October 19, 2017
Nation Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Obamacare | National Anthem Protests

Comments for: Head of NRA calls for armed security at every school in the nation

ASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association on Friday called for armed guards at every U.S. school and rejected the notion that curbs on weapons would protect children in the wake of last week’s Connecticut school massacre. In a rare press briefing, NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre… Read More
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    I am all for americans being able to arm themselves, but I think this is a bit too far. We do not need an armed guard at every school in the nation. Would it hurt if there was a few teachers with a concealed carry? probably not. Our country is dissolving itself from within the inside because we would rather place blame on material items rather than the mental health issues this country is turning a blind eye too. Someone made the arguement, well if we ban guns at least we are trying to do something. Thats the problem with our kids! Oh as long as you tried, oh as long as its an effort you dont need to actually practice or have any real intention of improving just try. Screw you sheltered americans. Go out and travel and open your eyes

    • Anonymous

      There hasn’t been a child killed in a school fire in 50 years, because our schools have sprinklers, fire alarms, fire drills, and are built with flame retardant materials. Yet, placing one trained police officer in the school to protect the children from violence is going too far???

      • Anonymous

        It’s good to know trained police officers never suffer from mental disease.

      • Anonymous

        White middle-class males mass-murdering at schools is a recent outbreak in the history of America. The answer is not to simply accept it as inevitable. Other countries don’t have this sickness.

        Fire has always been around, and of course better building code regulations and restrictions on certain kinds of equipment and behavior

        • Anonymous

          You’re right, it is a recent outbreak. Guns aren’t a recent “outbreak”. So, obviously, it’s not the guns, it’s something else.

          Have you checked the crime rates in other ethnic groups in this country? You might be enlightened.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, it’s been around for a long time. There were schools n the US attacked with dynamite by nuts pre WW2. There have been multiple attacks on schools in China by men weilding knives and cleavers. There was a mass shooting in Norway recently, Dunblane, Scotland, Beslan Russia… Violence and fire have always been around. We protect our kids from fire – why stick our heads in the sand when it comes to violence?

          • Anonymous

            The pattern of school shootings we’re seeing now is new and horrific. To argue otherwise is to go into denial.

            By the way, the recent attack in China with a knife didn’t kill a single child. What if that killer in China had a gun?

          • Anonymous

            “…the recent attack in China with a knife didn’t kill a single child. What if that killer in China had a gun?”

            is it only in China that you can kill no one yet still be labeled a killer?

            man, they are repressive over there.

      • FELT

        There are accidental fires and there are fire setters. The latter are screened out of society at an early age and treated. The former are dealt with effectively with fire suppression technology.

        A mass killing in a school is not the same thing.

        • Anonymous

          Fire setters are screened out of society early and get treated? Frankly, that’s naive. If that screening and treatment were effective, it would be used on the violent as well. Clearly, it’s not working.

          We have multiple, overlapping protection methods from fire – we need the same for violence.

          Clearly, we need better access to mental health services – that’s a huge part of the puzzle. I don’t think that banning certain guns or magazine capacities alone is the answer, but could be a piece in the puzzle. Closing the loophole for background checks at gun shows would help and be another piece. Having a trained officer at the school, ready to protect children if need be, is another piece.

          • FELT

            I am very familiar with mental health screening for HEADSTART programs and fire setters are a major threat, so they get screened out fast. Try banning matches and lighters and see how far you get.

            Violent children are either isolated from the rest of the class or removed to special ed. rooms. Various sports that allow their tendencies to come out are one way to identify them.

            My guess is that this guy, because of his family background, was treated many times, medicated and perhaps given a pass for previous incidents. Even repressed behaviors can be released with the right combo of drugs and video games.

            We really need to know more about the kind of screening most of us take for granted…..did the mental health system or the parents or both fail? …..or did something ‘snap’ and he had a psychotic break brought on by ????

    • 3rd rail

      No it’s not to far ! The ‘mental illness’ some like to hype comes out of the University mind set over the last 50 years. Between that and the Catholic church we have mental illness roaming the streets and poverty at an all time high in America.

      Take a bow..

    • Anonymous

      There is alot wrong with teachers carrying concealed weapons to school. Years of competent intense “shoot –don’ts shoot training is required for military and police agencies. These are the people who desire to carry weapons. Accidents are going to be prevelent. Think about your statement. “a bit too far”.

      “One Maine superintendent’s view: Congress should assign safety officers in public schools” In today’s editorial (you might find interesting)

      • Anonymous

        You are making it too complicated. If someone comes in with an evil plan, ie shooting up the place, they get shot. There is no dilemma at all.

        • Anonymous

          by whom the science teacher who is at the end of the hall on the second floor in the middle of an experiment with the kids. Mean while he is fumbling with the key and safe to get the gun out and the shooter is at the end of the hall first floor.(keep in mind officers patrol on a daily basis) There are dilemmas— it could be hoax.

  • Bill Robinson

    Finally some common sense. If the Obama administration does not go for this, then they must be opposed to the safety and security of children. This move is exactly what millions of people have suggested for years. Can anyone provide one good reason why we should not give it a try, and if so what would your idea be?

  • Anonymous

    also at every road at town lines.

  • Anonymous

    According the same NRA logic, the ‘safest’ option would be to make sure that this armed security guard is carrying a machine gun. The more firepower, the better, in response to every problem, right?

    • Anonymous

      Sawed off semi automatic 12 gauge. Even if you miss, you still got them. That is what we used on the ship as a “deterrent” for piracy. Of course, you have to throw them over the side before you come back into U.S. waters.

    • Anonymous

      Before you go anti gun nutso… there are many many school districts around the nation that already have ARMED security forces.

      • Anonymous

        Guns are the problem, not the solution.

      • Anonymous

        Right – and we should be developing alternative solutions, not arming more. I’m not anti-gun, I’m anti-gun nut.

        • Anonymous

          Armed security and a taser would be helpful too.

      • Anonymous

        Your argument: a tiny fraction of schools have armed guards, so all should have them.

        Counterargument One: this is like saying a small number of apples have worms, so all should have worms.

        Counterargument Two: schools with armed guards are some of the most dangerous schools.

        Read want Chris Chrisite says about the NRA proposal:

        http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/crime/article/NJ-gov-Armed-guards-won-t-make-schools-safer-4138429.php

        • Anonymous

          I made no argument. You did.

      • Anonymous

        It is NOT about banning GUNS it is about assault weapons. Period.

        • Anonymous

          That is what you believe it to be about. In an op-ed yesterday one person advocated repealing the 2nd Amendment. That takes it to a different level.

    • Anonymous

      You miss the whole point, and react like you always do with the things you do not understand or agree with. Our society makes our schools “gun free zones” inviting the opportunity to attack the innocent and UN-portected. PROTECT the children is all the NRA is saying. I would park a tank out front of every school if I could, but an armed security officer or police officer is by far the quickest , easiest, safest solution to a problem that left in the hands of our clueless politician to fix will never get done (another gun law is not the answer). If this will keep another wacked out nut from attacking another school, why would we wait.

      • Rocky4

        SPOT ON!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Anonymous

        I understand your point, I just think it’s ridiculous. Since you actually suggested that it would be helpful to park a tank outside of a kindergarten classroom, I realize that you are not a rational thinker. You should go work on your bomb shelter and leave the grown-ups to work on solving the real problems.

        • Anonymous

          And Bomb shelter is a rational response?

          • Anonymous

            It is for the people who have to have an assault weapon.

        • Anonymous

          Grown ups, who Joe Biden? Yea I trust him to make the right choices. He is a big part of the problem, and a perfect example of why term limits should be in place, but that discussion is for another time.

        • Anonymous

          Why don’t you show your commitment to your ideals and put a sign out in front of your home for the winter declaring your home a gun free zone?

          • Anonymous

            I also oppose arming people at public schools, grocery stores, ice cream shops, etc. I oppose the National Rampage Association, which is nothing more than a lobby group for the gun industry. They are NOT trying to protect the 2nd Amendment. that is just BS.
            But do not try to break into my house. I keep several loaded guns around just for the idiots who might try. Not all of us against semi autos with 30 round mags are anti-gun, just anti right wing BS.

          • Anonymous

            you realize the Micheal Moore crowd is using assault rifles/high capacity mags for a starting point. Their ultimate goal is total gun confiscation. you will never hear any of them say you have a right to own a handgun

        • Bill Robinson

          So you are not in favor of protecting children? WOW!!!!!

      • Anonymous

        Too expensive and not effective. Also likely to desensitize our children to the presence of police and/or military on every corner and in every venue.

        • Anonymous

          They already see police and military in almost every venue, and they know to trust them because they are police and military in uniform. No solution is going to be cheap, there are no quick solutions, but if we put a police office r in every school on Jan. 2nd and make it publicly know we are doing it. Guess what, I like the odds no nut will show up with a gun to do harm.

          • Anonymous

            I still believe in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not giving that up, ever. If you want to hide under the bed in your own self-made prison, that is your choice not mine.

      • Anonymous

        That armed guard worked real well at Columbine didn’t he? Oh….

      • Anonymous

        Don’t worry about Bangorian. He/she is one of the most arrogant and condescending posters on here, as you can see by the post below.

    • Anonymous

      According to gun-fanatic logic, bombs should be made legal because the bad guys always shift up to the next level.

      • Anonymous

        Foolish logic really. The uniform alone would discourage some. These murderers go for soft targets. What better than an unprotected elementary school?

        • FELT

          So who murders their mom and little children? and why? …..How did they get to be a ‘target’ in the first place? What’s next…nursing homes?

          • Anonymous

            Cowards and crazies.

          • Anonymous

            They would be another good target. No guns allowed so a crazy could kill as many as he wanted even with a five round magazine or a simple revolver.

    • melibusa

      An armed security person does not usually need a machine gun. A shot or two by a well trained marksman should be enough to take care of the attacker.

      • Anonymous

        How will you know the attacker is an attacker until after he has opened fire?

        • melibusa

          Unfortunately, that probably remains an unknown. The idea is to keep casualties as low as possible. I believe the difference is, no one armed and responding, many casualties. An armed active responder on scene, very few plus the attacker. Not 100%, but still better than no%.

    • Tom Brown III

      ugh… really? please cite where any official representative of the NRA says “lets put guards armed with machine guns in every school!”

  • FELT

    Kindergarten Killers Game

    http://www.muchgames.com/search-games/kindergarten-killersThis is our collection of Kindergarten Killers games. Get inside the kindergarten and shoot down those pesky little kids with your shotgun and avoid getting killed .

    I think I know where the problem lies and it isn’t the NRA.

    • 3rd rail

      Remember the one a few years ago, before it was pulled.

      Take out JFK..

      • FELT

        yeah, but catch this from the game site:

        Taken from games website and not made up. Kindergarten Killer

        Description

        As a hitman for hire, you were recently given orders to take out the headmaster of a kindergarten school. Your job is to not ask questions, so you carry on with the job and head to the school. One thing leads to the next and you accidentally kill a teacher. The kids saw it and they get riled up. The children rise up in arms and open fire at you at every chance they get. But despite everything that happened, your target still roams alive so you head back to the office and kill your target before heading back to the office. Enjoy a crazy shootout in Kindergarten Killer.

        ENJOY????

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Then don’t play the games.

          There’s just as much violence in the bible… ban that too?

          • Patrick Dunham

            Dumbest comment I’ve read in a looong time…

        • Playing a silly (though obviously in very bad taste) game doesn’t make people into killers anymore than target shooting with a gun.

          • FELT

            You’re smarter than that dumb comment. see
            effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive …
            http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/videogames1.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
            by CA Anderson – Cited by 1161 – Related articles
            Research on exposure to television and movie violence suggests that playing violent video games will increase aggressive behavior. A meta- analytic review of …

          • Anecdotal evidence is only so useful, though I’ve watched countless violent movies with friends and family and some of my favorite games are extremely violent. My favorite books are historical fiction and fantasy. Some are chock full of violence.

            None of my friends or family have assaulted anyone or shown any violent tendencies. As for myself, I’ve never so much as been even in a small fight in my entire life. Rather than squish bugs and spiders in the house, I catch them and put them outside. No aggression here.

            Now, I don’t disagree that mentally disturbed people could be agitated by such media – and we should try to keep such folks away from them as much as is possible, as well as impressionable children. I certainly wouldn’t let my kids touch such things and hope other parents wouldn’t either. Though it should remain the choice of an adult, not the government.

  • Anonymous

    I’m guessing the attacker would shoot the guard first?

    • Anonymous

      Hardly. There’s a reason why most of these attacks don’t occur at a police station. On the rare occasion that they do, there’s a reason why there usually aren’t mass casualties. The building’s occupant(s) shoot back.

      • Anonymous

        Never heard of any mass killing in an old west saloon either. With over 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens in America already, arming everyone may be the only solution. Detente..

        • Anonymous

          Completely insane. Other cultures are doing fine, have far less gun violence, and we are getting sicker and more violent.

          Read what Chris Christie says about the NRA proposal:

          http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/crime/article/NJ-gov-Armed-guards-won-t-make-schools-safer-4138429.php

          • Anonymous

            Complaining that we’re getting more sick or more violent doesn’t take a substantial step toward solving the problem. Better access to mental health services, making it tougher for nuts to get their hands on guns by closing the gun show background check loophole, and having a trained officer in the school to protect children, would.

          • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            Exactly. BUT that would interfere with profits Let me explain what the GUN industry fears. Brady BILL part 2 Part one banned the MANUFACTURE of assault rifles and big clips IN the USA .THAT is what they fear. The only thing they fear is an erosion of profits.

          • Bright

            So law abiding citizens are denied freedom of choice while criminals continue to do their thing. And less sales means less jobs, less money, less taxes, etc.

