Liberals Going Nuts Over NRA Ad

[red states rule]

When you have the libs and liberal media melting down over any ad, you know it is a good ad. Judge for yourself and enjoy the reaction in the liberal media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=miSjgv1MH7s

[red states rule]

In case you did not see MSNBC's reaction to the ad (and based on their ratings you did not) here is one example led by "conservative" Joe Scarborough

<iframe width="500" height="281" title="MRC TV video player" align="middle" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119439" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[red states rule]

The ad has really struck a nerve with Obama's loyal followers in the liberal media

<iframe width="475" height="267" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119461" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[aboutime]

We all know from many years of experiencing the Liberal, Democrat Hypocrisy....how the Left Claims the video is Political Pornography...only when THEY AREN'T THE ONES WHO MADE THE VIDEO.

The Hypocrisy of MSNBC is a known fact. And the PRETEND Crock TEARS 4344

wouldn't exist if DEMOCRATS had done the very same thing.

Come to thing about it....THEY HAVE DONE IT.
Double standards, and Hypocrisy are far more important to the Left than Honesty and Truth.

[red states rule]

We all know from many years of experiencing the Liberal, Democrat Hypocrisy....how the Left Claims the video is Political Pornography...only when THEY AREN'T THE ONES WHO MADE THE VIDEO.

The Hypocrisy of MSNBC is a known fact. And the PRETEND Crock TEARS 4344

wouldn't exist if DEMOCRATS had done the very same thing.

Come to thing about it....THEY HAVE DONE IT.
Double standards, and Hypocrisy are far more important to the Left than Honesty and Truth.


Speaking of MSNBC - here is Sgt Schultz melting down
SCHULTZ: The National Rifle Association has taken out an ad that calls the president a hypocrite and also ropes his two young daughters into it. Here is the ad that was posted on the NRA website yesterday --

NRA AD: Are the president's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school. Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.

SCHULTZ: You just heard a sound bite from the president saying that he is going to allocate resources for schools to develop plans of safety. But the big picture here, and drilling down on it, is that the National Rifle Association has now done what no other organization has ever done in the history of this country and that is attack and involve politically children of a first family and using them as bait.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2013/01/17/obamas-kids-used-bait-nra-ad-claims-hallucinatory-ed-schultz#ixzz2IMupCetC

[darin]

Do something terrible:

Liberals = FREEDOM of speech, actions! Celebrate the courage!

SAY something that only in the WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT has a PASSING resemblence to something that MIGHT be terrible to their point of view:

Liberals = SILENCE THEM! THEY are OFFENSIVE!

[Marcus Aurelius]

SCHULTZ: The National Rifle Association has taken out an ad that calls the president a hypocrite and also ropes his two young daughters into it. Here is the ad that was posted on the NRA website yesterday --

Hmmm... who was it that made a statement and signed a bunch of gun related stuff in the middle of a group of children just the other day?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hmmm... who was it that made a statement and signed a bunch of gun related stuff in the middle of a group of children just the other day?

Obama exploited the dead children then to put icing on the cake he exploited live children!! Both despicable acts but hey , he is the "messiah" so it will be excused!
The guy leaves no stone in place in his quest to ffkk over this nation..-Tyr

[aboutime]

Do something terrible:

Liberals = FREEDOM of speech, actions! Celebrate the courage!

SAY something that only in the WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT has a PASSING resemblence to something that MIGHT be terrible to their point of view:

Liberals = SILENCE THEM! THEY are OFFENSIVE!


dmp. I try, every day to find something nice, pleasant, or soothing about Liberals.
But I always fail until I am relaxed, reading the paper, and sitting in privacy on a seat 4356,
and exercising my Freedom of EXPRESSION...Liberally, of course.

[ConHog]

When you have the libs and liberal media melting down over any ad, you know it is a good ad. Judge for yourself and enjoy the reaction in the liberal media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=miSjgv1MH7s

I did not like it when some idiots involved Palin's kids in their politics and I don't like it when people involve Obama's kids in their politics.

They're kids, stop being jerks trying to make political points and let them be kids.

[gabosaurus]

I did not like it when some idiots involved Palin's kids in their politics and I don't like it when people involve Obama's kids in their politics.

They're kids, stop being jerks trying to make political points and let them be kids.

Very true. But some idiots only think one way. Their side is always right, the other side is always wrong. And if you disagree further, they have you killed.
They are... extreme right wing kooks.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Stupid-People-Posters.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

After reading these comments, I just looked at the ad, expecting to see pictures of the Obama kids, with targets on their backs or something awful like that. Instead, there wasn't a single picture of the kids. They were just referenced in the narration. There was nothing threatening or weird about it. Just an attempt to point out hypocrisy. Under the circumstances, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[red states rule]

After reading these comments, I just looked at the ad, expecting to see pictures of the Obama kids, with targets on their backs or something awful like that. Instead, there wasn't a single picture of the kids. They were just referenced in the narration. There was nothing threatening or weird about it. Just an attempt to point out hypocrisy. Under the circumstances, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Which is the exact reason the liberal media and Obama worshippers are going nuts Abbey. This also allows them NOT to talk about the Obama economy, the Obama deficit, and the Obama debt

[gabosaurus]

Do something terrible:

Liberals = FREEDOM of speech, actions! Celebrate the courage!

SAY something that only in the WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT has a PASSING resemblence to something that MIGHT be terrible to their point of view:

Liberals = SILENCE THEM! THEY are OFFENSIVE!

