside the schools was ended a few years earlier.

Meanwhile, the administration eliminated funding in 2011-12 for a separate Education Department program that gave money to schools to prepare for mass tragedies, the officials said.

A nationally recognized school security expert said those funds had been critical for years in helping schools continue to enhance protections against growing threats of violence. But they simply dried up with little notice as the Columbine and Virginia Tech school shooting tragedies faded from memory and many Americans and political leaders had their attentions diverted to elections, a weak economy and overseas dramas.

“I was baffled to see funds and programs cut in these areas,” said Kenneth Trump, the president of the National School Safety and Security Services firm that helps school districts and policymakers improve protections for teachers and students. “Our political and policy leaders need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk about being concerned about school safety.

“We have roller coaster public awareness, public policy, and public funding when it comes to school safety. The question isn't whether school safety is a priority today and tomorrow,” Trump added. “The question is whether it will be a priority years down the road when there isn't a crisis in the headlines.”

wjc
12-16-2012, 2:05 PM
The NRA (and even NSSF) are being respectfully quiet now, to not dance on the grave like the Bradys are.

I'm sure plans are being made.

I agree with that.

My concern is that we will be "late to the party" after the discussion has been pointed in a particular direction.

wjc
12-16-2012, 2:09 PM
I think its time gun owners take their case public in a way antis can understand. It's time gun owners do so with the same arguments many liberals and conservatives rightly had against the Patriot Act.

If gun owners could simply get antis to understand how passing further federal gun control measures is a bad idea just like granting the federal government further unjust powers under the Patriot Act after 9/11, then I think we could win this battle of ideas. We need to get our legislative and executive branches to understand that the 2A is every bit as important as the 1A, and that any violations of any of the basic rights of citizens under the auspices of "security" is simply unacceptable.

We need to learn from our past legislative mistakes like the Patriot Act to prevent further unjust violations of our civil rights. But we NEED to engage antis in a way they understand instaid of the "cold dead hands" jive they have come to despise.

I would respectfully argue that the 2nd Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. It ultimately protects our right to Freedom of Speech, etc.

Regrettably, the discussions with them usually goes back to a false sense of security versus liberty.

mkane
12-16-2012, 2:09 PM
Not expecting anything less. Put yourself in those parents shoes.

CalTeacher
12-16-2012, 2:13 PM
I would respectfully argue that the 2nd Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. It ultimately protects our right to Freedom of Speech, etc.

Regrettably, the discussions with them usually goes back to a false sense of security versus liberty.

Completely agree. I was just making a point about how it can be explaing to antis.

It's unfortunate that discussions must go back to the false sense of security versus liberty dilemna because many of these folks were rightfully against the Patriot Act for the exact same reason.

I don't mean to be repetative about the Patriot Act, but it is the most glaring example of their hypocrisy.

wjc
12-16-2012, 2:18 PM
Completely agree. I was just making a point about how it can be explaing to antis.

It's unfortunate that discussions must go back to the false sense of security versus liberty dilemna because many of these folks were rightfully against the Patriot Act for the exact same reason.

I don't mean to be repetative about the Patriot Act, but it is the most glaring example of their hypocrisy.

Agreed.

But how to get them to associate the two is the problem.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 2:35 PM
Just ask this one simple question:

Why didn't the teachers protect the children? Aren't they the childrens' caretakers?

Moonshine
12-16-2012, 2:41 PM
At least give the parents a chance to grieve for their lost family members. The NRA is being respectful, unlike the Brady Bunch who are shamelessly exploiting this terrible tragedy for their own political ends.

wjc
12-16-2012, 2:52 PM
At least give the parents a chance to grieve for their lost family members. The NRA is being respectful, unlike the Brady Bunch who are shamelessly exploiting this terrible tragedy for their own political ends.

...as are the news shows. Including the conservative ones.

My point was to have some representation on these shows to counter inaccuracies brought up by the commentators.

MontClaire
12-16-2012, 3:07 PM
The NRA (and even NSSF) are being respectfully quiet now, to not dance on the grave like the Bradys are.