          • pbmann

            So the occasional mass murder of children is OK as long as someone has a job and is making profit?

            Truly sick.

          • Anonymous

            No! your wrong!!

          • Anonymous

            It didn’t stop the North Hollywood shooters.

          • Anonymous

            Laws don’t stop criminals, it did not stop the Norway shooter either.

          • Anonymous

            Along with the fact that it took the Norway police an hour and a half to respond.

          • Bright

            And that can’t happen in the US? When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

          • FELT

            The control agent was his mother, he was denied weapon’s permits five times, so he took her’s. Someone should have flagged his multiple applications as being from a mentally unstable person….so that’s a govt. failure brought on by civil rights zealots.

          • Anonymous

            Could you provide a link? I’ve only seen where he inquired once to buy a long gun and didn’t want to wait the 14 day waiting period.

          • Anonymous

            “The control agent was his mother, he was denied weapon’s permits five times”

            But because his mother had a military assault weapon, which didn’t protect her, he did have access to guns, anyway, even though he was known to be dangerous and mentally unstable. .

            Only broad gun control will work, and you made that point well.

          • Anonymous

            He mother didn’t have a military assault weapon.

          • Anonymous

            Correct! But a lot of people posting on this thread do not know that the AR-15 is NOT a military assault weapon – thanks to the biased mainstream media!

          • pbmann

            Ok “military-style” semi-automatic assault rifle then. There does that make you feel better?

          • Anonymous

            No! But “military-style semi-automatic rifle” might be reasonably acceptable. The anti-second amendment crowd has purposely demonized the AR-15 and intentionally confused this semi-automatic rifle with a full automatic assault rifle to serve their purpose of scaring the public with the thought that it is a military weapon with the capability to fire in a full auto mode!

          • FELT

            You missed the target completely. Society expects parents to keep weapons away from their children, whether matches, poisons, or keys to the SUV. Her failure to control the weapon and lock up the guns with locks is criminal.

            “known to be dangerous”….really, to whom?

          • Anonymous

            Key word CHILDREN, he was 20, Federal law requires that she should of had trigger locks or a gun safe, she would have been charged if still alive. When do the stop being kids today age 30?

          • Anonymous

            Wrong!

          • Anonymous

            No it was not a military assault rifle. Have you ever been in the military? Anyone that would make the statement that a bushmaster is a military assault weapon really have never been in the military. In reality… a prime survival type rifle,would be a .22….small lightweight, quiet and can carry a thousand rounds very easily.

          • pbmann

            The AR-15 is a weapon designed to look like a military rifle and to kill people in mass numbers. It does it designed purpose very well.

            And before you go and say it can be used for hunting, show me anyone who uses one to hunt. Oh by the way I work at a tagging station and I did not register one deer that was brought down using a .223 caliber shell.

          • Anonymous

            Felt, thats an EXCELLENT thought that I haven’t heard of before. I single denial in the Instant Check System should target the users name to flag any Retailer the next time that person tries to obtain a weapon, and make it mandatory that the Retailer notifies the Police.

          • Anonymous

            We do have the tech. to do it too.

          • Anonymous

            Define “nuts”……….you could walk down the street today and probably see individuals who have never broken the law, could pass a background check, and otherwise be an honest law abiding citizen…..and then snap! Having a trained officer?, what? officer’s or their representatives don’t go “nuts”……I seem to remember this incident in Dover where a sheriff’s employee went temporarily “nuts”. He killed one guy and the cops apparently needed to shoot him. So, you walk down the street and show me all of those who are “nuts”. The object of gun control as it relates to mental health is to first, get the guns off the streets, make it much more harder to get an assault weapon. Placing any gun in the school is sending what message to children?

          • Oldfishergeek

            Wayne LaPierre!
            Crazy is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome!

          • Anonymous

            Does this mean that, if you owned an “assault” weapon, we should be afaid of you?

          • pbmann

            I pity anyone who thinks they need an “assault” rifle to be safe.

          • Anonymous

            That means you don’t know, so therefore why take the risk of letting me get my hands on an assault weapon. What you don’t know can and will hurt you. BTW, I don’t now or ever have had a gun that holds any more than 5 bullets, and that, was a 30-30. I don’t need any more than 5 bullets.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, to much of what you said. Mental health services being number one. No more funding cuts.
            Your other proposals need serious consideration as well.

          • pbmann

            This last nut got his gun from his law abiding mother. Got any laws for that?

          • FELT

            Eliminating the Mid East, most of Asia, Central America and S. America and that leaves your ‘other cultures’ who aren’t doing all that ‘fine’ either.

            Yet Obama keeps arming Arab Rebels and who knows what other unstable ‘crazies’……guy really knows what he’s doing, right?

          • Anonymous

            you mean like reagan armed saddam? i love that picture of rumsfeld shaking his hand

          • Anonymous

            An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

          • Get in bed with dogs, wake up with fleas.

          • FELT

            …but not cats?

          • Anonymous

            Yeah you are right of course. An Iranian empire that runs from the Saudi Peninsula to the Red Sea is a much better outcome.

          • No, no, you’re right. Giving mustard gas to a dictator makes perfect sense. We should do it again! It shows terrific judgment and a real moral clarity from the champions of freedom.

            Since we’re throwing out names in this thread, Iran probably would have been an ally today if Eisenhower hadn’t overthrown their democratically elected leadership. We created the conditions that made the Iraq/Iran war possible.

            But, but of course, they hate us for our freedom, right? F’ing them over for a half century has nothing to do with it certainly. ;)

          • Anonymous

            We created a stand-off between Iraq and Iran.

            But, Of course we are responsible for all the worlds Ills and absolutely none of the good things.

            As for Iran being an ally…. I expect that you believe the Soviet Union would not have had anything to say about that.

            Look there are always other things to consider. Some obvious, some not so much.

          • I would say it’s pretty safe to say that our post-WW2 policies have done more harm than good.

            Why would have Democratic Iran aligned with Russia?

          • pbmann

            The US is supposed to stand for democracy yet we over threw the democratically elected leader of Iran and we tried to do the same in France which is why no US troops are allowed to be stationed in France even though they are a member of NATO. And ask just about any South and Central American country how much we like their democracies.

            I guess we only like democracies that we agree with.

          • Anonymous

            But you should be correct. The US had nothing to do with the Iran/Iraq war. One of the principle events to cause friction was the Iranian Revolution in 1979. There was border disputes, religious/ and party influences, many things. Even when the region was called Persia, it was divided. The only thing we had going was the hostages in Iran. Try to research? Their hatred of one another continues today, it’s always been there, US or not.

          • pbmann

            How many countries has Iran invaded or bombed?

            How many civilian passenger planes have been shot down by Iranian warships?

            How many countries does Iran currently have soldiers fighting in?

          • Anonymous

            Cheescake, the cold war is over. The middle east is now, and almost always has been at war. It has nothing to do with us butchering ourselves, other than the fact it produces more guns, to eventually be copied and for sale in the US. The AR-15 (full auto) version is used by the military in Afghanistan, it’s was first developed in the 1950’s……..during guess what?……….the cold war.

          • pbmann

            No the enemy of my enemy is neither friend nor foe

          • FELT

            I love it how Roosevelt the ultimate liberal developed and dropped the atomic bomb or his head of the air force, Lemay firebombed Japan in a supreme act of genocide. Reagan was a pacifist compared to Roosevelt.

          • Oldfishergeek

            and Reagan supported the assault rifle ban. btw, try recycling through American History 101; Truman dropped the A bomb.

          • Anonymous

            wasn’t that TRUMAN??

          • Anonymous

            yes it was….

          • Truman dropped the bomb. It was an unnecessary act; the war was in effect already over and the Japanese were already making overtures that indicated they were ready to stand down. But hey, if you have big ol bomb and feel like you need to make a global political point, might as well use it (them).

            Truman, like most presidents, kings, potentates, before and after found himself manipulated and steered into a course of action that served to benefit a small number of powerful men and corporations. And, like most he was a willing participant.

            We see still the same machinations going on today so many decades later. We have learned nothing from history. And innocent people are still dying.

            The new generation of powerful men and corporations would tell us here and now that the only way to remain safe is to turn every single portion of our lives, country, society into an armed camp. More guns, more police, more soldiers. And as always, one need only follow the money to find the true motivations behind this train of thought. Hint; it’s not for safety.

            BTW, there was an armed guard at Columbine.

          • Anonymous

            I hope everyone sees what you wrote:

            THERE WAS AN ARMED GUARD AT COLUMBINE

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

          • Anonymous

            I wish Mr. Gardner was able to hit his target at Columbine. Who knows how many lives he saved by calling the police right away.

          • Anonymous

            Which proves one person can not protect an entire school too many entrance points., we already have guards at lots of locations but still leave the schools unprotected, it’s a different world, leave it to beaver is gone.

          • Anonymous

            The Japanese were training and equipping every man woman and child that could walk with knives, swords, converted farm tools, etc. They were expected to give their lives to stop the American invasion. After the first bomb was dropped they failed to surrender. Another was dropped and it still took 3 days for the civilian government to overcome resistance from the military and agree to surrender. Those who believe the

            Japanese would easily surrender need to look at each of the battles for islands where the Japanese fought to the last man and civilians committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner.
            Or ask any American veteran who was all set to invade Japan.

          • pbmann

            Read up your history. Dropping the bomb on Japan may well have been caused by a bad translation of the Japanese answer to Truman’s asking for the Japanese to surrender.

          • Anonymous

            The condition of surrender was it to be “unconditional”…….they would not agree to that, the war went on. They would not accept the US terms of surrender, there was no translation problem. The US demanded that the Emperor no longer have any authority, they said no and that they would fight to the death. After the bombs were dropped, the US allowed them to keep the Emperor as a figure head only.

          • Anonymous

            I’m pretty sure it was Truman that dropped the bomb on Japan

          • Anonymous

            You are aware Truman “Dropped the Bomb”? Not Roosevelt.

          • Anonymous

            And Chester Arthur wote the Gettysburg Address eh?

          • Anonymous

            funny how roosevelt didn’t drop the bomb-truman did.. read a little history—I agree about the bombings–in fact the US strategic bombing survey after the war called bombings in Germany and japan terror bombings-their words, not mine–kinda puts 9/11 in context

          • Anonymous

            The question is who would are us when the Govt turns on it’s people here, like Syria is today, hilter did it, Did not think planes would be used as bombs but here we are.

          • Anonymous

            And the point is, an assault weapon is a design that is used for the purposes of war. If you haven’t noticed, the Middle East is full of them. There is a war on drugs, going after a drug lord is different than 1st and 2nd graders going to school. And I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Asia, typically, only the military have access to weapons there, but they sure do make alot of them for Walmart to sell.. Most of the AK-47’s sold after the 1994 ban were the result of the NRA’s little loop hole team. They modified Czec. AK’s with a little tiny pin which prohibited a fully automatic clip from being used. Dremel tools took care of that little problem for the gangs and drug lords in the US.

          • FELT

            Technically, you’re wrong. The original assault weapon was a light weight,folding stock fully automatic rifle that could be carried by paratroopers and ‘sprayed’ bullets. Some were contained by a lightweight stock.

            There are a lot of Ak’s, many models. Any gunsmith can modify a semi to go full, No loophole involved, since it’s still illegal if you get caught.

            One of the scariest weapons I’ve seen fired is S. Africa’s ‘street sweeper’ semi automated shotgun. Designed for controlling crowds of angry Black protesters, it could literally ‘mow’ down a crowd of attackers.

            Not sure what your point is, but there are a lot of scary weapons out there…read this week’s NEW YORKER on the history of Psychoactive weapons research and the plight of the many Army volunteers who tested BZ, etc. Gas warfare was seen as more humane than guns…..uh huh.

          • Anonymous

            That’s what I was referring to as a loop hole. “Modified” AK’s were sold in the country, the modification was to make them “legal” by placing the pin in so an automatic compliant magazine would NOT fit. They were able to do this because the NRA lobbied so hard and spent so much money lobbying to have “existing” weapons grandfathered, and dealers had them “modified” so an automatic cartridge couldn’t be used. Don’t you find it a little discomforting that “any gun smith” can modify these current legal assault weapons to make them full auto? Legal or not, if they are not on the streets, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about that; and it does happen.

          • Tom Brown III

            modified AK’s have only ever been sold after the ban expired and people hate them.

          • Anonymous

            First, ANY AK rifle or AR rifle or any other rifle that is modified to fire in a full automatic mode is totally illegal in the USA unless it is registered with the BATF (not possible for any newly manufactured or modified rifle) and will earn the person possessing it several decades in a federal prison.

            The AR-15 and AK-47 rifles sold in this country are NOT legal ASSAULT weapons! The only legal assault weapons existing in the USA are possessed by the military and various law enforcement agencies.

            Finally, you do not know what you are talking about! There is no difference in magazines or ammunition used in semi-automatic rifles and full automatic ones. The difference is in the “receiver” (the main component of the rifle and the “sear” that controls whether the mode of fire is semi-automatic and full automatic.

            Your postings on this subject are simply propaganda promulgated through ignorance on the subject!

          • Tom Brown III

            you are using assault weapon and assault rifle interchangeably. Assault Rifles are select fire rifles (as defined by the US Army) like you said for military and law enforcement sale and use. Assault weapons technically don’t exist since 2004 when the ban expired. The term Assault Weapon, is just a demon term coined by the fearful and misinformed to describe weapons that look like them.

            It is like comparing a monte carlo stockcar (nascar) to the actual monte carlo. They have some similar body features, the chevy emblem, and they both have 4 wheels but besides that they are functionally very different.

          • Anonymous

            I agree with and accept your comment Tom!