I would rather be offensive than an tunnel vision idiot.
Other than that, your statement makes no sense at all.

[ConHog]

After reading these comments, I just looked at the ad, expecting to see pictures of the Obama kids, with targets on their backs or something awful like that. Instead, there wasn't a single picture of the kids. They were just referenced in the narration. There was nothing threatening or weird about it. Just an attempt to point out hypocrisy. Under the circumstances, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I can only speak for me personally. I don't like kids being used as props at all. Not in pictures, nor words. Really no different than say on this board when someone is flaming another person, I don't like seeing their children referenced in anyway, no matter how innocently.

[Kathianne]

I like hypocrisy being brought out, if mentioning the children of privilege who receive more security than the children of public schools, so be it. In this case, it's made Obama in the middle of a gun grab attempt, come out in favor of 'resource officers.' Problem with that, most schools in suburban areas and urban areas already have such.

One more time I'll refer to the city I know. Each school in that town has an armed police officer for 'resource.' That means for internal use in the main. They have their own office and their salary is paid 3/4 by the school district. The other 1/4 of salary comes from police budget. Their car, maintenance, training and all equipment comes from police budget. Any 'extra-curricular' activities they attend, whether to build up connections with students or to be there for a student they are 'mentoring' is paid for by police budget. If school officer needs court time, the police department takes an officer off duty and is the substitute. He's on time and a half or double time, depending on regular hours worked.

All told, 12 police officers, all college grads, HS and MS officers with MS degrees. Neither the schools nor the police department could afford to double that number, in fact for the years 2007-2010, training was downgraded, to keep the officers in the school. For 2009-2010, they cut the number for elementary to one officer for every two schools. In 2011, budgets were able to resume old pattern.

The main purpose of their being in the schools, is to take referrals from Social Worker, deans, teachers, and students regarding students they feel 'need attention,' may be a threat to themselves or others. They are able to be a co-responder in mandated reporting, which makes things go much more smoothly when necessary. Tends to get a quick response from DCFS.

In the schools I'm in, these officers have always been at the school before I arrive, which in HS is prior to 6:30am. They are still there when I leave at 2:30 or so. They are not standing at the school entrance, mostly they are in their office in early morning, with student or staff. While there's no doubt that they'd run towards 'shooting' in most high schools that will take some time, especially if on the opposite end of school. Until school begins, there are at least two entrances. Once school begins, only one which requires buzz, then another into admin area. Fully video monitored school, the one I'm most familiar with has at least a dozen cameras, that are obvious. The other day, noticed a camera in a stand of trees, so I probably am not 'catching' all.

What makes the most sense is allowing 'conceal carry' for those with training and administration approval. It may be teachers, administrators, custodians, security staff. Especially in the HS and to some degree the MS, many are ex-military or still on reserves. There are more than a few ex-cops and lawyers in social studies and English departments. Some schools may have no volunteers, others a plethora. As long as the volunteers are kept secret, no one contemplating a 'massacre' would know which are which. Since most, if not all school shooters appear so far to be suicidal, but wanting to go out with as many innocents as possible, this is a reasonable response.

[logroller]

I like hypocrisy being brought out, if mentioning the children of privilege who receive more security than the children of public schools, so be it. In this case, it's made Obama in the middle of a gun grab attempt, come out in favor of 'resource officers.' Problem with that, most schools in suburban areas and urban areas already have such.

One more time I'll refer to the city I know. Each school in that town has an armed police officer for 'resource.' That means for internal use in the main. They have their own office and their salary is paid 3/4 by the school district. The other 1/4 of salary comes from police budget. Their car, maintenance, training and all equipment comes from police budget. Any 'extra-curricular' activities they attend, whether to build up connections with students or to be there for a student they are 'mentoring' is paid for by police budget. If school officer needs court time, the police department takes an officer off duty and is the substitute. He's on time and a half or double time, depending on regular hours worked.

All told, 12 police officers, all college grads, HS and MS officers with MS degrees. Neither the schools nor the police department could afford to double that number, in fact for the years 2007-2010, training was downgraded, to keep the officers in the school. For 2009-2010, they cut the number for elementary to one officer for every two schools. In 2011, budgets were able to resume old pattern.

The main purpose of their being in the schools, is to take referrals from Social Worker, deans, teachers, and students regarding students they feel 'need attention,' may be a threat to themselves or others. They are able to be a co-responder in mandated reporting, which makes things go much more smoothly when necessary. Tends to get a quick response from DCFS.

In the schools I'm in, these officers have always been at the school before I arrive, which in HS is prior to 6:30am. They are still there when I leave at 2:30 or so. They are not standing at the school entrance, mostly they are in their office in early morning, with student or staff. While there's no doubt that they'd run towards 'shooting' in most high schools that will take some time, especially if on the opposite end of school. Until school begins, there are at least two entrances. Once school begins, only one which requires buzz, then another into admin area. Fully video monitored school, the one I'm most familiar with has at least a dozen cameras, that are obvious. The other day, noticed a camera in a stand of trees, so I probably am not 'catching' all.