I'm sure plans are being made.

I sure hope you're right because if history is any indicator, NRA simply mails out more junk soliciting more money to fight more legislature and that is where it always stops.:facepalm:

hornswaggled
12-16-2012, 3:10 PM
Now is not the time.

Let the antis be the ones to politicize this tragedy, let them yell all they want for now into an echo chamber. If we react right now, it makes us look like the monsters they want to paint us out to be.

The fight will be done later, in the courts, through our memberships and donations to the NRA/SAF/CGF. That is where we have the upper hand and where the fight will ultimately be decided.

Unless it's critical, stand down for now.

JimWest
12-16-2012, 3:14 PM
Many good points. This thread is about agressive counter tactics. Not the time to be "respectively" quiet. Rahm and Barry piss all over that idea even now. The office of President is being used to conflagrate as we speak. What should be demonstrated is the NRA standing up being the good guy stating-allow the families to have peace not community organize. And then state we welcome, at an appropriate time, a time of understanding and dialogue with responsible leaders. This is how you put the objective on the high ground and take control. Right now, they better get on it.
(Just to clarify why I put the discussion on this footing is because I instructed various entities on just such tactics in former life:oji:) I tell you now, the methodology and timing is critical. We are dealing with a level of sophistication that would make Marx look like Barney Fife.

wjc
12-16-2012, 3:24 PM
Many good points. This thread is about agressive counter tactics. Not the time to be "respectively" quiet. Rahm and Barry piss all over that idea even now. The office of President is being used to conflagrate as we speak. What should be demonstrated is the NRA standing up being the good guy stating-allow the families to have peace not community organize. And then state we welcome, at an appropriate time, a time of understanding and dialogue with responsible leaders. This is how you put the objective on the high ground and take control. Right now, they better get on it.
(Just to clarify why I put the discussion on this footing is because I instructed various entities on just such tactics in former life:oji:) I tell you now, the methodology and timing is critical. We are dealing with a level of sophistication that would make Marx look like Barney Fife.

Exactly the point I was trying to make in my fumbling manner.

SanPedroShooter
12-16-2012, 3:33 PM
I am putting huge faith in the NRA right now and spending money to back them up.

I hope to hell they come through on this. We are in a bad spot. The gun grabbers had this planned before this shooting based on the elections. This bloodshed with lubricate the process.

We need to hold them back until this cools off. The media pig and the enemies of our freedoms are going to try and keep this mob going.

Once again elections have consequences.

I want to know where all the democrat apologists are now? No big deal right? Obama isnt anti gun etc etc... Thank God we held the house.

Whats the answer? There were at least a dozen or two of them back in November...

CalTeacher
12-16-2012, 3:36 PM
Just ask this one simple question:

Why didn't the teachers protect the children? Aren't they the childrens' caretakers?

Man, I sure hope that statement is a bad attempt at sarcasm.

jj805
12-16-2012, 3:38 PM
Just ask this one simple question:

Why didn't the teachers protect the children? Aren't they the childrens' caretakers?

From my facebook news feed.

http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p532/jeremyaj2001/Capture-2_zpsa15e980d.png

Reloaderdave
12-16-2012, 3:57 PM
This is political and deals with the 2nd Amendment. After reading this forum
and reading others ad nauseum, I decided to just google "nra". Holy crap!
All you members on here really need to do this and start clicking on the
results that pertain to the incident, the NRA and gun control, and anything
that sounds like it has something to do with the situation. I couldn't believe
it. Here's some things:
The NRA has the blood of the children on their hands
The NRA is the new KKK
The Prez of the NRA and all NRA members need to be killed
etc., etc., I read this, seriously! But the NRA is being quiet, just....
no comment.
I even saw one website that had twitters from celebrities damning the NRA
and calling for gun control or complete elimination of the 2nd Amendment.
Now, this makes the Dems, liberals, and the anti 2nd Amend people
look like utter fools. (good for us, but geez, so soon?)
Just wanted to let you all know so you can see for yourselves.