          • Anonymous

            Most of my information on the subject stems from congressional testimony, the NRA itself, historical weapons researches, and the US Supreme Court. These aren’t propaganda issues, it’s the same issue that’s has been going on since WW1, what guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and which guns are considered a danger to our society? The 2nd amendment also states, “for the common defence (sic)” and uses the word “militia”……In other words, to protect yourself from harm, or to join a militia for the common defense of our nation. In my opinion it does not mean the absolute right to own a weapon, originally designed for war, with a 30 to 60 round capacity for protection purposes, and people don’t need to join militia’s to protect 13 states any longer. We have 50 states now, and a well equipped and capable military to defend us Since the American Revolution we have had ONE enemy walk on our shores; the British. We’ve had threats from Germany, and 9-11. (Pearl Harbor/Hawaii wasn’t a state, and not part of the US), So explain to me, how an AR-15, not designed for home protection, not designed for hunting.. is useful in today’s society? If you have been reading; the same type of weapon was used in the Washington DC sniper attacks, Columbine HAD an armed officer there……It’s not the solution, plain and simple. The only benefit the armed officer at Columbine was……..he called 911, that’s it.

          • Anonymous

            You have altered the direction of your post from statements of (incorrect) technical comments to an anti-gun opinion which, of course, is your right but I do not agree with your opinion!

            Many thousands of AR-15’s ARE used for hunting, home protection and for recreational shooting and (because of the tragedy in Connecticut perpetrated by a very sick individual and Obama’s exploitation of it) today you cannot buy an AR-15 or an AK-47 or an FAL or a CETME etc! Why? Because every manufacturer and distributor and dealer has completely sold out the production of these rifles for the next year!

            However, you and all the other anti-gun types up to and including Obama will continue to demonize and blame the gun (an inanimate
            object) rather than the sick individuals that perpetrate horrendous acts. Why? Because it serves their personal bias and objectives founded in their hate for guns – any guns!

          • Anonymous

            I haven’t “altered” a thing. The gun in question, an AR-15, is classified by the NRA, the US military and the world as built to the specs. of an assault weapon. Read other posts other than your own. One poster commented that she works a a game weigh station and has NEVER seen a deer dropped with a .223 caliber gun. As a matter of fact, Guns and Ammo has specified that 1.5 million of these guns were manufactured in the last 5 years.
            A gun may be an “inanimate object”, but it takes a human being to operate it. Human beings aren’t inanimate; they are not predictable now, or in seven years, or ten years. Mental illness is not something that is easily diagnosed, nor is it always treatable. And if it is treatable, there’s no assurance that those people, who are not inanimate are going to take their medication. One IS predictable however, that inanimate object, the one that people are using to slaughter others and themselves. You can rant and rave all you want. There’s a big problem, and controlling these types of weapons is part of the solution. More guns is not. Let me ask, have you ever shot a deer with an AR-15? (maybe a rabbit, if you are good enough). Do you think you need 30 rounds to stop an intruder? And, what’s wrong with either keeping the weapon or the ammo at the gun range, where it is more controlled and secure? You ought to read Guns and Ammo. I was taught to understand the diverse opinion, in order to find a middle ground. Here’s the link
            http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newtown-massacre-bushmaster-223/story?id=18000884#.UNYYiW9QWSo

          • Anonymous

            First, I believe it is illegal to use a 223 caliber rifle for deer hunting because the caliber is simply not powerful enough, but AR-15’s are made in many calibers now. However, the 223 and other calibers are used in smaller game (coyotes and smaller) all the time.

            Secondly, there is no “middle ground” in this discussion. Our constitution (and its second amendment) is the unquestioned law of the land and has been so ruled by SCOTUS. The same people who would gladly take away 2nd amendment rights would fight any attempt to limit 1st amendment rights!

            Finally, I read Guns and Ammo and many other related publications. In fact, you would be hard pressed to name a firearms related publication that I do not get and read! I also read Foreign Affairs and other such publications that have a world scope outlook. However, I put little stock in the opinions of the mainstream press – such as ABC news!

          • Anonymous

            You are still WAY off. Automatic cartridge? What is that? A cartridge is a cartridge and the action of the firearm is what determines how it feeds. Misinformation is not helpful.

          • Anonymous

            So, that’s your game…..blind faith and confusion. In order to discuss this we must make sure that many of the posters understand the difference between: a clip,..a cartridge,… and a magazine. Ok folks, a cartridge is typically a bullet, (Im sure i’ll be corrected) a Clip is a smaller set of cartridges, which is non mechanical (in other words, the clip doesn’t move the bullets, the weapon does) but these are not usually any more than ten cartridges per clip. JFK was killed with a gun that used a clip, for example. A magazine is usually a enclosed device which is inserted into the weapon much like a clip, however, it is mechanized, the “magazine” pushes the “cartridges” into the weapon, while it (the weapon) is ejecting the spent “cartridges”. Hence I stand corrected….I should have said “a capable automatic firing magazine”……….See folks, that’s how they like to muddy the waters.

          • Anonymous

            A person could spend 5 minutes with Google and have a better understanding than what you’ve portrayed in your past posts. I’m not trying to confuse anything and I have no idea what you mean by “blind faith”

            1. A cartridge is not “a bullet”. A cartridge contains both a bullet and a charge. The charge is ignited by the firing pin striking a primer which in turn ignites the gun powder.

            2. A clip is a tool used to load a magazine. A clip isn’t required for a firearm to function, they are only used to expedite the loading of a magazine. This is true 99% of the time.

            3. Saying “a capable automatic firing magazine” is still not true. The action of the firearm determines if it is capable for automatic fire. The magazine for a semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapon is the same. The only mechanical part of a magazine is a spring that exerts pressure on the cartridges and moves them to a point at which the action of the firearm can load them.

            Don’t get upset with me – you’re the one who dove into this discussion of firearm operation without so much as researching what you speak of.

          • Tom Brown III

            fully automatic clip?

            good to see you are technically knowledgeable and informed.

            The czecs never produced an AK. They have the vz58.

            Clips are non mechanical devices. Magazines are mechanical but have no influence on the weapons internal fire rate.

          • Anonymous

            Really? then go right ahead and Google Czec AK 47, and see what you find. I know that clips are non mechanical, But I also know that you need a magazine that will fit into an automatic, which is why they put the pin in, so the “automatic” magazine would fit. I’ll change the “fully automatic clip”…..I said so for clarification sake and expediency.

          • Tom Brown III

            again you are still incorrect.

            It is “Czech” and they produce a similar looking weapon the VZ58.
            chambers the same cartridge but no interchangeable parts including magazines.

            Magazines for fully automatic weapons will fit in semi automatic weapons and vice versa unless the weapon is produced otherwise. external detachable magazines have no impact on the weapons operation. There were imported “post-pan” AKs from romania that had a stamped receiver with a thinner magazine well that would only accommodate 5 or 10 round single stack mags and, this is what I think you are trying to describe because they could be machined or if you were desperate dremeled out. However, it almost always results in poor magazine fitment and this practice was also illegal during the AWB.

          • Anonymous

            No you are incorrect. Czechloslovakia produced AK-47’s, as did Romania, and others during their tenure under the Soviets. You can call them what you wish. As you alluded, they were and continue to be dremeled out. I’m not going to find and provide a link for the Czech production of AK’s, it’s not necessary, you and I both know that they produced them, used them in Slovakia and Bosnia, had million of them left and modified them for sale in the US after the ban of 1994, and continue to be used for criminal activity today; semi or or illegally modified auto. As you mentioned, the AWB of 1994 doesn’t do us any good anymore does it? It addresses nothing any longer, it’s expired.

          • Anonymous

            You need to figure out the truth first before you start flapping your jaws!

          • Anonymous

            What is a full automatic clip?

          • Anonymous

            Poster has a bad case of greener pastures.

          • pbmann

            Reagan armed the Mudjahadeen, you know the forefathers of the Taliban and Osama, in the 1980’s. I guess he really knew what he was doing too.

          • Anonymous

            Insane? Not so fast. The only thing that prevented the axis powers from invading the U.S. during WWII was the knowledge that Americans are armed to the teeth. Google it. There are over 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens in America already. Which one did you want to control? Good old Walmart is selling assault rifles as fast as they can get their greedy little paws on them in anticipation of an impending return of the ban. Are you ready to admonish them for contributing to the problem?

          • Anonymous

            That is a myth propagated by the right wing nuts. The only thing that kept Japan and Germany from invading the US was their lack of manpower and equipment to launch a massive attack. Japan did in fact attack the US in the Aleutian Islands and Washington state, but because they were trying to get sufficient oil from Southeast Asia and did not have sufficient ships they could not launch a major attack here.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t think it was wing nut propaganda, it predated any of that. It was an actual plan discussed by the Germans and not followed through with due in part to a heavily armed citizenry.

          • Anonymous

            You will have to show me a reference, besides the right wing nut emails I get several times a year. The Germans were concerned with getting access to the oil through out Europe, and that is one of the reasons they invaded Russia. The Japanese were invading SE Asia for the same reasons. The Japanese simply did not have the manpower or ships to invade the continental US. They were more than willing to take on a well trained and equipped British, French and American military. Why would they be afraid of a disorganized bunch of farmers? It is common sense, besides historical fact, that none of the Axis had the means to attack the US in force.

          • Anonymous

            I never claimed they had the ability to do it. I claimed it was discussed and dropped, in part because every citizen in the U.S. would have been an armed combatant. I wouldn’t be so quick to discount a disorganized bunch of farmers. It was a disorganized bunch of farmers who threw out the British and enabled these conversations in the first place.

          • FELT

            My recollection was that the Russian front had twice as many Germans involved in it than were in France, Africa, etc. Here’s an account that I think underestimates the extent of the battle on the Eastern Front:

            “The war fought between Germany and the Soviet Union became the most dramatic and costly battlefront of World War II. The area was vast—extending for 1,490 miles (2,400 kilometres). The human cost was high as well: Germany lost an estimated 3.5 million lives, battle casualties or prisoners of war. But Germany felt the costs were justified in order to provide Lebensraum—living space for Germans, which was to be located in Eastern Europe and the USSR. Hitler envisioned an easy six-week campaign to conquer the Soviet Union. Instead, it turned into four years of bloodshed and misery. Germany was slowly defeated while the Soviet Union rebuilt itself.”

            We think ‘we’ won the war with Germany; in reality it was the USSR who ground them into a bitter retreat leaving little desire to invade either Britain or the U.S.

          • Anonymous

            There was a plan on the drawing board for the Japanese to attack Russia, leaving the US out of it. The decision was made to strike south and take SE Asia instead. OIl.

          • Anonymous

            It’s funny, but a disorganized bunch of farmers took on the most powerful military in the world. It was called the American Revolution. Whether true or not that Germany was deterred by an armed American populace (personally, I think it was the isolation by two oceans), if they had invaded, the partisan resistance would have been very intense, due to that very fact.

          • Anonymous

            How many tanks, airplanes, machine guns did the Red Coats have? How many Red Coats were willing to fight to the last man? Biiiig difference.

          • Bright

            They had equivalent arms of the day, something the citizens do not have now, but still allows for the protection of one’s life at a singular level.

          • Anonymous

            They had 1 shot muskets. How many soldiers can be killed with one shot? Their weaponry may have been equal on each side, but there is a huge difference between then and now as far as firepower. At least when someone had fired their one shot, they could be rushed before reloading.
            For the American citizens to have firepower equivalent to any advanced military today would mean having jets, tanks, drones, missiles, grenades, and nuclear weapons, etc. Not going to happen so it isn’t even part of the conversation.

          • Anonymous

            so what kept Switzerland from being invaded?

          • Anonymous

            First,
            A military equipped for defense, nearly 500k I think. An Air Force as modern as any and a plan for a war of attrition against any attacker that would dare the mountain passes.
            Secondly, Both the allies and the Axis stored many of their valuables there and used Switzerland for communication with each other. Not good policy to attack your bank.

          • Anonymous

            Why would the Germans invade Switzerland? They were storing their money there. The Swiss were cooperating with the Germans, as has been shown by the numerous lawsuits against the Swiss by descendents of Jewish families.

          • Oldfishergeek

            Another fugitive from American History 101 and middle school geography! Neither Japan nor Germany had the ships to invade the US.

          • Anonymous

            If they had taken the Carriers at Pearl, they could have made a good effort to. The Stateside Brass was a afraid of the possibility even then… before Midway.

          • Anonymous

            They have more violent crime though. Taking the guns away does not take away the violence. People still commit murder and suicide.

          • Anonymous

            Interesting that there are law enforcement officers in NJ schools and what they are there for. They already deal with violence and other crimes without someone coming in and threatening. There are a lot of other schools in this nation where the student population needs to be dealt with, with this kind of authority as they don’t respond well to the discipline that the administration try’s to enforce.

          • Anonymous

            Other cultures with no firearms allowed for it’s citizens, are getting hacked to death by death squads, and there children are being forced into being child soldiers.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            And your premise is that we are getting sicker and more violent only because of guns?

            That takes narrow-mindedness to a new level!

          • Anonymous

            Chris Christie lost all credibility when he embraced Obama!

          • Anonymous

            Really so in the sword days when Kahn went into villages and killed everyone men women and children, there were no guns, no videos, not tv, no internet, mass killing have been around as long as man has existed, they just use different means of killing, It is MAN that INVENTED KILLING not a object that can not think, who man people had been killed using chemicals over the years, bombs ect… In the 70s it was serial killings, today it’s school shootings, this is our reality, time to protect the kids.

          • Anonymous

            How many guns protect chris?

        • Anonymous

          how many shoot-outs in the OK Corral involved semi-autos?

          • Anonymous

            None. Good point. Go ahead. Start confiscating them all. Wear lots of Kevlar.