What makes the most sense is allowing 'conceal carry' for those with training and administration approval. It may be teachers, administrators, custodians, security staff. Especially in the HS and to some degree the MS, many are ex-military or still on reserves. There are more than a few ex-cops and lawyers in social studies and English departments. Some schools may have no volunteers, others a plethora. As long as the volunteers are kept secret, no one contemplating a 'massacre' would know which are which. Since most, if not all school shooters appear so far to be suicidal, but wanting to go out with as many innocents as possible, this is a reasonable response.
I agree with what you're saying and appreciate your shaing of personal knowledge regarding resource officers. I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence of my own. My mother was superintendent of a small district (two sites) and they too had a resource officer. For budgetary reasons they shared the officer with another district, a half time gig for each area. Unfortunately the reality was they saw him less than half the time; so I think that resource officers are a disfunctional solution to site security. Really its not surprising, and evidentiary of why we have the second amendment; while police presence is a necessary component of security and safety, it doesn't supplant the safety and security provided for by an armed populace.

[Kathianne]

I agree with what you're saying and appreciate your shaing of personal knowledge regarding resource officers. I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence of my own. My mother was superintendent of a small district (two sites) and they too had a resource officer. For budgetary reasons they shared the officer with another district, a half time gig for each area. Unfortunately the reality was they saw him less than half the time; so I think that resource officers are a disfunctional solution to site security. Really its not surprising, and evidentiary of why we have the second amendment; while police presence is a necessary component of security and safety, it doesn't supplant the safety and security provided for by an armed populace.

Resource officers serve the community both in an educational sense, perhaps more important in preventing some children that would have later had police contacts, function as productive members. Some of these officers are actually popular with the misfits and the 'popular' kids. While perhaps firemen get a bit more attention, boys especially seem drawn to strong role models. Coaches, strong teachers, and yes, resource officers often fit the bill. Even when they are female.

However, i agree, they are not the answer that Obama is seeking. His anti-gun message isn't working out real well either.

[ConHog]

Resource officers serve the community both in an educational sense, perhaps more important in preventing some children that would have later had police contacts, function as productive members. Some of these officers are actually popular with the misfits and the 'popular' kids. While perhaps firemen get a bit more attention, boys especially seem drawn to strong role models. Coaches, strong teachers, and yes, resource officers often fit the bill. Even when they are female.

However, i agree, they are not the answer that Obama is seeking. His anti-gun message isn't working out real well either.

Our district and indeed EVERY school district in Arkansas also employs resource officers. We have for several years. Not something new for us, and indeed doesn't sound like something new for your schools either.

Ours is half and half on pay though. One thing we did change in response to Sandy Hook was we've added a glass fronted office to the front foyer of all three of our main campus buildings so that our SRO IS at the main entrance.

We are also in the process of fencing in our campuses , this in response to parental concerns. Our campuses are pretty spread out, our high school covers 4 acres. It's quite a feat to fence it all in, but certainly will make it safer. Our elementary and middle schools were already fenced in.

Yes, they will be gated fences , makes it a bit of pain for parents if they come to pick up their child early or what have you but it isn't that burdensome.

Oh, one other thing we did do, all of our main entrance doors are now made of bulletproof glass.

To your point about cameras. I'm a big believer in cameras for security. We have them everywhere. Well over 500 of them spread over 3 campuses. Obviously they aren't all monitored in real time, but we do have a full time employee who watches them on a rotating basis, which is really about the best we can do. They are all however recorded and periodically we review the digital recordings to see what's going on.

I would be okay with having a few armed teachers on campus provided they were properly trained and deputized so that we could confidently tell our parents that only properly trained personal have guns on campus and so that if God forbid something did happen the police knew exactly who was supposed to have a gun on campus so that no one was harmed by friendly fire.

Sadly allowing teachers to be armed probably would not have saved any of the children at Sandy Hook. It's doubtful any of those teachers would have chosen to carry a gun even if afforded the opportunity to do so.


Honestly I feel the more important issue is what has changed in the last 20 years? When I was in High School there were probably no less than 50 loaded hunting rifles right on campus every single school day and no one EVER got shot that I can recall.

[logroller]

Our district and indeed EVERY school district in Arkansas also employs resource officers. We have for several years. Not something new for us, and indeed doesn't sound like something new for your schools either.

Ours is half and half on pay though. One thing we did change in response to Sandy Hook was we've added a glass fronted office to the front foyer of all three of our main campus buildings so that our SRO IS at the main entrance.

We are also in the process of fencing in our campuses , this in response to parental concerns. Our campuses are pretty spread out, our high school covers 4 acres. It's quite a feat to fence it all in, but certainly will make it safer. Our elementary and middle schools were already fenced in.

Yes, they will be gated fences , makes it a bit of pain for parents if they come to pick up their child early or what have you but it isn't that burdensome.

Oh, one other thing we did do, all of our main entrance doors are now made of bulletproof glass.

To your point about cameras. I'm a big believer in cameras for security. We have them everywhere. Well over 500 of them spread over 3 campuses. Obviously they aren't all monitored in real time, but we do have a full time employee who watches them on a rotating basis, which is really about the best we can do. They are all however recorded and periodically we review the digital recordings to see what's going on.

I would be okay with having a few armed teachers on campus provided they were properly trained and deputized so that we could confidently tell our parents that only properly trained personal have guns on campus and so that if God forbid something did happen the police knew exactly who was supposed to have a gun on campus so that no one was harmed by friendly fire.

Sadly allowing teachers to be armed probably would not have saved any of the children at Sandy Hook. It's doubtful any of those teachers would have chosen to carry a gun even if afforded the opportunity to do so.


Honestly I feel the more important issue is what has changed in the last 20 years? When I was in High School there were probably no less than 50 loaded hunting rifles right on campus every single school day and no one EVER got shot that I can recall.
Maybe that's what's changed-- people prefer not to be responsible for protecting themselves. We've became a society that just expects someone else to do it-- namely, the government.