Mods, feel free to delete this thread if you feel that they would see this
and stop acting so stupid. I wouldn't want to get in their way while they
make complete azzess of themselves. :43:
Reloaderdave

Calzona
12-16-2012, 3:59 PM
Those who scream the loudest are often the least heard.

hermosabeach
12-16-2012, 4:02 PM
Facts lose arguments and debates.... the gun crowd is very logical and loses the PR battle......

Guntech
12-16-2012, 4:10 PM
Ignorant people are easily brainwashed to believe anything they are told after being spoon-fed bull **** from _____(insert responsible party)parents, teachers, the media, politicians, etc.

Funny how all of the people calling for violence against us want to disarm us, no?

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 4:19 PM
From my facebook news feed.

http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p532/jeremyaj2001/Capture-2_zpsa15e980d.png

She's a hero of the best kind.

And I bet she would have been willing to be armed that day, and to attempt to use that arm to good effect to prevent further bloodshed.

To be honest, I suspect a lot of teachers, more than many would give credit for, would be willing to be armed if it meant being able to protect the children.


So maybe my question should be changed somewhat, to read: "would the teachers be willing to be armed if that would mean being able to protect the children more effectively?"...

Lives_In_Fresno
12-16-2012, 4:20 PM
Just wanted to let you all know so you can see for yourselves.

Reloaderdave

Not meaning to offend, but what are you seeking to accomplish here? You can find good and bad, truth and falsity about anything on the internet.

interstellar
12-16-2012, 4:23 PM
Some of us are trying to change attitudes - www.assaultedfilm.com

Want to do something constructive to help battle against all the assault weapons ban talk? Support our film. We can have this film done in three months if we can get the support.

We just spent the day interviewing individuals that had their firearms seized at gun point after Katrina. Suspended the 2nd Amendment? It's been done already. Help us educate the masses that watch PBS why the 2A is important. Visit the website and donate.

Reloaderdave
12-16-2012, 4:31 PM
Not meaning to offend, but what are you seeking to accomplish here? You can find good and bad, truth and falsity about anything on the internet.

I'm not trying to accomplish anything. I thought many of my fellow Calgunners
might want to see what is going around the net. I apologizs if I offended
anyone. Maybe I should have went with my first instinct and not made a
post at all.

skyscraper
12-16-2012, 4:39 PM
Now is not the time.

Let the antis be the ones to politicize this tragedy, let them yell all they want for now into an echo chamber. If we react right now, it makes us look like the monsters they want to paint us out to be.

The fight will be done later, in the courts, through our memberships and donations to the NRA/SAF/CGF. That is where we have the upper hand and where the fight will ultimately be decided.

Unless it's critical, stand down for now.

I've been thinking this since day one. It isnt as if legislation will be passed tomorrow. There is time. Let the parents grieve.

warbird
12-16-2012, 4:44 PM
Guns laws are already more restrictive than they need to be and the real failure is in the government's failure to enforce those laws fairly. Increased restrictions on honest citizens are not going to make them any safer from criminals. Criminals will smuggle guns in, steal them, make them, or like in fast and furious have the federal government sell guns to them. People under the second amendment have the right to provide their own protection when cops only arrive to solve a murder not to prevent one. Most if not all of these mass murderers are under 21, were recent or current school students (high school/college), and stole their weapons for the most part. Where did these kids get their twisted views of the world, their morals, and their values? What do they have in common in their social background and how involved were the parents or did the parents leave it up to society to raise their kids? This series of killings has nothing to do with guns but with the failure of us to raise our kids the right way and pay enough attention to see when a kid is going off the deep end? I hate to say it but we might be reaping what we have sewn in terms of these ticking time bombs we call kids. Banning guns are not going to stop anything becuase they will just steal explosives, cars, or anything else that can cause mass murder. we have our own suicide killers American style.

jj805
12-16-2012, 4:49 PM
She's a hero of the best kind.

And I bet she would have been willing to be armed that day, and to attempt to use that arm to good effect to prevent further bloodshed.