          • Anonymous

            oh calm down. I’m not advocating disarming America. You’re the one who used the term mass killing in the old west. Just want to keep the conversation on point.

          • Anonymous

            It is unreal. People go way overboard and get hysterical. Most people are not advocating taking away people’s guns (to protect themselves, hunting,etc.) Having guns in one’s home though guarantees nothing. Nancy Lanza had a mentally unstable son. All the guns in the world were not going to keep her safe.

          • Anonymous

            Disarming people also would not have kept her safe. If someone wants you dead there are numerous ways they can do it. Maine has some of the most bizarre murders I’ve ever heard of, and we have guns everywhere here. How would you explain that?

          • pbmann

            A gun makes a mass killing so much easier. Do you think that the Lanza kid would have been able to kill anyone without a gun?

            From news reports all you had to do was look at him and he would pee his pants and run away. The gun made him “brave” enough to go out in public by himself, no way he kills even one without a gun.

            I highly doubt any of the mass murderers would have had the guts or ability to kill anyone without their guns.

          • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            DIdn’t this last shooter wear a kevlar vest? Wonder where he got that? Maybe we should outlaw clothes so we can see the kevlar coming.

          • Bright

            How do semi automatics make the shootouts moe deadly. Revolvers shoot a single bullet with each trigger pull, just like sem-autos, and reloads can extremely quick with little practice. It’s mostly the cartridge that determines a weapons relative power.

          • pbmann

            A semi-automatic assault-style rifle can fire faster that a revolver because of design characteristics, plus a semi-auto can, and usually does have larger capacity for ammo, up to 100 rounds compared to 6 or 7 for a revolver.

        • Can’t beat em’ join em’? Well them step right up and head to walmart with me and buy some fresh from China junk. Everyone else is doing it. Can’t beat em’, join em’, right?

          No. Doing the right thing doesn’t mean following the mob. And yes, the hysteria in this country right now is resembling a mob.

          • Anonymous

            WalMart; Shop there today, work there tomorrow. Borrow money to pay your rent the day after that.

          • Hey, if we’re going to throw in the towel and throw up our hands, might as well go all in.

        • Anonymous

          Maybe some of us do not want to live in that kind of country…where everyone is armed. No thanks.

        • pbmann

          Gun control laws started in the wild west just because of the lawlessness caused by all the guns in everyone’s hands.

          If everyone having guns made everyone safe then why did gun control laws start in the first place?

      • Anonymous

        You are aware aren’t you that people can be shot from a distance where they neither see nor hear anything? Sorry if that scares people, but it is the truth. We need more good guys armed in case the bad guys get out of control; it really is as simple as that.

        • Anonymous

          We need fewer people being marketers( from Beck and Rush to all R members of Congress ) for the manufacturer of GUNS.We the people have HAD IT with these PEOPLE. They don’t get it and NEVER will . NEVER EVER VOTE Rs AGAIN !!!

          And if you have an NRA membership, and support sensible gun control—- over 64% DO , actively with draw your member ship and tell your congress person and tell them WHY!! The NRA give Gun owners a BAD name. I gave up my NRA membertship when Moses arrived and the NRA became more concerned about “rights’ then about safety.Tell the NRA NO MORE !!!

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            Thanks for admitting in public that you just don’t get it! We all pretty much expected as much, but you proved it!

          • Anonymous

            Amen!

          • Anonymous

            Your posting name is quite accurate!

          • Anonymous

            Your comments fit your screen name very well, and says it all.

          • nailer

            Pretty foolish comment!

          • Mainer

            Actually I agree with the NRA and will be signing up for a membership to support them.

          • Anonymous

            NRA was put together by the government.

        • Anonymous

          Why stop there? Put an armed guard in every classroom, on every school bus, on every field trip. Put an armed guard in every church and every movie theater. How about the local pool? The YMCA? The dog park?

          Where will the madness stop?

          • Anonymous

            I don’t want to see this either. I didn’t like seeing troops in the airports after 9/11. I didn’t like seeing police on virtually every corner when I went to NYC to watch a parade. But I don’t want my granddaughter murdered in school either. I don’t know what the in-between is.

          • Anonymous

            Agreed. But I do believe eliminating the “gun free Zone ” is a good start. I will leave open the question of “Is someone armed here or not?” That is enough, in some instances, to give these cowards pause.

          • Anonymous

            Home schooling, private schools, where she won’t get brainwashed by the government.
            I think it was 3rd grade when school started teaching us about Hilter. They went on and on about how horrible, he was, terrible things he got people to do for him, look at how they march and salute him and every little nit picking thing. I asked if everything they did was so awful, why do we stand with our hand over our heart and salute a flag, why do we go to wars, why do we march,why do we have to recite a saying, it’s no different then the Germans. The teacher told me to watch my mouth and my parents told me I was right. What is the difference? There won’t be any if the citizens can’t defend themselves.

          • Anonymous

            When liberal apologists stop defending the indefensible.

          • pbmann

            You mean like defending semi-automatic weapons designed just for killing people?

          • Anonymous

            Black powder and bolt action rifles were designed just for killing people too.

          • Anonymous

            What about the gangs? Statistics say they kill from 10-15,000 people each year. We don’t hear about this because a) we are used to hearing about these deaths and have grown fatigued to the news and b) they usually only occur 1 or 2 at a time and lack the impact of recent events.

          • Anonymous

            They are in the news as statistics along the border or in the inner city. They grab headlines when they set records as happened recently in Chicago.

          • Anonymous

            Just this year in Chicago, St Patrick’s Day 10 dead 40 shot, with one a 6 year old girl, about 3 weeks ago another 14 killed, no big headlines why?

          • Anonymous

            Probably because it has become the new normal in the cities. As the economy tanks, people get desperate and strike out. The concentration of people also contributes too. Usually there is collateral damage from multi shots fired by someone who isn’t a very good shot or by bullets traveling through the original target.

          • Anonymous

            it will stop with a gun free society and warm heart s towards one another

          • Anonymous

            No it will not, can you name one society that does not have mass killings, in any point of history, Hitler, Sadam, Syria, ect… Norway has strict gun laws and he still shot kids on an island. Before guns there were swords and mass killings, nice try, utopia does not exist, man invented killing not the weapon of choice.

          • Anonymous

            Compare apples to apples.How many mass killings does Norway have compared to the USA?Yes they happen but perhaps those “strict ” gunlaws have saved thousands of Norways’ citizens. I’m not advocating a total ban, just a common sense ban.

          • Bright

            One cannot compare singular items failing to look at the host of laws and freedoms their citizens enjoy or do not. What’s their crime rate? Is the need to protect one family much less? I’m betting yes.

          • Anonymous

            A nice, but unproven, theory!

          • it works so well in countrys whos people can’t have arms,300000 unarmed people in syria gun down by the goverment.2millon un armed people killed in iraq by the goverment.40000 unarmed people killed in china by the goverment.yes it works so well for the goverment when their people are unarmed,dosn’t work very well for the unarmed folks though.now thats madness.

          • Anonymous

            If one can find those same things happening in a truly democratric country, I”ll agree with you.The excuse that we all need guns to protect us from the government is the thing that feeds the NRA and the gun lobby.

          • Anonymous

            No its really statistical. Guns do protect people.

          • pbmann

            It’s really statistical, guns kill more innocent people than any other weapon.

          • Anonymous

            and whats the cause of most of that violence? Religion. Maybe we should outlaw that too?

          • Anonymous

            Amen! More people have been killed in the name of various religions that anything else!

          • pbmann

            Not religion but religious nutcases.

          • Anonymous

            I’d like to know the statistics on how many assault weapons have protect people vs. how many have been used in this country by civilains to kill innocent people.
            I can agree that guns may protect, but assault weapons & big clips are just plain overkill.. no pun intented.

          • Anonymous

            I understand thousands are slaughtered every year in backward places like Canada and Sweden because people aren’t allowed to carry assault weapons with which to defend themselves.

          • Anonymous

            Violence free.
            It starts at the top….you can’t have a President who uses drones to kill innocent children (100’s in some estimates) in sovereign nations while only killing 2% of the terrorist?

          • pbmann

            So were you protesting the use of drones when Bush was in office?

          • Anonymous

            Wrong, look whats happened with jobs gone….more crime, which by the way is the governments fault and greed. Look what happened in Russia, look what happened in Germany, Poland when their right to defend themselves was taken and the offer of welfare, no need to know how to take care of yourself, don’t bother getting up off the couch, they also got a trip to starvation, gulags and the gas chamber and were used for experiments for torture. Did you not learn anything about commnist in history class?
            My apologies to anyone who had to go through that, don’t mean to bring bad memories but people need to have reality thrown in their faces to wash away brainwashing by public government dictated schooling.

          • Mainer

            I’m sorry, but I disagree with that statement. Gun free society eh? Making drugs illegal really worked…

          • Anonymous

            We put them on planes and in airports, to protect private business, but leave kids unsafe I say it is priorities, where are yours, EMMC has guards, Federal buildings, courts. Lots of guns to protect Washington D.C. Lucky we are not Isreal where we have bombs going off every day, like on a bus, in a coffee shop, maybe the mall, This is our reality now and we waited too long to protect our schools because of you anti-gun people.

          • Anonymous

            I am not opposed to increased police presence in our schools. An additional tax on gun purchases could be a good way to pay for that.

            I am not anti-gun. I am, however, anti-stupidity. The stupidity in America right now is the kowtowing to the gun lobbies that think every problem can be solved by more and more firepower.

            Will the guards in schools be carrying assault weapons on a daily basis? Adolescent suburban gunmen who break into their mama’s gun closets shouldn’t be carrying them either.

          • Anonymous

            Truth be known, I don’t want to see armed police or military out and around anywhere unless they are called for a problem that the parties themselves cannot solve. They are not social workers!

          • Anonymous

            When the Government confiscates all guns, and citizens become subjects.

          • Anonymous

            Generally speaking most of these places already have armed individuals. We would be foolish not too.

          • nailer

            So what would you suggest?

        • Anonymous

          You remember columbine? I don’t think you do. They had a sheriff deputy in the school at the time of the shooting! Guess what he missed 4 times, did nothing to prevent the massacre. You think by the time a teacher gets the gun from the lock box, they will risk there lives to get killed and somehow how have the composure to kill the gunman?

          • Bright

            We know how not having anyone defending the children works.

        • pbmann

          This country already has more guns than any other country in teh world,many times over, and yet we still don’t have enough guns to feel/be safe?

          How does the Kool-aide taste?

      • Anonymous

        Yeah…..Columbine had an armed guard his name was Neil Gardner he was a Jefferson County Deputy…..that worked out well now didn’t it ?

      • Anonymous

        not yet…. taboo after taboo has been crossed. it’s just a matter of time..

      • Anonymous

        There ya go! Move the cop stations into the schools.

    • Anonymous

      Undercover Cops are not always readily identifiable. I have family members (in other states) who have infiltrated gangs for years in other parts of the country.

      Going undercover in a school is a day at the beach compared to other assignments. It’s not as if this has never been done. Large schools have had armed officers for years in many places over the years to deal with gang violence when it was merited. I have never heard of any one trying to knock over a police station, there must be a reasonable explanation for that. Even the Brady gang wasn’t crazy, just crooks. I do not believe they ever harmed a child. But armed officers stopped them. Imagine that.

    • Anonymous

      My high school had off duty cops with guns as security 37 years ago.

  • Anonymous

    This is a good input from NRA and should be considered in the discussions next year on curbing violence in USA

    • Anonymous

      Yep. More guns. That’s the answer.

  • Anonymous

    As if this wasn’t expected. That’s the best he’s got? Instead of keeping guns away from schools, his solution is: More guns?? What’s next? little 2nd grader Johnny getting pinned up against the wall because his book bag went through the metal detector and it pinged? Only to find out that it was an old fashioned stapler he was presenting to his teacher who is retiring after this year? Yup, just what we need, guns at our schools when we are trying to teach them life’s rules; such as respect others, be considerate, be active and enjoy life and learn. But, make sure you don’t bump into the cops 9mm on your way in…….cops don’t like people doing that. An ASSAULT weapon is not a defensive weapon, as categorized by: the US military, and the NRA. It’s design is not for defensive purpose……hence the name “assault”.

    • Anonymous

      I think he realizes that guns are already supposed to be kept away from schools, but since some people apparently don’t follow that rule, and instead go in and kill as many people as they can, we need to face reality and plan a line of defense. Another “law” isn’t going to stop the demented creatures that initiate these horrific events, nor will it keep guns out of their hands.

      • Anonymous

        Operative word “face reality”, there is no defensive, sport hunting uses for an assault weapon armed with clips that hold up to 60 bullets. If you have a hobby at a gun range, fine. But either the gun or the bullets stay there, under lock and key. Just as one poster indicated regarding fires and the sprinklers, what he didn’t mention was that that requirement was mandated prior to it becoming so effective.

        • Anonymous

          Thank you for making my point, entirely. Those mandates were put in place, and a child hasn’t been hurt since. Now, since we’ve created multiple, overlapping layers of security from fire in our schools, let’s talk about adding a layer of security to insulate children from violence.

          • Anonymous

            We’ve also regulated use of equipment and banned certain practices related to starting fires.

        • Anonymous

          Operative word “face reality”. How the heck do you enforce such rules as you propose in your comment? BTW, there are thousands of these types of weapons out there already, so how do you corral them?

          • Anonymous

            They are already tracked and monitored, right?

          • Anonymous

            What is tracked and monitored already?

          • FELT
          • Tom Brown III

            not in states that don’t require firearms registrations. All fire arms produced since 1968 can be traced to origin of sale via the form 4473 but some state allow for non-ffl transfers and a gun can change hands a few dozen times in the course of a decade, though usually at some point used guns end up in pawn shops or w/e and a new 4473 is done for it.