[Trigg]

Very true. But some idiots only think one way. Their side is always right, the other side is always wrong. And if you disagree further, they have you killed.
They are... extreme right wing kooks.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Stupid-People-Posters.jpg


The add points out the hypocracy in Washington. Even if the presidents kids did NOT attend this particular school, the truth is they employ 11 security officers,

Yet mention having security officers in other schools are you are met with eye rolling and laughter from the MSM.

[aboutime]

I would rather be offensive than an tunnel vision idiot.
Other than that, your statement makes no sense at all.



That's okay Gabby. Maybe someday you will understand such statements when you finally graduate from the First Grade, Special Students who need Adjustment classes.
Until then. YOU ARE one of those TUNNEL VISION IDIOTS.

And you have no problem proving it to the rest of us.

[ConHog]

Maybe that's what's changed-- people prefer not to be responsible for protecting themselves. We've became a society that just expects someone else to do it-- namely, the government.

Maybe so Log, but before that day did anyone even entertain the notion that they would NEED protecting from ANYONE while in a classroom full of kindergartners?

[aboutime]

Maybe that's what's changed-- people prefer not to be responsible for protecting themselves. We've became a society that just expects someone else to do it-- namely, the government.



logroller. THAT is exactly what the Obama administration, and the Democrats in Congress have intended for this nation all along. The more people they can convince, bribe, or induce into believing ONLY GOVERNMENT can save them...the better it is for Obama and the Democrats to GAIN more Power.

They depend on the Uninformed, those with little education, and even less Knowledge to always take the EASY WAY, and just allow Politicians to decide how they will live...according to Political directions since the people who voted for Obama have no capacity to THINK on their own...when the choices are WORK...vs. FREE STUFF.

[ConHog]

logroller. THAT is exactly what the Obama administration, and the Democrats in Congress have intended for this nation all along. The more people they can convince, bribe, or induce into believing ONLY GOVERNMENT can save them...the better it is for Obama and the Democrats to GAIN more Power.

They depend on the Uninformed, those with little education, and even less Knowledge to always take the EASY WAY, and just allow Politicians to decide how they will live...according to Political directions since the people who voted for Obama have no capacity to THINK on their own...when the choices are WORK...vs. FREE STUFF.

Completely irrelevant to this thread.

I live in the country, lot of good folk here who don't depend on the government for anything they haven't earned.

We took a poll of our teachers , asking how many of them would carry a gun to school if given the chance.

less than 10 % of female teachers responded that they would. The OVERWHELMING number of them said that they would not feel comfortable in doing so, and most of them added in that despite a few terrible acts around the country that they felt it was an unnecessary step. Ninety four percent of our elementary and middle school teachers are female.

And I live in a VERY gun friendly area.

Follow that trend to its logical conclusion and you can see that females just don't generally want to carry guns even if they can, and that has nothing to do with relying on the government to protect them.

So , as I said, it is doubtful that allowing teachers to carry guns would have saved a single one of those poor kids at Sandy Hook.

[mundame]

Even if the presidents kids did NOT attend this particular school, the truth is they employ 11 security officers,

Yet mention having security officers in other schools are you are met with eye rolling and laughter from the MSM.


!! Eleven security officers in addition to all the Secret Security!! Yeah, I think the ad made a good point, and that's why the left is so upset about it. Obama's children are being protected, but school is mandatory and unprotected for the great majority of other children. There is something very wrong about that.

[logroller]

logroller. THAT is exactly what the Obama administration, and the Democrats in Congress have intended for this nation all along. The more people they can convince, bribe, or induce into believing ONLY GOVERNMENT can save them...the better it is for Obama and the Democrats to GAIN more Power.

They depend on the Uninformed, those with little education, and even less Knowledge to always take the EASY WAY, and just allow Politicians to decide how they will live...according to Political directions since the people who voted for Obama have no capacity to THINK on their own...when the choices are WORK...vs. FREE STUFF.
It's not as simple as dems and Obama, its about the people--We, the People put them there. So long as We remain divided, the government will continue to manifest its power-taking.

[ConHog]

!! Eleven security officers in addition to all the Secret Security!! Yeah, I think the ad made a good point, and that's why the left is so upset about it. Obama's children are being protected, but school is mandatory and unprotected for the great majority of other children. There is something very wrong about that.

It certainly is not mandatory that your child attend public school my friend.

[Abbey Marie]

It certainly is not mandatory that your child attend public school my friend.

Unless you can afford private school, or can afford to stay out of work to home school them, it kinda is. Millions of people have no other choice.

[aboutime]

Unless you can afford private school, or can afford to stay out of work to home school them, it kinda is. Millions of people have no other choice.


Abbey. That kind of response from CH is typical of the Obama/Liberal answers that show their hypocrisy when they Do everything they can to protect the Teachers by trying to prevent parents from sending their children to Private schools.

SNOBS operate that way. And CH just proved it.

[ConHog]

Unless you can afford private school, or can afford to stay out of work to home school them, it kinda is. Millions of people have no other choice.

That is true, but having limited choices due to your own circumstances is not the same thing as mandatory.

And what is to stop a group of people from getting together and forming their own private school? Our church has done exactly that. They only have about 50 kids at the present time, but that just means they only need a few adults to teach them. As long as they meet state guidelines, no problem.

Heck, my own daughter thinks she wants to go there next year and I don't think I have a problem with it at all.