To be honest, I suspect a lot of teachers, more than many would give credit for, would be willing to be armed if it meant being able to protect the children.


So maybe my question should be changed somewhat, to read: "would the teachers be willing to be armed if that would mean being able to protect the children more effectively?"...

I would be willing to guess that 50% of the teachers would be willing to protect the students with use of deadly force, if need be. I think it wouldn't be a bad Idea, if the training was adequate, and the teachers were willing to accept the responsibility of being armed in the classroom. My concerns would be an angry high school jock failing the academic requirements and going after said armed teacher. I think it's possible, but there should be some serious research done before implementing such a policy.

phrogg111
12-16-2012, 4:50 PM
Some of us are trying to change attitudes - www.assaultedfilm.com

Want to do something constructive to help battle against all the assault weapons ban talk? Support our film. We can have this film done in three months if we can get the support.

We just spent the day interviewing individuals that had their firearms seized at gun point after Katrina. Suspended the 2nd Amendment? It's been done already. Help us educate the masses that watch PBS why the 2A is important. Visit the website and donate.

Is there a like button for this? There needs to be a like button for this.

Ok. I need to get my freefirearmstraining channel back up and running again on Youtube. I know too much not to share some of my knowledge with the world.

jj805
12-16-2012, 4:52 PM
Some of us are trying to change attitudes - www.assaultedfilm.com

Want to do something constructive to help battle against all the assault weapons ban talk? Support our film. We can have this film done in three months if we can get the support.

We just spent the day interviewing individuals that had their firearms seized at gun point after Katrina. Suspended the 2nd Amendment? It's been done already. Help us educate the masses that watch PBS why the 2A is important. Visit the website and donate.

I will. My Christmas shopping is done. You can have some of my next paycheck, once I get it.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 5:38 PM
I would be willing to guess that 50% of the teachers would be willing to protect the students with use of deadly force, if need be. I think it wouldn't be a bad Idea, if the training was adequate, and the teachers were willing to accept the responsibility of being armed in the classroom. My concerns would be an angry high school jock failing the academic requirements and going after said armed teacher. I think it's possible, but there should be some serious research done before implementing such a policy.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with (and, indeed, very much welcome!) fully thinking the option through and identifying (and properly categorizing) the flaws with it. Any proposed solution to the problem needs to be very carefully and methodically thought through. This one is no exception.

If there are legitimate concerns raised about the approach, they should be addressed to the degree possible. Beyond that, it becomes a question of whether the risks of implementing the solution exceed the risks of not doing so. Note that there exists at least one country, Israel, that has already implemented this approach to very good effect, so it's not like there's no experience with it.

But it's clear that "solutions" like the "gun free" school zone are pathetically and utterly worthless.

jj805
12-16-2012, 5:56 PM
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with (and, indeed, very much welcome!) fully thinking the option through and identifying (and properly categorizing) the flaws with it. Any proposed solution to the problem needs to be very carefully and methodically thought through. This one is no exception.

If there are legitimate concerns raised about the approach, they should be addressed to the degree possible. Beyond that, it becomes a question of whether the risks of implementing the solution exceed the risks of not doing so. Note that there exists at least one country, Israel, that has already implemented this approach to very good effect, so it's not like there's no experience with it.

But it's clear that "solutions" like the "gun free" school zone are pathetically and utterly worthless.

You are not going to get any arguments here on anything you said above. I think that there are multiple answers to the GFSZ issue. The status quo is not one of them though. I have an eight year old daughter, and if I knew the staff was well trained, I wouldn't have an issue with firearms around her at school.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 6:13 PM
You are not going to get any arguments here on anything you said above. I think that there are multiple answers to the GFSZ issue. The status quo is not one of them though. I have an eight year old daughter, and if I knew the staff was well trained, I wouldn't have an issue with firearms around her at school.

Heightened training requirements to carry in "sensitive places" would probably pass Constitutional muster. Most certainly, it would almost certainly be beneficial if those who are charged with safeguarding the public received some form of heightened training. In this case, that includes teachers.