            You like so many other misinformed people are confusing semi-automatic rifles that have a cosmetic appearance to modern infantry and LE firearms with actual Select Fire assault rifles.

            The weapons you are thinking are tracked and monitored are banned from ownership under the 1934 NFA. Title 3 licenses can be granted after a length (up to 7 month) background check and review and a $200 non-refundable fee. Machine guns (fully automatic) produced since may 19th 1986 are completely banned for non-ffl transfer and can only be sold to military or LE organizations and all machine guns are banned from import. That means that all the pre-86 machine guns domestically produced or imported by that date are at a fixed supply. A simple ww2 era stamped el-cheapo sub machine gun goes for 5000-6000 dollars. A military issued m16a1 sells for around 16,000-18,000. since 1934 there have been 2 homicides with legally owned registered machine guns. One by a police officer and the other a retired police officer.

            There is around 240,000 title 3 guns registered with the ATF.

          • Anonymous

            If there are states with these gross loopholes, sounds like we need Federal regulation.

          • Tom Brown III

            I wouldn’t call private sales “gross loopholes”. Private sales are limited to state to state resident transfers, and it is the sellers responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to ensure they aren’t selling to a prohibited person.

            If you knowingly sell to a felon/prohibited person or straw purchase from them that is a state and federal offense. selling across state lines is also a federal offense.

            I would like to see some effort made to make private sales more accountable such as a civilian 4473 and use of the NICS system maybe for a fee per use. I guess if that is too costly or impractical then just have all private sales go through and FFL and madate they can only charge $20 or $25 fee and take no percentage or cut from the sale.

          • FELT

            ..

          • Anonymous

            Weapons have been banned in the past, such as the tommy gun. You collect them as you find them, you regulate the opportunity to purchase ammo for them, without the ammo, they are useless. Obviously enforcement is conducted by law enforcement such as the ATF, however, in the 1930’s, simple ideas such as incentive programs came into play; the government purchased the guns from individuals and gun stores/dealers. With these current assault weapons, you make the penalty so high for getting caught selling them, and make the risk so great, it wouldn’t be worth it. And lastly, as mentioned, a gun is useless without the proper ammo. All in all, it’s attrition……you are just making it much more difficult for mentally ill individuals, rage killers, gangs, and the drug interest to find and use them. Here’s an idea, we buy the guns from their owners, and, since we are the largest importer/exporter of weapons, we sell them to those countries who need them for their intended use…….war, we get the money back.

        • Anonymous

          As much of a control freak that you are, you will NEVER get rid of all the assault weapons out there today and your little pipe-dream of keeping guns ‘under lock and key’ is just that, a complete pipe dream

          • Anonymous

            While that is true, why shouldn’t we try to control the amount and who buys them? Why not pressure manufacturers as well? WIth this argument, you actually condone assault weapons and slaughtering innocent parties?

          • Anonymous

            How are the drug laws working out for you?

          • Anonymous

            You can’t grow an assault weapon in the closet.

          • Anonymous

            Actually the reason the last one was such a failure is because you people don’t know what sort of weapon it is you really want to ban. Even when you can define it you can’t get it to the point you want it because then you have to go after the hunters. Any one of us could kill as many small children or old people with a revolver as this guy did with his tricked out little gun.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, with the rise of 3D printing, you will soon be able to.

          • Anonymous

            I’m very pro death penalty, it cleans out the gene pool. We’ve wasted a lot of money in the drug war. I advocate a strike out rule and appeal limits for a wide array of activity – drug, alcohol, tobacco abuse. Child, spousal, elder and animal abuse. Thievery, extortion, sexual predators, chronic fraud, oh I could go on and on. If people took law seriously…..smile, you lie you die…..

          • FELT

            Why don’t you organize a protest at Saco Defense, owned by General Dynamics? They are one of the world’s leading makers of advanced weapons. Why not an on-line petition to get Obama to eliminate all gun purchases in the Defense Approp. bill? Obama is arming Arab Rebels left and right…stop him and reduce the weapons world wide.

          • Anonymous

            “There is clear evidence that tightening laws — even in highly individualistic countries with long traditions of gun ownership — can reduce gun violence. In Australia, after a 1996 ban on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons — a real ban, not like the one we enacted in 1994 with 600-plus exceptions — gun-related
            homicides dropped 59 percent over the next decade. The rate of suicide by firearm plummeted 65 percent. (Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of
            suicide.)”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

          • Anonymous

            And how would you propose to go about disarming 90 million law abiding gun owners of 200 million guns?

          • Anonymous

            I never said we should. Just ceasing the availabililty of assault rifles, and big clips, will save lives.

          • Anonymous

            So if some crazy shoots up a school with a Model 700 with a lets say 30 bullets at 5 at a time you’d be cool with that?

          • Anonymous

            You do dumb very well.

          • Anonymous

            Yup.
            But the pukes like the folks who bankroll Wayne LaPierre would have to forgoe some profit. And they’ll take profit overchildren’s lives, any time. That is who and what they are. Death merchants.

          • Anonymous

            Who (other than a makers or a dealer) really wishes to live in Wayne’s world, I wonder?

          • FELT

            Just like Sy. Stallone, and all those big hollywood backers of Obama who live off of films that glorify violence.

          • Anonymous

            The FBI even admitted that the 1994 ban had no measurable effect on violent crime.

          • Anonymous

            The obvious answer is that you have to start somewhere, and work toward the solution. Your question implies that because the task is difficult and will take time, we shouldn’t bother.
            I prefer action in the right direction over throwing my hands up and whining, “it’s hard”.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, indeed. It’s clear we’ll never conquer disease, yet who in their right minds advocate doing nothing to try?

          • FELT

            Start by storing all kids backpacks in a clearly visible public area; start by having random searches of them…oh wait, your ACLU will sue for a violation of privacy.

          • Anonymous

            Notice that almost all types of crime (without specifying the weapon) maintained their trends after the ban. So there was no drop in murders, assaults, or sexual assaults. Yet look how robbery spiked in ’95 to ’98 and only returned to its former level in 2004. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html

            And in the same span of time, all types of crime have decreased in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

          • Anonymous

            Bombs are banned. So are rocket launchers. How many deaths are attributed to them in US?

            If we ban assault rifles, it will decrease crime.

          • Anonymous

            You are saying that by eliminating a thing, people will not use that thing. While mostly true, you are ignoring substitution. Not drinking soda will not make someone skinny if they switch to fruit juice. You said it yourself, look at Australia. People don’t kill each other with semi-automatic handguns anymore. Where is the big dip in their homicide rate then? There is none. They still kill each other only with different weapons.

            This gun owning nation has had its violent crime rate plummet accross the board. Why isn’t Australia’s

          • Anonymous

            I’m pretty sure that Jack finds that the ban on RPG’s, probably even small nuclear devices are an infringement on his 2nd Amendment rights. I’m not sure, but I’ll wager that he doesn’t like the new fireworks law though. People could get hurt and stuff……

          • Anonymous

            Well, considering only the past year and a half, random rage, multiple homicides by firearms certainly hasn’t decreased now has it? So, we should let this “trend” just peter on out and everything will be a ok? I think that’s what the NRA is saying if you ask me.

          • Anonymous

            Why don’t you practice this theory yourself by placing a sign on your front lawn indicating your property is a gun free zone. LOL.

          • Anonymous

            Irrelevant. Laugh all you want.

          • Anonymous

            I think Obama should make the White House a “gun free zone”.

          • Anonymous

            Banning assault rifles with large capacity mags. will cut down on suicides?…..that rich.
            I’m thinking a large percentage of suicides involved a single shot.
            Of course if your advocating the confiscation of ALL firearms you might stop a few cowards from blowing their brains out.

          • Anonymous

            We’ll see Jacko, we’ll see. There was an assault weapons ban in 1994, but the NRA found the loop holes and it has since expired. Bet this time around, things will be different. You’re attitude is completely selfish, YOU want your guns, whatever they may be. It’s funny, In US V. Miller, the supreme court said that a sawed off shot gun is not protected by the 2nd amendment. A sawed off shotgun! Because it has no value other than criminal use. Sound familiar?

          • Anonymous

            The case presented against Miller was false. The government’s argument was that the second amendment was intended for citizens to bear the same kind of arms as the military. The argument against shotguns with a barrel length of less than 18 inches was that they were not a military weapon. However, that was not true, since the military was using short barreled shotguns in the civil war.

          • Anonymous

            This case was decided long after the civil war was fought, and sawed off shot guns are still not protected by the second amendment. Even the NRA, law enforcement, and the Supreme Court continue to recognize this Miller standard. So what you are saying is that all of those are wrong, and you are right; because sawed off shotguns were used in the Civil War, a war which saw thousands of different armaments being used, especially by the Confederacy, whose soldiers started out with their own guns. Moreover, after the onslaught of the 1930’s gangsters, most military type armaments were banned such as the “Tommy gun”, a gun that was used in WW1.

          • Anonymous

            The governments argument in the Miller case was that the second amendment only applied to military weapons, so it’s either one or the other. Also, prohibition era violence was caused by prohibition itself, not automatic weapons.

          • Anonymous

            Miller was convicted of a crime using a sawed off shot gun and the decision involved the National Firearms Act of 1939, which was the government’s response to the violence of the 1930’s. They had in possession guns that were banned, in the US. The law did not apply to military weapons at all. Google the case if you must, but I’m doing your research for you I guess. The 1939 law applied to fully automatic weapons and sawed off short barrel weapons. Google it……and read.

          • Anonymous

            You are so wrong. The case stems from the 1939 National Firearms Act. Which was in response to the turbulent 1930’s gangsters using fully automatic weapons and sawed off shot guns. Miller and his partner were facing charges against this law. The case had nothing to do with the military, nothing whatsoever. I’ll do your homework for you, though I didn’t use this link, it’s simplehttp://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newtown-massacre-bushmaster-223/story?id=18000884#.UNYYiW9QWSo

          • Anonymous

            In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

          • Anonymous

            If you want to think that go ahead. The Supreme Court’s decision solidified the fact that a military/war weapon, such as fully automatic rifles and sawed off shot guns, do not constitute a 2nd amendment guarantee, because, their usages, at the time were being used in a manner other than militia. Having that, there were no other usages for these weapons, other than war. The societies rights as a whole must outweigh the rights of an individual. If not, as the justices said, “we invite anarchy”….

          • Anonymous

            “The societies rights as a whole must outweigh the rights of an individual.”

            I guess that’s where we disagree. “Society” doesn’t have rights. Society is simply a group of individuals. By now, I know that whenever I hear about “society above the individual”, what I’m really hearing is less freedom and more government control. Tell me, would you like to live in a country where government could deem you speech “harmful to society” and have you censored? Once you allow “society” (government) to be of more importance than individual liberty, there is no stopping point.

          • Anonymous

            It has happened in other democratic countries and so is fully compatible with human nature.

        • Bright

          When the President’s security detail gives up their high capacity magazines and semi-automatic handguns, I’ll understand why the rest of us need to. Funny these politicians accept all the security in the world yet want to limit ours. Please don’t tell me common citizens aren’t victims of violent crimes.

          • Anonymous

            Guess why they need security. What plans do you have?

          • Anonymous

            He’s a Ted “gutless wonder” Nugent fan.

        • Anonymous

          What do you not understand about the fact that criminals do not care about the law? If they did, there would be no crime. Taking away more guns will not help anything, it will not prevent a school shooting or mass murder.

      • Anonymous

        Actually a strong case can be made that changing the laws to restrict access to guns would drastically reduce gun violence:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

        You don’t see any missile launcher deaths.

        • Anonymous

          ….. in the US. Yet. The population needs to be armed, in case of invasion or an out of control government. Read up on government takeovers and see what jumps out at you.

          • Anonymous

            There are no missile launcher deaths in the US because they are banned–even though there are plenty of gun nuts who want them.

            So, we should ban assault rifles and big clips.

          • Anonymous

            Hey Sprucie….

            ASSAULT WEAPONS are already banned in Connecticut!!

            Lots of help that law was.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/25/nyregion/connecticut-upholds-ban-on-weapons.html

          • Anonymous

            “There is clear evidence that tightening laws … can reduce gun violence. In Australia, after a 1996 ban on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons — a real ban, not like the one we enacted in 1994 with 600-plus exceptions — gun-related
            homicides dropped 59 percent over the next decade.”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

          • Anonymous

            You seem to think that foreign experience is somehow applicable here. Generally it isn’t.

          • Anonymous

            Foreign experience for anti-government action seems to be one of the main arguments from gun rights advocates for possessing these weapons. Sauce for the goose …

          • Anonymous

            I suppose it depends on the topic but generally social contract stuff doesn’t equate. In this case 300 million plus guns to regulate is kind of impossible as opposed to a smaller number in a less populated country with a different gun culture. A different view of government and its role.

          • Bright

            And home invasions skyrocketed.

          • Anonymous

            duh, unless they start going through checkpoints at state borders, only a national ban will work

          • Anonymous

            And last year the National Rampage Association fought the ban on 30 round magazines in Connecticut. How did that work out last week?

          • Anonymous

            Did they win?

          • Anonymous

            So how did the shooter’s Mom get one?

          • Anonymous

            So how did the shooter’s Mom get one?

          • Anonymous

            Obviously the law did not work. Duuh.

          • Anonymous

            tin foil hat on a litlte tight?

          • Anonymous

            And what are you contemplating?

          • Anonymous

            Nice try, Gopher. What I’m contemplating is a return of our Republic by those who took an oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

          • Anonymous

            In case of an invasion, I’d trust the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard over a bunch of paranoid gun-totin’ self-proclaimed militia members any day of the week.

            I am far less concerned about an “out of control government” (which we can simply constrain by civil means and vote out of office) than that wild-eyed militia.