[mundame]

Unless you can afford private school, or can afford to stay out of work to home school them, it kinda is. Millions of people have no other choice.


Yes, this is something I've been worried about since the shooting. School IS mandatory, by law, and people can't keep their children home to keep them safe from all the many problems of public schooling: kidnapping, bullying, crime, rape, seduction, and now of course major massacre shootings. Even in Newtown, Connecticut, they just have to go right back into the terrible danger zone that public schools have become, and much poorer education is delivered now than ever before, we know by the tests -- and just comparing the education we older people got from the sad state of education of our grandchildren.

We are not getting a good deal with public education in America, and too often it's fatal for the children. This is unfair, and it's what the NRA ad cleverly refers to. Not only are Obama's children far safer, they are getting a much better education than any public school children. I think it was a darn good ad, provocative.

[mundame]

That is true, but having limited choices due to your own circumstances is not the same thing as mandatory.

And what is to stop a group of people from getting together and forming their own private school? Our church has done exactly that. They only have about 50 kids at the present time, but that just means they only need a few adults to teach them. As long as they meet state guidelines, no problem.

Heck, my own daughter thinks she wants to go there next year and I don't think I have a problem with it at all.

Yes, my daughter's family did the same thing. Sent the kids to a private Christian school after homeschooling two years. Still, a lot of people aren't able or ready to do that. However, I suppose you are right; the only real solution to all the serious problems IS to bail out of public schooling, as the president did. I must say, I don't think it's reasonable to send children to public schools anymore, in many places.

[ConHog]

Yes, my daughter's family did the same thing. Sent the kids to a private Christian school after homeschooling two years. Still, a lot of people aren't able or ready to do that. However, I suppose you are right; the only real solution to all the serious problems IS to bail out of public schooling, as the president did. I must say, I don't think it's reasonable to send children to public schools anymore, in many places.

we would actually agree on that. I think that with technology today neighborhoods wouldn't even need teachers, just monitors. A small group of ten kids could gather in one home and learn via the internet. With one adult supervising.

I believe there is room for multiple solutions to education in this country, and despite what another poster said I in noway push public education as the only viable solution.

[Kathianne]

Our district and indeed EVERY school district in Arkansas also employs resource officers. We have for several years. Not something new for us, and indeed doesn't sound like something new for your schools either.

Ours is half and half on pay though. One thing we did change in response to Sandy Hook was we've added a glass fronted office to the front foyer of all three of our main campus buildings so that our SRO IS at the main entrance.

We are also in the process of fencing in our campuses , this in response to parental concerns. Our campuses are pretty spread out, our high school covers 4 acres. It's quite a feat to fence it all in, but certainly will make it safer. Our elementary and middle schools were already fenced in.

Yes, they will be gated fences , makes it a bit of pain for parents if they come to pick up their child early or what have you but it isn't that burdensome.

Oh, one other thing we did do, all of our main entrance doors are now made of bulletproof glass.

To your point about cameras. I'm a big believer in cameras for security. We have them everywhere. Well over 500 of them spread over 3 campuses. Obviously they aren't all monitored in real time, but we do have a full time employee who watches them on a rotating basis, which is really about the best we can do. They are all however recorded and periodically we review the digital recordings to see what's going on.

I would be okay with having a few armed teachers on campus provided they were properly trained and deputized so that we could confidently tell our parents that only properly trained personal have guns on campus and so that if God forbid something did happen the police knew exactly who was supposed to have a gun on campus so that no one was harmed by friendly fire.

Sadly allowing teachers to be armed probably would not have saved any of the children at Sandy Hook. It's doubtful any of those teachers would have chosen to carry a gun even if afforded the opportunity to do so.


Honestly I feel the more important issue is what has changed in the last 20 years? When I was in High School there were probably no less than 50 loaded hunting rifles right on campus every single school day and no one EVER got shot that I can recall.

Your schools pay 1/2 of salaries only? Or do they figure to also pay for all the 'requirements' such as police car, uniforms, weapons, on-going training, court time, and necessary overtime?

[Kathianne]

Completely irrelevant to this thread.

I live in the country, lot of good folk here who don't depend on the government for anything they haven't earned.

We took a poll of our teachers , asking how many of them would carry a gun to school if given the chance.

less than 10 % of female teachers responded that they would. The OVERWHELMING number of them said that they would not feel comfortable in doing so, and most of them added in that despite a few terrible acts around the country that they felt it was an unnecessary step. Ninety four percent of our elementary and middle school teachers are female.

And I live in a VERY gun friendly area.

Follow that trend to its logical conclusion and you can see that females just don't generally want to carry guns even if they can, and that has nothing to do with relying on the government to protect them.

So , as I said, it is doubtful that allowing teachers to carry guns would have saved a single one of those poor kids at Sandy Hook.

Why would any school want more than 10% of staff carrying? In a school with staff of 25, that would be 2 folks in addition to the 'resource' officer already employed. That should cover it. In most of 'my area high schools' the staff size, (teachers only, we're not talking administration and 'other staff'), there are around 60-80 teachers. That would be 6-8, in addition to the resource officer. That's more than enough, as evidenced by the 3 administrators that tried to take Sandy Hook man down without weapons. The teacher that attempted to shield the kids with her own, unarmed body.

[Kathianne]

Unless you can afford private school, or can afford to stay out of work to home school them, it kinda is. Millions of people have no other choice.

I agree to some degree, I personally like the idea of vouchers especially in poor, urban areas.