The most interesting thing about that is that such training would probably have the effect of reducing the fear of firearms on the part of teachers, and that would almost certainly have a beneficial effect on the overall respect for the right to keep and bear arms.

jj805
12-16-2012, 6:38 PM
Heightened training requirements to carry in "sensitive places" would probably pass Constitutional muster. Most certainly, it would almost certainly be beneficial if those who are charged with safeguarding the public received some form of heightened training. In this case, that includes teachers.

The most interesting thing about that is that such training would probably have the effect of reducing the fear of firearms on the part of teachers, and that would almost certainly have a beneficial effect on the overall respect for the right to keep and bear arms.

I think the heightened training for sensitive places should be for those employed in the sensitive places. I wouldn't want to make school zones off limits to the people that already carry. If you are employed in the "sensitive zones", and have agreed to the responsibility of carrying in the zone, then heightened training should be required. Probably train with LEO to LEO standards.

And yes, I think that over time the general respect of the 2A would improve..

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 7:00 PM
I think the heightened training for sensitive places should be for those employed in the sensitive places. I wouldn't want to make school zones off limits to the people that already carry.


Oh, I most certainly agree.

Note, however, that the "sensitive place" that was called out by SCOTUS was schools themselves, not school zones.

I don't think the GFSZ will pass muster as a "sensitive place".



If you are employed in the "sensitive zones", and have agreed to the responsibility of carrying in the zone, then heightened training should be required. Probably train with LEO to LEO standards.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking.

The thing about "sensitive places" is that they have been called out by SCOTUS as places where 2nd Amendment protections are either reduced or don't apply at all. I'd rather that it still be possible for normal citizens to carry in such places, even if heightened training is required for it, than for carry in those places to be banned outright to all but "special" people who are allowed to carry through "discretion" of some authoritative body.

It would be the difference between "shall issue" with heightened requirements and "may issue". I strongly prefer the former. Again, this is only in those locations actually adjudicated as "sensitive places".

CalTeacher
12-16-2012, 7:09 PM
Heightened training requirements to carry in "sensitive places" would probably pass Constitutional muster. Most certainly, it would almost certainly be beneficial if those who are charged with safeguarding the public received some form of heightened training. In this case, that includes teachers.

The most interesting thing about that is that such training would probably have the effect of reducing the fear of firearms on the part of teachers, and that would almost certainly have a beneficial effect on the overall respect for the right to keep and bear arms.

As I've told my students before, I'd treat them as my own kids in such a situation and defend them with all means necessary. As a teacher, I've been given the responsibility and trust to provide an education in a safe environment. If that means possibly giving my own life in defense of my class then so be it. As a parent, I'd hope that my childrens' teachers would react in kind. I will say that the general public would be surprised at how many teachers have CCWs and carry at all times...at least here in Kern County. I am never without my firearm and God forbid the day comes when it is necessary to use it, but is with me for that freak occurance like we saw unfold in CT.

I do wish more female teachers would take this issue seriously, and I have talked to a few who have gone through nasty divorces about obtaining a firearm for self defense. In my experience, many of these teachers aren't really against owning a gun, they're more scared of the idea of having to use the gun. It is for this reason that I believe it is good to have more male teachers on campus.

CalTeacher
12-16-2012, 7:11 PM
And no, my students don't know I carry. I forgot to add that part.

jj805
12-16-2012, 7:21 PM
The thing about "sensitive places" is that they have been called out by SCOTUS as places where 2nd Amendment protections are either reduced or don't apply at all. I'd rather that it still be possible for normal citizens to carry in such places, even if heightened training is required for it, than for carry in those places to be banned outright to all but "special" people who are allowed to carry through "discretion" of some authoritative body.

It would be the difference between "shall issue" with heightened requirements and "may issue". I strongly prefer the former. Again, this is only in those locations actually adjudicated as "sensitive places".