            How much time do you spend fantasizing thousands of armed foreign troops flooding over the border from Mexico or Canada? Does your homegrown militia have some way to sight armies or navies or jets from thousands of miles away, before our own military can do so?

            Or are you one of the birthers who are wringing their hands over paranoid fantasies of President Obama sending jack-booted troops down the Main Street of your town? Guess what? To normal people it’s the gun fanatics who are the threat.

          • Anonymous

            Mexico has strong gun control laws which has left the population mostly disarmed and sitting ducks for the drug cartels. The police and ARMY cannot protect their own citizens.

          • Anonymous

            Liz, you are seriously uninformed and the way you wrote this post makes it appear that you are unaware of even that sad fact.

          • Anonymous

            Can you answer any of her questions? If you paid any attention at all to Liz’s past posts you would know she is very well informed.

          • Anonymous

            Liz, informed?! That’s a joke. I don’t know any “gun-totin” self-proclaimed militia members. Not one gun owner I know is worried about an armed invasion by a foreign power.

            She says she isn’t worried about an out-of-control government. That statement is ignorant on many levels. She talks about gun owner’s blood-thirsty fantasies. The only fantasy land is of her own making. She has no clue as to the meaning of the Constitution, the intentions of the Founding fathers, or the intent of the 2nd Amendment. In her world NRA members, and law-abiding gun owners in general, are blood thirsty scum who are responsible for every violent crime ever committed. Most are people just like her who want to live in peace, but understand that there are a lot of wicked people out there who don’t obey laws and are only deterred by one thing: force.

          • Anonymous

            Actually yes I could answer her questions, each with a 20 page term paper with footnotes. I don’t watch tv. I research and I read widely. The comments she directed at me could not be made if she did the same.

          • Anonymous

            During WW2, FDR signed an executive order to have Oriental Americans put into prison camps. The U.S. Government virtually exterminated many Native American tribes. The victims were not given a vote on this. How about the “Patriot” Act, NDAA, presidential kill lists, and Drones?

          • Anonymous

            That is the attitude and understanding level of sheep.

        • Anonymous

          guess you don’t pay much attention to what your twisted freak of a president does innocent women and children with his drones overseas do you…

          • Anonymous

            we know what your twisted freak of a president did, he started 2 wars

          • Anonymous

            You sound like the one who is twisted ,etc.

        • Anonymous

          But there is still murder.

      • Anonymous

        I think he’s just doing his job, trying to sell more guns.

    • Anonymous

      I would like to know what, specifically, makes this gun “for assault”. I ask because it is very subjective. Lawmakers try to define it and routinely fail. Really the only thing that they can agree on is that full-auto should be banned. Is it the telescoping or foldable stock? Let’s be honest, that’s a trivial piece of technology. You could strap a leg crutch to the side and achieve the effect. Besides, what of people who want collapsible guns for long treks when hunting? Is it the pistol grip or fore grip. Again, simple pieces that can be fashioned by a novice that are common on hunting rifles, particularly turkey guns. Perhaps high cap mags. A slightly more complicated piece but still just a box with a spring. And what is high capacity? 30? 15? 5? Regardless it is an arbitrary number which, in fairness, is common in our laws (speed limits, etc). Unfortunately, in a room full of children, reload time is not an issue. When defending yourself or your home, it is.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8 This video is useful for those less familiar with these types of firearms. My opinion on the whole thing is that his mother was a felon and is equally responsible for the crime. In Maine, you are required to keep your guns protected from strangers, minors, and the mentally impaired or you are complicit to their crimes. She allowed him to steal her guns making her a criminal. I am 100% for “gun control” if it means controlling your own firearms. The government already subsidizes trigger locks and cable locks. Perhaps they should start absorbing some of the cost of full safes.

      • Anonymous

        You sound like an addict, fascinated with his substance, and desperate to prevent someone from taking your drug away.

        • Anonymous

          What is wrong with understanding the details of different types of guns and their features and accessories? Wouldn’t you want someone knowledgable about all the aspects of a gun and what its potential is over someone who buys a gun for home protection only to shove it into a safe and never use it?

          You sound desperate to put down people who take the next step with the responsibility of gun ownership and actually educate themselves about their potential, dangers, and features. There is nothing wrong with his entusiasm and knowledge of guns.

          • Anonymous

            The poster says we can’t ban assault rifles because we can’t define “assault.” And then goes on to talk about jury-rigging massive clips, and having the government (tax-payer) pay for every American to have a gun safe.

          • Anonymous

            I think you are reading too much between the lines there. He is alluding to the fact that the media and lawmakers are going after essentially cosmetic features of guns they like to call ‘assault rifles’.

            The truth is that your average semi-automatic hunting rifle is a few cosmetic steps away from being the evil assault rifle that is being demonized right now.

            As for the gun safe, maybe he is going a little too far there, but at least he is proposing some sort of resolution over regulate and ban which will not stop crimes like this from happening.

          • Anonymous

            Exactly this^. I am explaining why it is meaningless to ban certain features. Essentially it is a “scary” weapons ban. Full-auto is banned. I get that. It is a meaningful difference from the standard auto-loading semi-automatic. Black paint and polymer parts do not make a gun more dangerous, only scarier.

            And yes, I was mostly kidding about a safe for everyone. Though I bet you would see home invasions drop off.

          • Bright

            Most home invasion tend to target drugs and cash, not guns. The problem with invading a house full of guns? It’s full of gun owners.

          • Anonymous

            No one said you can’t keep drugs, cash, or jewelry in a safe :)

          • Anonymous

            The knowledge is OK, the enthusiasm may be misdirected. Still no valid reason for large capacity clips.

          • Anonymous

            If Police need them for protecting the public, and if the Secret Service needs them for protecting politicians, why shouldn’t I have one to protect my family?

      • Anonymous

        Jeffrey Loughner was overcome by people when he had to stop and reload.

        • Bright

          Unlike nearly every other mass shooter, Loughner was only carrying one gun and in a very tight crowd. Thankfully insanity can be to the advantage of innocent people.

    • Tom Brown III

      show me where the us military categorizes an assault weapon? They define Assault rifles in a 1970’s intelligence document but those are select fire or automatic rifles. There is a significant difference.

    • Anonymous

      Just a quick note on your error in nomenclature.
      Law enforcement and the military do not refer to their side arms or shoulder weapons as “assault weapons”.
      The correct term is a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.
      The term assault weapon(s) was dreamed up by a band of anti-gun idiots just to make it sound menacing….demorats I believe.
      Just didn’t want you to make that error again.
      And as an afterthought, you comments are ridiculous.

    • Anonymous

      It was a gun-free zone. Guns were away from schools. Semi-auto AR 15s are not assault rifles. There is no difference in the way they operate than a semi auto 30.-.06, or semi-auto shotgun. They are 1 round fired/trigger pull.

      Most crime that occurs, if it involves a gun, doesn’t involve an AR/AK type gun; the criminal can’t afford them. Further, the media never mentions all of the crime/murder/rape that is prevented by guns. It doesn’t fit their agenda. If several teachers had a firearm at that school, or if there had been armed security, Adam Lanza’s gruesome plan would either 1) not have occurred, or 2) been cut short with far less damage. An article I read the other day quoted the FBI as saying that he chose the elementary school because it offered the least resistance, with the most destruction: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gunman-behavior-shootings-indicates-planning-control-former-fbi-180620270.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

    • Oreo

      When I lived in Orange County, FL (Orlando) all schools had armed Deputy Sheriff’s, known as resource officers.

    • “An ASSAULT weapon is not a defensive weapon”…Thats right! Thats why nobody uses them except for the military and a few Gubermint agencies!

    • Anonymous

      The Secret Service is charged with protecting government agents and their families, their chosen armaments being automatic rifles and carbines. It’s reasonable to think that the Secret Service would use the most effective tool for the job, and they chose “assault” rifles.

  • FELT


    Kindergarten Killers
    http://www.kindergartenkillers.com/“revisit your inner f-ed up child.” See us. Hear Us. Bite Us. Check out our public access tv show, Down on the Street. It currently airs on CCTV and SCAT.”

    The problem isn’t with the NRA it’s with the media.

    • Anonymous

      I can understand why your TV channel is called scat.

      • FELT

        sorry, not mine

  • Guest

    That would cost a lot of money to keep these people there on guard duty.
    It’s ridiculous, the NRA isn’t what it was once.

    • Anonymous

      and what value do you place on human life?

    • Anonymous

      You could hire part time security guards, such as two four hour shifts per day, and you could employ retired veterans and police officers, among others. These people have training and would not require any bennies. It can and, in my humble opinion, should be done.

      • Anonymous

        Define bennies. Benefits or drugs?

      • Guest

        IS the NRA paying?

      • FELT

        Still cheaper to move the school into the airport.

      • Anonymous

        They should let WalMart handle the school security. They could get it done for minimum wage, no bennies, no possible hope for a raise. WalMart: “We protect your kids for less”.

    • Anonymous

      Did the NRA say it was willing to pay for this program and take responsibility if something goes wrong?

  • Anonymous

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

    Guns stop guns. If this Assistant Principal had been allowed to carry within the school, there’s a chance he could have stopped this punk sooner.

    • FELT

      Just like they do with drug dealing?

      • Anonymous

        So, are you saying that the Bangor area Rite Aids made a mistake by hiring armed guards?

        • FELT

          Not really, but since you brought it up, RITE AID could have designed their pharmacy so that anyone entering it would first enter a security chamber where they would be video scanned with a hi res. camera…no hoodies, no ski masks…only when they were fully i.d.’ed would they be allowing into the pharmacy.

          D.C. liquor stores went through a decade of hold ups until they redesigned how people got in and out of the store.

          I would include a locking ‘parlor’ so the perp. would go through one door which would lock behind him and the outside door would also lock, trapping him/her in the ‘parlor’. No turn out the lights and wait for the police.

  • Lord Whiteman

    The NRA can spin this tragedy anyway they want but the only thing the gun industry cares about is money..

    • FELT

      It’s small change when compared to Hollywood’s profits from on-line gaming and violent films/TV shows…but then again, that’s where Obama got his Campaign warchest filled up.

      BTW….this is a stupid response from the NRA. Violent kids can easily be identified and sep. from the school community; periodic gate checks for weapons are a must and conducted by State police or the Nat. guard.

      Schools need a disarmament policy, not a weapons stockpile in the Principal’s office!

      • Anonymous

        What part of “a gun-free” zone don’t you understand? There was a disarmament policy. Worked out well, didn’t it?

        • FELT

          I’m in favor of ‘gun free zone’ signs that can be used as bullet shields…otherwise they are useless.

      • Lord Whiteman

        These children where not murdered by a video game or a move. They where murdered by the people who put a high powered assault weapon in the hands of a paranoid nut case.

        • FELT

          Aren’t you a “paranoid nut case” for calling a brilliant, yet troubled youth who has been treated by mental health specialists a “paranoid nut case”?

          • Lord Whiteman

            Personal insults. That’s your style?

  • Anonymous

    Went to a school in Southern Maine for an interview yesterday. Had flashbacks and PTSD just sitting in the principal’s office waiting for meeting. Could feel the stress of the staff, watching newly installed monitors as part of their job to protect the innocent. I was wondering why I was there? Not what I think a school should be about, police car outside, policeman with a dog walking around the perimeter during recess.

    I left teaching when they started discussing how to protect schools over ten years ago…I disagree with the hide and wait scenario. I have been in a hostage situation, I have been trained by the best in the world. I lived. You do not sit and wait to die. Every classroom should have a fire door that exits to the outside. People should have an opportunity to run for their lives, the idea is to get out and get help! Police need to know what is happening and witnesses that get out can help provide these details. Wooden doors do not stop bullets, they shoot through them. Sitting duck theory does not work. I left my job because I thought the people dictating this stupid policy had never been in my shoes. When a situation begins, a quick warning to flee to a predetermined spot works, you live to tell.

    I left teaching to give a young person a job, but they do not have the experiences I have had…sometimes instinct kicks in, I am sorry for the tragedy and admire those that tried. I just wish they had better training to deal with the unthinkable. I am unemployed and willing to work training personnel but administrators in Maine get big bucks to talk, talk, talk…they just never listen. As a former law enforcement officer I chose to be non-commissioned, when guns are involved it escalates the situation.

  • Anonymous

    Is the NRA going to PAY for all of this security?

  • Anonymous

    I applaud the NRA for coming forward and offering the training (free of charge) to any school who wishes to take part… We need all options on the table because banning guns is only goign to take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals will still have them, and still do bad things

  • Anonymous

    What has become of America?? Sad times………………………..

  • Anonymous

    NO WAY! GET THE GUNS OFF THE STREETS…. and, further enforce security requirements…Wayne LaPierre has been sniffing too much gun powder!

    • FELT

      So you support STOP n’ FRISK laws for streets and public area’s?

      The ACLU, NAACP, and other civil rights groups would like have a chat w/you.

    • FW

      Yes because we took drugs off the streets.. it works

  • Anonymous

    Most large city schools have larger police forces than Bangor does. I lived in Houston, in the Aldine area, right next to the school’s police station. They had patrol cars, the whole nine yards. They patrol around and in the schools. A very large force.

    If there had been a few people carrying a concealed gun, Adam Lanza would not have been nearly as destructive. Read an article the other day that quoted the FBI as saying that he really planned this out ahead of time, and chose an area where there would be the least resistance.

    • FW

      Well said…….

  • Anonymous

    This is the same response that the NRA has in every case of gun violence, more guns. Is this really the society we want to live in?
    Enforcement of existing gun laws, new curbs on military style weapons and ammo and closing of the gun show loophole would go a lot farther to protect everyone.
    Spending to help the mentally ill is a better use of tax dollars than stationing an armed guard at every school in the country.
    Besides a locked door didn’t stop this killer, all a guard would be is another target to shoot.