What I do think that folks need to keep in mind is that overall schools are about the 'safest' place most kids will be:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/school-shooting-connecticut/1769367/

From an article on Newtown shooting:


...James Alan Fox of Northeastern University's School of Criminology and Criminal Justice said Friday's incident seems reminiscent of several from the late 1980s involving shooting rampages at schools.


Fox couldn't speak to the specifics of the Connecticut case, but said, "If someone is interested in punishing society where it's most vulnerable, they know that a school is a place where lots of young, innocent children, our most cherished members of society, are congregated and under their gun -- literally."


Still, in the past few years, shootings in K-12 schools have become increasingly rare. After reaching a high of 63 deaths in the 2006-2007 school year, the number of people killed in "school-associated" incidents dropped to 33 last year -- lowest in two decades, according to the U.S. Department of Education.


While a few dozen children are killed each year in school, statistically speaking, it remains the safest place a child will likely ever be, with the lowest chance of being killed. "When you consider the fact that there are over 50 million schoolchildren in America, the chances are over one in 2 million, not a high probability," said Fox. "And most cases that do occur are in high schools and less so in middle schools -- and hardly ever in elementary schools."



It's important for parents and grandparents, not to go overboard in fears. They'll only be passed onto the children.

[ConHog]

Your schools pay 1/2 of salaries only? Or do they figure to also pay for all the 'requirements' such as police car, uniforms, weapons, on-going training, court time, and necessary overtime?

half of salary Kath. The vehicle our SRO drives was actually donated by a local dealer specifically for that position and my dad provides all needed maintenance on said vehicle (ie tires, brakes, oil, what have you) the city pays all other expenses.

[ConHog]

I agree to some degree, I personally like the idea of vouchers especially in poor, urban areas.

What I do think that folks need to keep in mind is that overall schools are about the 'safest' place most kids will be:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/school-shooting-connecticut/1769367/

From an article on Newtown shooting:



It's important for parents and grandparents, not to go overboard in fears. They'll only be passed onto the children.


A lot of truth to that. We have to be concerned of course, and take all reasonable precautions, but as you state, school is about the safest place a child can be.

For sure we allocate more resources to protecting our children from a tornado than we do from a random shooter.

[mundame]

For sure we allocate more resources to protecting our children from a tornado than we do from a random shooter.

Until lately, there was probably more danger from tornados.

Now there is a psychotic fashion for rampage school shootings, so they are getting more and more frequent. I would think something has to change for that trend to back up.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So , as I said, it is doubtful that allowing teachers to carry guns would have saved a single one of those poor kids at Sandy Hook.

A rather bold statement..Are you stating that the shooter was so well trained and talented in weapons that no armed opposition could have prevailed against him!!!
Surely you jest!!! -Tyr

[Kathianne]

A lot of truth to that. We have to be concerned of course, and take all reasonable precautions, but as you state, school is about the safest place a child can be.

For sure we allocate more resources to protecting our children from a tornado than we do from a random shooter.

I don't see that of 'allocation of resources' being higher for tornadoes than for 'random shooters.' Schools are built mostly of concrete and bricks and other non-flammable materials since "Our Lady of Angels' fire. Biggest threat in tornado, glass breaking and roof collapse. Thus get kids to lowest level and away from glass. No costs other than three times a year drills. Same with fire drills, 3 times per year, once with fire department also timing to ensure rigor to methods. Our schools also have 3 'lock down drills' per year and have for at least the past 4 years.

The drills take 'time', indeed. However with the exception of fire drills for schools over 2k, not that much time is lost. The 'issue' is evacuating then accounting for all staff and students. Kids that were on the way to library, office, etc., have to find their 'reporting teacher,' in staging areas. It takes time to get the info and radio in the accountability. Teaching goes on during lockdowns, just the windows are covered, and students moved to non-visual areas of the room. Won't say it's 'normal' but class does go on. Tornado drills are over in minutes, class resumes.

Of these 3, the only one that has costs superseding drills is the 'possible shooting rampage.' Any glass that wasn't 'reinforced' is becoming so. As repeated by many, most schools have resource officers already, some are trying to find ways to augment those. My guess is that further police, whether local or county, will be cost prohibitive in long run; both for schools and police forces. Hiring 'rent-a-cop' is likely a waste of money, which would only be proven in a school that did so and was attacked.

[Kathianne]

Until lately, there was probably more danger from tornados.

Now there is a psychotic fashion for rampage school shootings, so they are getting more and more frequent. I would think something has to change for that trend to back up.

Depending where you live, tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, food poisoning and traffic are all more of a threat than a school shooter.

[ConHog]

A rather bold statement..Are you stating that the shooter was so well trained and talented in weapons that no armed opposition could have prevailed against him!!!
Surely you jest!!! -Tyr



What the fuck?

No, I'm saying that based on an actual poll I circulated among my 300 teachers I extrapolate that female teachers who teach in elementary and middle school would probably choose NOT to carry firearms even if afforded the ability to do so. and so there would not have been any teachers with guns at Sandy Hook even if they could have.

And Tyr,I took this poll AFTER Sandy Hook and the ladies voted this way, imagine how they felt BEFORE Sandy Hook.

[Kathianne]

half of salary Kath. The vehicle our SRO drives was actually donated by a local dealer specifically for that position and my dad provides all needed maintenance on said vehicle (ie tires, brakes, oil, what have you) the city pays all other expenses.