I completely agree.

jj805
12-16-2012, 7:28 PM
As I've told my students before, I'd treat them as my own kids in such a situation and defend them with all means necessary. As a teacher, I've been given the responsibility and trust to provide an education in a safe environment. If that means possibly giving my own life in defense of my class then so be it. As a parent, I'd hope that my childrens' teachers would react in kind. I will say that the general public would be surprised at how many teachers have CCWs and carry at all times...at least here in Kern County. I am never without my firearm and God forbid the day comes when it is necessary to use it, but is with me for that freak occurance like we saw unfold in CT.

I do wish more female teachers would take this issue seriously, and I have talked to a few who have gone through nasty divorces about obtaining a firearm for self defense. In my experience, many of these teachers aren't really against owning a gun, they're more scared of the idea of having to use the gun. It is for this reason that I believe it is good to have more male teachers on campus.

Good. I wish more could be like you. Thanks for the input on the female teachers. It would be interesting to see if their views have changed in the wake of Friday's tragetey.

And no, my students don't know I carry. I forgot to add that part.

Good. They don't need to know who is and who isn't. IMHO, neither do the parents.

DannyInSoCal
12-16-2012, 7:34 PM
I dont think now is a good time

The media is disgustingly exploiting this tragedy to further a preordained agenda. Trying to respond to highly charged emotion-based and already biased entitys is counterproductive at this point.

The news cycle will dissipate sooner than later. The challenges will be better addressed with rational thought and truth at that time.

Bullcrap.

We respectfully sit back while liberal anti's hammer on gun owners?

Where are the murdered teachers union lawsuits against the city/state for promoting an unsafe work environment due to the failed policy if "gun free safe zones"...?

Where are the NRA funded lawsuits to the same effect on behalf of the children's families...?

Sitting back and hoping things just blow over IS NOT the answer...

LuvLRBs
12-16-2012, 7:47 PM
Unfortunately, a lot of people are loudly calling for SOMETHING to be done. It will make them feel better. So being aggressive publically wont work as well as demanding options other than gun control. Like doors on classrooms that are made of heavy metal that can be locked like a safe and not shot open easily. Wont stop a psycho but would slow him down a lot until police came. He'd have to leave the building and enter each classroom from an outside window.

jj805
12-16-2012, 7:52 PM
Unfortunately, a lot of people are loudly calling for SOMETHING to be done. It will make them feel better. So being aggressive publically wont work as well as demanding options other than gun control. Like doors on classrooms that are made of heavy metal that can be locked like a safe and not shot open easily. Wont stop a psycho but would slow him down a lot until police came. He'd have to leave the building and enter each classroom from an outside window.

Or figure out how to make explosives.

JimWest
12-16-2012, 10:16 PM
Another $150 to CGF; $150 to SAF just now. And they better be losing sleep strategizing in a backroom somewhere 'cause we're gonna need it.

16,500 people die every year due to LEGALLY prescribed narcotic medications.
150,000 people die annually due to medical mishaps by physicians and hospital personnel.
How many children die in swimming pools every year?
How many people are killed by drunk drivers per year?
And once again, it's all about the gun!

This battle will be epic this time around.

CessnaDriver
12-16-2012, 10:19 PM
http://cdn.ammoland.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Firearms-Less-Accidental-Fatalities-Among-Children.jpg


"our first task, our first job: caring for our children. If we don't get that right we don't get anything right." -Obama



So where is the biggest problem based on the facts Mr. President?

kimber_ss
12-16-2012, 11:58 PM
Don't need no right to bear arms.....yeah right....

tqmLUC0qYC8

jj805
12-17-2012, 12:00 AM
Don't need no right to bear arms.....yeah right....

tqmLUC0qYC8

FIFY

kimber_ss
12-17-2012, 12:08 AM
Yeah, thanks I forgot just a little bit of the characters. I think it makes good sense too.

wjc
12-17-2012, 12:10 AM
As I've told my students before, I'd treat them as my own kids in such a situation and defend them with all means necessary. As a teacher, I've been given the responsibility and trust to provide an education in a safe environment. If that means possibly giving my own life in defense of my class then so be it. As a parent, I'd hope that my childrens' teachers would react in kind. I will say that the general public would be surprised at how many teachers have CCWs and carry at all times...at least here in Kern County. I am never without my firearm and God forbid the day comes when it is necessary to use it, but is with me for that freak occurance like we saw unfold in CT.