    • FELT

      This guy came from a wealthy family and they have most of the mental health advantages….he’s been ‘helped’ far more than most Americans….so who failed to protect us from his rampages?

  • Anonymous

    Glad to see that the NRA is not going to roll over.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like a huge taxpayer burden that will result in millions of more men with guns who could go on a rampage.

    The real solution is simple, as the research shows–pass effective gun control laws:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

    • FELT

      Yeah, like New York City or Connecticut’s.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for sharing but the article below would work. ie Dedicated federal tax on ammo ….etc……
      One Maine superintendent’s view: Congress should assign safety officers in public schools

  • Anonymous

    I am surprised the NRA didn’t suggest the arming of all the kids from 5 yr. old and up, then get bullet proof vests for everybody in the school system. How about building high walls around all schools and only kids are allowed inside? Can’t the NRA sit down and have an intelligent conversation about what is happening? Anybody with a half a brain knows that the guns and clips are not completely to blame, mental health, videos and I am sure a host of things are to blame but they (the NRA) doesn’t even want to answer questions or have a discussion. My guess is they have no answers but those that sound so foolish they would be laughed out of the discussion.

    I would love to hear from anybody as to why anybody other than the military or law enforcement needs a gun that fires more bullets per second than you can count and has a clip that hold 30 or more bullets. It certainly cannot be for hunting unless you want to wipe out a herd of deer or many animals at one time. I know when I was hunting two shots were about the limit time wise.

    As a former NRA member and Republican I would be ashamed to call myself either at this time in history.

    • Anonymous

      That’s right, blame the NRA. I don’t think Adam Lanza or his mother were NRA members. Adam Lanza was a nutjob who went off the deep end. He carefully planned out his actions, so as to inflict the most damage with the least resistance. He chose a gun-free elementary school. If someone there had a gun, things would probably be different.

      • Anonymous

        I suggest you read my post again and tell me if I blamed the NRA. If there were no such things as rapid fire assault weapons things would probably be different.
        I asked a question in my post I would be happy to hear your answer.

        • Anonymous

          Do you know that the so-called ‘rapid fire assault weapon’, the AR15/AK is no different for the end user than any semi-automatic firearm? It is 1 trigger pull/1 shot fired. Any double-action pistol, shotgun, or rifle works like that. A semi-auto shotgun, or large caliber rifle, or pistol, would be as, or more, destructive than the .223 round.

          The point is that once you realize that there isn’t much difference in how the AR operates than other guns, then you realize that a gun ban on AR15’s would have to be expanded to every pistol, revolver, semi-auto rifle and shotgun. Where would we draw the line? Further, how do you eliminate the 2-3 hundred million guns out there?

          You didn’t outright blame the NRA, but you said that you would be ashamed to be a member. Why is that? It seems to me it’s because you feel the NRA is largely responsible for the culture that allowed Adam Lanza to commit mass-murder, but maybe I’m wrong.

          • Anonymous

            I am ashamed to be a member of anything whose leaders refuse to sit down and have a open discussion about a problem that might be solved with a few changes. I personally feel that there should be back ground checks on any gun sold, would that have stopped this, the answer is no, but how many law men and women are shot by guns obtained at gun shows or over the internet? I don’t know but if it stopped one person from getting killed or maimed then I am for it. We as a nation need to take a long hard look at what we are doing, mental health issues need to be addressed, the use of these video games also need to be looked at. Ask your local police how they feel about the legality of these type of guns. You ask where it should stop, I ask the same question, should the purchase of missile, grenade or other types of launchers be legal?

            I really have no problem with people owning guns for their protection or hunting, I owned 3 different guns, but after lugging a friend of mine out of the woods with his head half blown off, accidently shot by another friend of mine, I decided to say good by to my guns and I have not owned one since, that was in 1963.

  • Big Brother

    This is so absurd, it would be laughable if not insulting. Every school district in Maine is cutting teachers, bus drivers and staff because of budget shortfalls yet we are going to suddenly be able to afford armed guards? I’m guessing the same people that would be for offering this unfunded service are the same people that think we should keep cutting taxes. You can’t have it both ways. If you want additional benefits you are going to have to come up with the cash. I’m thinking instead of a child tax credit, we could have a plain old child tax (say $1000 per child per year). If you have kids and want an armed SWAT team outside of their school from morning until night – you should pay for it.

  • Anonymous

    What more should one expect from this shill for the weapons industry. More weapons=more profits. Simple as that. These people have no soul.

  • Anonymous

    Well, that’s real helpful.

  • Tom Brown III

    legally purchased by his mother and illegally stolen from her after her murder at his hands.

    • FELT

      Are you saying women shouldn’t be able to buy guns?

  • Anonymous

    I can’t imagine having children go to a place that is so dangerous. Small neighborhood schools would be preferable to large sitting duck zones with armed guards.

    • Anonymous

      What happens if the armed guard gets ticked off because they didn’t get the raise in pay they needed or expected? Well, they would sure show their boss!!

      • Bright

        Because the same people don’t have guns at home now? I’m not for this stupid idea, but if you can’t have an intelligent conversation, you’ve lost.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s ask the cops what they think of this idea. Actually, their response has already been stated in the past. Arming civilians appalls them. But, go ahead and ask anyway.

    • Bright

      Don’t think that the police chiefs of a few metro cites speak for all cops, because it clearly is not true. I doubt any support arming teachers, but they certainly don’t all think disarming citizens is a good idea. Of course it would help them hire more union cops right?

  • Anonymous

    So, the NRA is suggesting that the United States be a police state. I am not suggesting we should do as this person thinks we should, however, is the NRA going to pay for all this armed guards at schools and other locations?

    • Anonymous

      funny union tsa agents are the darlings of the left.

      • FELT

        I can see all those backpacks getting scanned now; I bet the manuf. are readying a school model to be shown at the next meeting of the NEA.

    • Anonymous

      A police state is when the government tells you what you can and can’t do, where you can and can’t go, what you can and can’t say, what you can and can’t buy, and they start by taking guns away from citizens.

      • Anonymous

        I understand that fact, however, how long do you really think it would take to have armed guards everywhere — schools, businesses, government buildings, etc.? And, once that happens, I think we will be going down that road of no return with regard to our rights. Having arm guards is not a solution to the problem.

        • Anonymous

          How about getting rid of the TSA? Please.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, I agree with you. I believe the problem stems from a variety of issues, not the least of which starts in the home, but no one is interested in hearing that. Guns aren’t the problem, nor have they ever been.

  • Anonymous

    And pit bulls in every hallway..what a crock of crap.

  • Anonymous

    Is this “the ONION”? HMMMM.

  • Anonymous

    Hire retired, healthy, able bodied veterans to guard the schools! I would be glad to work a couple of day a week for even minimum wage just to protect the children. I know there are many more just like me who would do the same! Don’t underestimate the retired vets!

    • Anonymous

      What about retired postal workers?

    • Millicent

      only if they have mental health evals. Many of our men and women are coming back with PTSD and other issues.

  • Isaac Chroner

    i know i’ll take heat but i can take it…THIS SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT GUNS IT SHOULD BE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH

    • jerrymyx

      your comment is spot on…. and to add to your comment, violence in Hollywood, videos, TV shows, ect, guns are NOT the main issue! if sick people want to kill, they will find a way, one way or the other.

      • Anonymous

        So easily disproved. Other countries have violent movies and video games but not nearly so much gun violence. In Japan they are rabid over video games. Shooting each other, not so much.

        • FELT

          maybe we should have the
          Yakuza(well established Japanese criminal gangs) set up shop in every school to keep things safe?

        • Bright

          The issue is far more complex, the Japanese and many others still have a much deeper value of human life, family and such. The overall sets of laws and just plain shame is much more preventative than here where half of the gangs are run from prisons. When gangs offer American kids a better life than their parents you must wonder what happened.

    • Anonymous

      Since mental health AND guns are involved, it NEEDS to be about BOTH.

  • Anonymous

    If your kid is throwing rocks at my kid the answer is not to give my kid a rock to throw back.

    • Anonymous

      Teach your kid to stick out his tongue.

    • Anonymous

      Were it my kid, I would find him a bigger rock to throw back!!

    • Bright

      Yes, tell your kids to ask the other how he’s wronged him and ask if he can pay him to feel better about himself. Seems to be how liberals want to deal with bad people. Way to teach your kids to accept defeat at all costs.

  • Anonymous

    “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun”.
    Absolutely correct Mr. LaPierre, well said.

    • Anonymous

      Sounds nice………now back to reality.

      • Anonymous

        “Whereas, to prserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor dies it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a tryly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
        Federal Farmer, Antifederalist Letter

    • Anonymous

      For every complex problem, there is a simple, and wrong, solution.

  • Anonymous

    If you have armed security in every school in the nation, what are the chances that one of them shoots a kid?

    • Anonymous

      Exactly.

    • Bright

      What chance does the same kid have if the criminal shooter goes unchallenged? I don’t agree with arming all schools, but let’s not forget that no defense results in assured deaths versus a chance of survival.

  • Anonymous

    FROM RONALD REAGAN

    “This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety … While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
    “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
    “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.
    With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.
    “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”
    “Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control.”

    • Anonymous

      Ronald Reagan was a “liberal” by today’s standards. Sad, huh?

    • Bright

      Even Reagan appeared to not know what he was saying. Full Auto AK47’s were illegal before the 1994 ban and are today as well, outside of those with special ATF licenses and statistically these weapons have nearly a perfect record with regard to crime. This is why better registration and forced responsibility would work. Not to mention the statistics over the ban proved it had little to no effect on crime, merely denied law abiding American’s of specific choices, killed jobs and increased the value of those who owned those weapons no longer available.

  • Anonymous

    all the rabid defenders of the 2nd amendment claim to know what the founding fathers meant– well perhaps we should go back to single shot muzzle loaders since thats exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for guns back then.

    who of your family are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of the unlimited interpretation of the 2nd amendment as defined by the NRA?

    BTW , I have had guns all my life but unlike some I didn’t have to strap on my testicles when I strapped on my gun.

    the head of the NRA is a jerk

    • Anonymous

      The issue was not the type of weapons they had at the time, but the necessity of being able to defend themselves from an overbearing government. Remember that the freedoms we enjoy were paid for by men and women who were willing to stand, facing enormous odds, against the lawful government of the time. A ragtag group of motivated, though undisciplined, militia took on the most powerful army in the world. The King called them rebels, and it is still referred to over there as the American rebellion.

      You talk of sacrifice. If guns are sacrificed, you can kiss the rest of your rights good-bye. The 2nd amendment guarantees the rest. The Founders would have been considered ‘rabid’ defenders of their personal liberty. They actually had testicles.

  • Anonymous

    Just say they will be union jobs and support will materialize

    • Anonymous

      Ayn Rand lived on welfare.

  • Anonymous

    Putting armed guards in the schools! What’s next? Paintball practice instead of Dodge Ball.

    • FELT

      Open classrooms and more dodgeball practice….last step…nude students a la waldorf schools.

  • Anonymous

    As if some snoozing goober rent-a-cop with a pistol is going to stop a bad guy with an assault rifle

  • Anonymous

    Let’s see what the odds were on this outlook:

    A group that supports gun ownership thinks more gun will solve the gun problem.

    Ridiculous.

    • Bright

      Not all of us are that foolish. We don’t let the Hell’s Angels represent all motorcycle owners, please do not allow the NRA to speak for all firearms owners.

  • Anonymous

    Columbine had an armed guard. Did a lot of good didn’t it? Next we’ll need armed guards in every ice cream shop, hardware store, grocery store, etc. The National Rampage Association would like nothing better than to see the US become an armed camp.

    • jerrymyx

      yep, look at the stocks grow$$$$$ for eyeballs

  • Anonymous

    Home schooling is the answer……..and I think that you will see more of it. We have the technology…….and it is safer and cheaper than supporting massive school district costs.

    • We could become recluses and lock ourselves away from the world. That’s safer right?

      A country hiding in their homes, or hiding behind guns, I don’t know which is a worse idea, but they’re both terrible.

    • Anonymous

      It’s probably safer and cheaper than building communities as well, but is this sort of empty existence what we want?

    • Bright

      Yeah, we need more kids with no social skills, that’ll help! Lanza was mostly home-schooled after being unable to fit in at the public schools.

  • Anonymous

    Certainly, the NRA wouldn’t mind paying for all of this…….?

  • The demographic that is generally NRA is also generally anti-tax and for doing education on the cheap. Do they have any idea how much such an initiative will cost taxpayers?

    Ask yourselves – who would profit from such a policy? Would that mean more gun sales? More NRA courses? Sure it would. Mo money, mo money, mo money. That’s the name of the game with the NRA. Special interest profit.

  • Typical Lapierre “passing the buck” and blaming others. For a salary of 1million dollars a year, one would think that you could come up with a more reasonable response. I am totally against “arming schools and teachers.” This is “gun mentality.” However, if this insane idea ever comes to fruition, I would demand that all costs related to school security be paid fully by the NRA. This cost, of course, would be extremely high, but it would represent only a miniscule part of the NRA budget.

    • Anonymous

      We are guarding our pharmacy’s now.Are you saying drugs are more important than child safety.

      • Millicent

        “I don’t even know where to begin,” Steele said. “As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA, even though I’m not a member of the NRA, I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now, that are talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms. What does that say about us? And I do not believe that’s where the American people want to go. I do not believe that is the response that should be coming out of the tragedy in Newtown.” – Michael Steel fmr. RNC Chairman.

      • FW

        I don’t know why drugs are illegal, there are laws in place?