We've written in the past about differences between rural and suburban/urban. Schools here pay 3/4, to go with the school year, salaries only. If the city were to be under some threat: flooding, terror, industrial accident, etc., those officers would be on the street, in full police car. They are uniformed, including vest, gun, mace the entire day. Their rifles are secured in vehicle. Mind you, the city I'm referencing is within 4 miles of O'Hare airport from it's northernmost point. It's part of O'Hare response team, DuPage response team, and a regional terror team. For no reason, other than police drills, has this happened, they train for it though.

That's part of the justification for not sharing autos, equipment, etc., between school and police districts.

[ConHog]

I don't see that of 'allocation of resources' being higher for tornadoes than for 'random shooters.' Schools are built mostly of concrete and bricks and other non-flammable materials since "Our Lady of Angels' fire. Biggest threat in tornado, glass breaking and roof collapse. Thus get kids to lowest level and away from glass. No costs other than three times a year drills. Same with fire drills, 3 times per year, once with fire department also timing to ensure rigor to methods. Our schools also have 3 'lock down drills' per year and have for at least the past 4 years.

The drills take 'time', indeed. However with the exception of fire drills for schools over 2k, not that much time is lost. The 'issue' is evacuating then accounting for all staff and students. Kids that were on the way to library, office, etc., have to find their 'reporting teacher,' in staging areas. It takes time to get the info and radio in the accountability. Teaching goes on during lockdowns, just the windows are covered, and students moved to non-visual areas of the room. Won't say it's 'normal' but class does go on. Tornado drills are over in minutes, class resumes.

Of these 3, the only one that has costs superseding drills is the 'possible shooting rampage.' Any glass that wasn't 'reinforced' is becoming so. As repeated by many, most schools have resource officers already, some are trying to find ways to augment those. My guess is that further police, whether local or county, will be cost prohibitive in long run; both for schools and police forces. Hiring 'rent-a-cop' is likely a waste of money, which would only be proven in a school that did so and was attacked.

Sure, but that doesn't take into account the added expense to our building budget every time we build in order to make our building more than secure for tornadoes.

For instance, we had our main building reroofed a few years ago. There were several levels of re roofing available. the level that would probably suffice in say Arizona would not stand up to a tornado. So we had to opt for the more expensive in order to prepare for a tornado.

It also doesn't account for added cost to our insurance premiums b/c we live in tornado alley, as far as I know there is no rampage shooters alley which raises premiums.

It also doesn't take into effect the weatherband radios that we installed in EVERY classroom on campus that are capable of working without electricity. Or for that matter, the emergency lighting system that kicks on when power goes out so that people can find their way to safety.

And the list goes on and on. To say there are no resources allocated to tornadoes is crazy.

[Kathianne]

Sure, but that doesn't take into account the added expense to our building budget every time we build in order to make our building more than secure for tornadoes.

For instance, we had our main building reroofed a few years ago. There were several levels of re roofing available. the level that would probably suffice in say Arizona would not stand up to a tornado. So we had to opt for the more expensive in order to prepare for a tornado.

It also doesn't account for added cost to our insurance premiums b/c we live in tornado alley, as far as I know there is no rampage shooters alley which raises premiums.

It also doesn't take into effect the weatherband radios that we installed in EVERY classroom on campus that are capable of working without electricity. Or for that matter, the emergency lighting system that kicks on when power goes out so that people can find their way to safety.

And the list goes on and on. To say there are no resources allocated to tornadoes is crazy.

How long will the roof last? How much does that break down to per year of use? It's called building maintenance and you do a version of it to your home too. Buildings are expensive.

I've not seen a school calling for making all windows 'bullet proof' but if that happens, not that I'd be surprised with the current panic, I'm pretty sure that might add to tornado preparedness?

[Kathianne]

Sure, but that doesn't take into account the added expense to our building budget every time we build in order to make our building more than secure for tornadoes.

For instance, we had our main building reroofed a few years ago. There were several levels of re roofing available. the level that would probably suffice in say Arizona would not stand up to a tornado. So we had to opt for the more expensive in order to prepare for a tornado.

It also doesn't account for added cost to our insurance premiums b/c we live in tornado alley, as far as I know there is no rampage shooters alley which raises premiums.

It also doesn't take into effect the weatherband radios that we installed in EVERY classroom on campus that are capable of working without electricity. Or for that matter, the emergency lighting system that kicks on when power goes out so that people can find their way to safety.

And the list goes on and on. To say there are no resources allocated to tornadoes is crazy.

Hmm, our 'emergency lighting' is as you say, for when electricity goes out. Not just regarding tornadoes, but any loss of power assuming fire also, in fact, when the fire alarm is sounded, (God help my ears with hearing aids), the emergency lights auto kick in.

I never said or implied no costs involved, indeed from get go implied that schools are among the safest buildings for tornadoes, being built of bricks and concrete in the main. Known threats during tornadoes are roof collapse, most likely in 'unsupported areas', i.e., gym, thus move the kids out of gym as part of drills and away from windows.

As far as 'insurance issues' I'm pretty sure your location in tornado prone area is the cause. I doubt that an actuary could price 'school shooter insurance' because it is so rare, in spite of hype.

[ConHog]

We've written in the past about differences between rural and suburban/urban. Schools here pay 3/4, to go with the school year, salaries only. If the city were to be under some threat: flooding, terror, industrial accident, etc., those officers would be on the street, in full police car. They are uniformed, including vest, gun, mace the entire day. Their rifles are secured in vehicle. Mind you, the city I'm referencing is within 4 miles of O'Hare airport from it's northernmost point. It's part of O'Hare response team, DuPage response team, and a regional terror team. For no reason, other than police drills, has this happened, they train for it though.