I do wish more female teachers would take this issue seriously, and I have talked to a few who have gone through nasty divorces about obtaining a firearm for self defense. In my experience, many of these teachers aren't really against owning a gun, they're more scared of the idea of having to use the gun. It is for this reason that I believe it is good to have more male teachers on campus.

My respects, sir.

GaryV
12-17-2012, 7:02 AM
One problem with this approach is that this tragedy was so bad that in the minds of those who can make or break us, trying to argue that calls for more legislation are simply exploitive or that guns are not a legitimate target will lose us that debate. It allows the antis to determine the frame of the argument and what the focus is. A focus on guns, no matter what your arguments, is bad for us. After all, you have a shooter who used an EBR, with a lot of ammo and full-cap mags, to murder twenty second-graders. That's just about as bad as it gets for our side, and if you just try to argue the Constitution, or cite statistics, or argue that it was the person, not the gun, then you're going to lose. The weight of this incident is simply too much for people who are not already firmly on our side.

I agree that our side needs to push back, but the proper way to do that is to take control of framing the argument and put them on the defensive, rather than simply trying to put up a good defense ourselves. What we need to do is shift the focus completely, and make the debate about the failure of security, not about the act of a murderer. After all, the most deadly school attack in our history was carried out by someone who didn't use guns at all, so guns clearly are not the problem, security is. This many years after Columbine, after Beslan, after 911, it's unconscionable that the federal government hasn't instituted and funded a program to make primary and secondary schools secure, and that any psycho with any bad intent can still walk into the student-occupied areas of any of these facilities whenever he/she wants. As long as that's true, no level of gun banning or control will stop such mass killings. These politicians all work in building that are far more secure than that, so why haven't they seen fit to give our children the same kind of protection, especially after it has become so obvious to everyone that they are a favored and vulnerable target?

That's an argument that will gain support from people who might otherwise side with the antis. That's an argument that puts them on the defensive and makes them look like the political opportunists, exploiting tragedy, that they are, even to those blinded by the emotions of this incident. That's an argument we can win. But only if we get out in front of this before they define the argument in their favor. The Travon Martin incident is the perfect example of how waiting too long will cost you. Had Zimmerman's side been out there with his side of the story, and even part of the evidence that backed it, within the first week, he might not be awaiting trial today. Instead they allowed Martin's family to speak unchallenged for weeks, and by the time he started showing that all the evidence supported his version of events, it was too late - most people had already made up their minds about what the "facts" must be, and they are incapable of being convinced otherwise. We can't let that happen.

hvengel
12-17-2012, 12:00 PM
My wife had the TV tuned to a CBS news program Saturday morning and they were interviewing a "school security expert" who was also a former cop who got involved in school security after he retired. Apparently he was someone who was widely recognized as a "school security expert" and I think the interviewer was expecting him to spew the standard PC crap about needing more gun control. But instead he said that gun free zones do not work at all and that this should not be our policy. He was then asked what measures he would recommend. I don't think they expected him to say what he did but he recommend the Israeli/Thai solution of arming and training teachers. It was clear that the interviewers were stunned by this and simply were unable to respond in any meaningful way. But he went on to talk about how effective this was and that this was the only meaningful reform that was available and the only thing that had a chance to work since it was proven to work already.

I think the approach that can work for us in the coming debate is to ask "What will work?" "What has a track record of working?" and focus on solutions that have a history of working. Currently there is only one, the Israeli/Thai solution, and the other side has nothing except platitudes and "solutions" that have been proven to not work. The real problem for us is that the solution that works is to effectively create a modern day militia, IE. using armed citizens to defend our children, which is what the founders would probably do since that is what they did back in the day. But the other side will fight that tooth and claw because if that happens they have totally and utterly lost the gun control debate.