That's part of the justification for not sharing autos, equipment, etc., between school and police districts.

For sure we're in a totally different situation. Not much danger of our SRO ever actually being called away from the school. I mean barring the absolutely incredible. We actually have six total for three campuses. Because of city growth our campuses are not connected. The middle school and elementary are, but we just built a new high school about a mile from that ( i say just it's actually 3 years old now)

we have one full time at the elementary , one full time at the middle school, and two full time at the high school. along with 2 that randomly patrol the campuses as well as the surrounding roads.

Through a grant from the State of Arkansas we pay half the salary of each from the school's budget.

[jimnyc]

I did not like it when some idiots involved Palin's kids in their politics and I don't like it when people involve Obama's kids in their politics.

They're kids, stop being jerks trying to make political points and let them be kids.


After reading these comments, I just looked at the ad, expecting to see pictures of the Obama kids, with targets on their backs or something awful like that. Instead, there wasn't a single picture of the kids. They were just referenced in the narration. There was nothing threatening or weird about it. Just an attempt to point out hypocrisy. Under the circumstances, I don't see what all the fuss is about.


I can only speak for me personally. I don't like kids being used as props at all. Not in pictures, nor words. Really no different than say on this board when someone is flaming another person, I don't like seeing their children referenced in anyway, no matter how innocently.

Hope this isn't covered as the thread goes on, I'm still on page 1...

This was about Obama and the government, a policy to use armed men to protect the presidents children, while taking away the ability for others to do the same. This wasn't about Obama's kids at all. No one criticized the kids like they did to Palin, or picked them apart or judged them in various ways. This had nothing to do with preventing them from being kids or bringing them personally into it, just that the government and Obama use guns to protect them.

[ConHog]

Hope this isn't covered as the thread goes on, I'm still on page 1...

This was about Obama and the government, a policy to use armed men to protect the presidents children, while taking away the ability for others to do the same. This wasn't about Obama's kids at all. No one criticized the kids like they did to Palin, or picked them apart or judged them in various ways. This had nothing to do with preventing them from being kids or bringing them personally into it, just that the government and Obama use guns to protect them.

I think when we were discussing that , we were specifically talking about the ads themselves. I just don't like kids being part of them. Certainly not something I'm going to go to war over, but I think there are other ways to get a point across then involving children.

However, as to the protection afforded Obama's kids. I know of nothing he has done , nor that he has proposed that would take away your ability to hire security for your kids. I'm quite sure you don't propose that the Secret Service should provide for the armed security of every child in America.

And I can only speak for Arkansas, but there IS a waiver a person can obtain to carry a gun on school campuses. In fact when Bill Clinton was POTUS he came to our little school district and yes the Secret Service had to obtain a waiver. As do our school resource officers. Now of course in the event of an emergency that goes out the window.

This waiver is way beyond our control, the school board nor the school administration have nothing to do with it, but I've looked over the application and there is no reason a private individual couldn't obtain one if they had need.

[red states rule]

I think when we were discussing that , we were specifically talking about the ads themselves. I just don't like kids being part of them. Certainly not something I'm going to go to war over, but I think there are other ways to get a point across then involving children.

However, as to the protection afforded Obama's kids. I know of nothing he has done , nor that he has proposed that would take away your ability to hire security for your kids. I'm quite sure you don't propose that the Secret Service should provide for the armed security of every child in America.

And I can only speak for Arkansas, but there IS a waiver a person can obtain to carry a gun on school campuses. In fact when Bill Clinton was POTUS he came to our little school district and yes the Secret Service had to obtain a waiver. As do our school resource officers. Now of course in the event of an emergency that goes out the window.

This waiver is way beyond our control, the school board nor the school administration have nothing to do with it, but I've looked over the application and there is no reason a private individual couldn't obtain one if they had need.

More hypocrisy from libs. Seems libs have a rabid hate for anyone who owns guns and wants to use guns to protect their families and property
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, was greeted with derision when he proposed placing an armed police officer in every school to protect students.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, for example, reacted with this statement:
“It’s outrageous and unsettling that the NRA would choose to address gun violence not by taking assault weapons off our streets, but by adding more guns to our schools. … That is not the right answer for our society, our schools and most importantly our children.”
That’s an odd reaction, because the Chicago Public Schools already spend $41 million per year (http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2012/12/life-during-wartime-8-white-chicago.html) on police and security officers in the schools. Emanuel appoints the seven school board members and the public school system’s CEO. And the mayor’s children have been guarded (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/26/Rahm-s-Kids-School-Protected-by-Armed-On-Duty-Police) for several years by at least one armed police officer at the private school they attend, the University of Chicago Laboratory.
President Barack Obama’s two daughters attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., where they have been protected by 11 armed guards (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service), with a twelfth to be hired. Plus, the two daughters have Secret Service protection. “One of the main incentives of running [for re-election] was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times,” Obama jokingly told ABC’s Barbara Walters three days before Newtown. But it’s a point worth noting.
Already, there is a substantial police presence in 90 percent (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/21/nra-newtown-police-in-schools/1784953/) of large urban and suburban schools (more than 1,000 students) and in 26 percent of schools with fewer than 300 students. In 2000, President Bill Clinton announced a Justice Department program called COPS in School (http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323) to provide 452 officers in schools in 220 communities.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/10/the-truth-about-armed-guards-in-schools/#ixzz2Iew6NswH