      • Anonymous

        Tax-payers aren’t footing the bill. You are trying to create a false conclusion.

    • Millicent

      makes me wonder which military contractor would get the job….Blackwater perhaps – things are winding down…these guys will need a job…the NRA is bat chit crazy.

      • Anonymous

        Private ary backed by the US millitary technogly, I’m sure there is work for them somewhere.. Maybe in the USA going house to house taking people guns.

      • Anonymous

        Cheney is licking his chops and drooling just thinking about it.

  • Anonymous

    What about trying to do something about mentally ill there is a problem there but I guess we ignore that .

    • FW

      Yes.. We focus on “clips” because they are really “Magazines”

  • FW

    Bigger signs the say “NO GUNS” … Because that works ..

  • Henderson bobby

    If every school had armed security schools would be less safe.

  • Henderson bobby

    Just who is going to pay from this?

  • Why shouldn’t a mentally ill attacker armed with any weapon be met at the door of a school with overwhelming force?

    • Anonymous

      You gonna pay for this?

  • Anonymous

    the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. that says it all

  • viktorMK

    Of course what would we expect from the NRA? Your absolutely correct rusjan, Their mentality is more guns on top of guns, who needs an assault weapon? They need to be removed from every place that sells them. I have seen someone who was totally unstable carrying a gun but the law says as long as its not concealed they can, that law needs to be changed, who are we protecting anyways?

    On the assault issue it will be hard to find out where they are all today, if stiffer laws had been in place perhaps there would not be as many out there on the streets and in the hands of unstable minds. Things need to be changed in Washington with the powerful NRA and the Conservatives.

  • Anonymous

    The media caused this tragedy? So weak it can’t stand. As for the armed guard proposal, who’s going to fund it? On another string, someone proposed funding the guards with a tax on guns and ammunition. A gun rights pointed out that this would be underfunded by a billion or so. i suggested that the NRA fund the difference. Of course i was “shouted down”. No matter, I still advocate it. You propose it, you fund it.

    Interesting. 2nd amendment/gun rights advocates are probably also advocates of less government and protection against a police state. Guess what this proposal fosters.

    • Bright

      The media is as complicit in this as guns or mental health. These whack jobs are all relative no-bodies looking to make their name known before they leave this world and the media puts them on the Marquee every time. They all seem to try and outdo the last.

  • Anonymous

    Okay fine NRA, let’s pay for it with a tax on ammunition and guns. And let’s put 5 officers in every school.

  • Anonymous

    The police cannot afford to take officers off regular duty and station them at every school and the town or city cannot afford to pay for it.

  • Anonymous

    On reading this, the ghost of Christmas past that flashed into view was the children of Little Rock, Arkansas who, in order to get a fair and equal education and protection from their fellow citizens, needed milltary escort to their own schoolhouse. Now it’s recommended that our schoolhouse become fortresses of a sort. Should razor wire and moats come next? How medieval can we get, what with increasingly gated commmunities for those who can afford them and similar barricaded safe islands in a sea of growing disorder and probable vigilantism? Is this the direction we’re headed? Does anyone else despair at the notion of an entire nation consumed by gun culture? It is easy to pass this off as a hallucinatory Christmas future, but is it?

  • Anonymous

    OK, armed guards in every classroom in Maine, and holstered weapons on every teacher, principal, and student over age 10, complete with 100 hours mandated training per year. The NRA and weapons manufacturers will pay for it.

    How many taxpayers would cheerfully foot that bill? Raise your hands, please…. Hmm. Still waiting.

  • Anonymous

    And the NRA’s solution is…….turn the US into an armed camp, worse than the Soviet Bloc ever was.
    This felllow is the textbook definition of a POS.
    Anyone immoral or dumb enough to take him seriously should take a long look in the mirror. What you see staring back at you is a wholly inadequate human being.

  • Anonymous

    The one time the NRA has a chance to win over the general public with some smart ideas and they come back with the same old line, More Guns! What a bunch of idiots. Just a few simple changes in the laws and everyone would have been happy.

  • Anonymous

    “Head of NRA calls for armed security at every school in the nation”

    Of course they do because they are NOTHING but a marketing arm of the manufacturers.

    Any one who falls for that is a total and complete fool.

    PS Most of congress are total fools and as equally BOUGHT as the NRA “Serving America and the people” got lost LONG ago by $$$’s.

    IF Congress does NOT do the people’s bidding after THIS last massacre; then they should ALL be recalled!!

  • Anonymous

    The guards comment was the solution using the far gun-rights side argument, the ban guns is the solution for the anti-gun crowd. Neither of those options are truly feasible. We don’t want to have kids feeling like they need a police officer wherever they are just to be safe. Banning guns will not prevent people with bad intentions from doing what they want. Guns are just one option for someone who wants to inflict casualties.

    The real question is why are these shootings happening in the first place. Ordinary Americans don’t just pick up a gun and suddenly decide to go shoot up a public area. Ordinary people also have the right to protect themselves, and a gun is typically as good, if not better than the weapon an attacker may have. I don’t believe violent movies and games directly cause someone to become a killer, but I believe that unstable individuals would be fueled by the messages that they see.

    But most of all, when someone is suicidal, don’t let the media post their name and make them famous for terrible acts. For some potential killers, it’s a goal to achieve, with such low value for their own life and the lives of others, making a mark on history makes shortening their lives worthwhile.

    • Easy answer.This country is taking God out of everything is why.

      • Anonymous

        The two g’s huh? God and guns. Yeah right.

        PEACE ON EARTH.

        • Bright

          Only one of these can help truly protect you. The proof can be held in your hands.

  • Anonymous

    The one developed country with the least effective gun laws, with the highest firearm related death rate (more than double Canada’s rate) and yet the NRA claims that gun ownership prevents killing? Can these guys even think straight?

    • Bright

      Clearly, few if any countries are comparable to the US. While we enjoy so many freedoms other do not, this also means we’re less likely to detect issues or patterns. Many other countries, such as Canada allow guilt by association or at least databasing of such. Others are less free to allow violent video games, freedom of expression to the point of hate speech and inciting violence. Few other allow illegal immigration to become such a huge problem. The good and bad make us a one off of nearly any other country. Our issues are far to complex to lay the blame at any one pair of feet and to harsh not to work on unilaterally. We can’t all have it our way, it’s time to work on a solution together or deepen our divide.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah…….so much freedom that we want armed guards everywhere…….that’s the ticket!

        • Bright

          I’m not a supported of that silliness, but taking polar opposite views like nearly everything else in the US right ow will have the same result- NO PROGRESS. Commit to rational discussion, hear other points of view, make compromises, ensure improvement.

    • Anonymous

      Follow the money.

  • Anonymous

    Step by step, we’re headed for a cliff dilemma, perhaps, but it isn’t a fiscal one. It’s far more basic than that – a matter of our lizard brains taking us over the edge, or our critical brains pulling us up short of the precipice.

  • All of you liberal anti-gun nuts need to stand by your convictions and hang a sign on your home stating that your home is a gun free house!
    Lets see how long before you get robbed or worse….but youll have 9-1-1 is just a twenty-five minute phone call away!

    • Anonymous

      No one is against guns. It is about ASSAULT WEAPONS AND MAGAZINES. If you are not in the military why do you need these? Oh…. it’s the jollies isn’t it.

      • Bright

        Clearly you fail to understand firearms, it’s too bad to be so outspoken and so misinformed. Your misinformed ideas makes you look like a clown to anyone who understands firearms.

        • Anonymous

          Get over yourself. I grew up with hunters and GUNS not WEAPONS. You dim one are the misinformed.

          • Bright

            Then explain for us what an assault weapon is? And how it differs from my 30/30 lever action or bolt action hunting rifle? Those very few people who own true military weapons outside the military or police have a near perfect record of safe ownership without crime, so it must be something else you’re talking about. Of course as a typical fear monger you won’t let facts get in the way of your story.

    • State your convictions on a lawn sign Bill, and I think you’d see a lot less children around and get a lot of sideways looks. That is if they aren’t already aware of what a fruitcake you are.

  • Anonymous

    National gun control won’t work, and neither will bans on certain ones. All that will do is create a black market for them. Once these kinds of weapons are banned criminals will still have them, and they will trade in them. These weapons will become as hot an item to deal in as drugs. This issue has to be addressed and enforced at the state level. What will work for Maine will not work in New York. The country is to big and the issue to wide spread. The problem is and always will be that any law will only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals will still be criminal not matter what the law forbids. All gun laws do is make us feel like we’re doing something about the problem. Now… don’t get me wrong, there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But on the flip side, I own several weapons, none of them assault type. And I don’t want to see it become almost impossible for law aiding citizens to buy and own a gun. Canada has strict gun laws, and I can tell you as a half Canadian that there are A LOT more weapons hidden in people’s houses than their government likes to admit. There is a thriving black market in unregistered guns, sold for cash with no paper trail. The last time I talked to a Mountie friend of mine, he told me that their government was relaxing their gun laws some. Why you ask? Because they do not have the man power, the money, or the means to enforce the laws. We would be in the same mess. The old saying, a locked door only stops an honest person applies well here.

  • Anonymous

    so the right, who is tight with a penney ,is willing to spend taxpyers $$$ to PAY for police on site, rather then the more appropriate and NO cost response of banning assault weapons and multi load clips / magazines?? INSANE!! The right is totally INSANE or think we are.!!!

  • Anonymous

    I taught school for thirty years. I wanted to teach school. I didn’t want to be a social worker or a cop or a security guard…I wanted to teach school. And remember….not every teacher is Mr. Chips.

    • FELT

      AMEN.

  • Ben Hutchins

    Ah, the NRA. Proudly making people who don’t have guns think those of us who do have them must all be right-wing psychos since 1871.

    • Bright

      This is why I’ve legally owned guns my whole life and never been a member.

  • Anonymous

    Honestly I think it would be the only way to quickly make a difference. If you want to stop a gunmen you need guns. How to best do it offers many possibilities. I don’t know how many times people have to learn gun free zone signs are not magic sheilds. How many children died in those precious seconds between the 911 call and police arriving. Think about it. How few would have died if the janitors were all retired police and packing a concealed weapon. He would not have killed half as many as he did, if the he didn’t choose a different target altogether.

  • Anonymous

    First instill fear, Then make laws that take away people rights..Sort of like the patriot act.

  • Anonymous

    What else would you expect Lapierre suggest? That the only way to protect our children from bad guy with guns would be to control the numbers and types of guns that are available? That common sense would cut into the income of he and his supporters. His suggestion is to recommend that we throw gasoline on the fire to put it out?

    How about the suggestion that gun makers, sellers and owners be strictly liable for the consequences of their product? That measure would respect the rights of responsible owners to own guns while while holding the makers responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the use of their product. Given the suicides and the mass murdering in our history, who in their right mind could not foresee more deaths caused by mentally deranged people with guns? Frankly, Lapierre’s assertion that the only way to protect our children from bad guys with guns is more guns is tantamount to a legal admission that more such gun violence is foreseeable.

    • General Motors should be liable for all deaths in their vehicles too!

  • Anonymous

    So using the NRA’s mentality…..if a kid has a rock and goes around hitting all the other kids at recess…..the clear answer is to give all the other kids rocks….makes perfect sense.

    • I bet that kid doesnt throw his rock! Unless of course the kid is MENTALLY ILL. In that case the kid doesnt belong in public school to begin with!

      • Anonymous

        If NONE of the kids had rocks there would be NO question period and you wouldn’t have to ‘bet’ that the kid doesn’t throw his rock. Newsflash Billy it’s not against the law to be mentally ill- anymore than it is to be ill from any other disease.

        • It is against the law for mentally ill to have a weapon!

          • Anonymous

            Since when? Like you said they will get them somewhere. And Maine is one of the lworse states about sharing mental health/crimes with registering guns.

          • Anonymous

            You’re right – All you have to do is shop in Uncle Henry’s or go to a gun show- no checks no nothing and you get a gun…..blue paper or not.

          • Bright

            Most reasonable gun owners agree with closing this loophole, yet another reason I refuse membership to the NRA.

          • Bright

            No because we’re more worried about offending those who are mentally ill than stopping violence. It’s simple, you want a gun, submit an application availing the ATF to your mental health records, the gun dealer gets a simple yes or no. No actual health records read, just if this box was checked, you don’t qualify, much like the felon status or those who’ve committed acts of domestic violence. All guns get registered, gun owners are held responsible for their guns. Guns stolen within reasonable time frames of being found to be missing are listed, those who report their guns stolen months later are charged with a crime for failure to ensure their security. These are positive yet reasonable measures.

          • Anonymous

            Yes agree and that is a problem that we need to keep mental crimes silent. This country is screwed up but the nee to own an assault weapon or magazine is sickening and defeatist.

          • Bright

            This is not why anyone needs to own anything. How does a law abiding citizen owning a Bushmaster rifle and 30 round magazines harm anyone. Statistically it is a happening all the time in the tens of thousands without incident. These firearms do are inanimate objects that must be used by evil people to harm anyone.

          • Anonymous

            No records read…well somebody has to read the records in order to determine if the person’s illness qualifies or not. Do you really think anyone with a possible mental health issue would seek out treatment when they know their confidential medical records would be possibly scrutinized by a governmental agency…Ummmm no they wouldn’t get treatment and then what do you think may happen NOTHING GOOD. and then who decides which mental health illnesses would qualify ? People with seasonal affective disorder ? Mild depression ? Eating disorders ? Body dismorphic disorders ? Autism ? Encopresis ? Personality disorders ? Which ? whats the criteria ? What’s the legal justification ? So you will penalize someone with a medical illness for what they MIGHT do ? So if that’s your point then anyone who has any kind of ETOH issue or treatment for ETOH should not ever be able to own or drive a car- regardless of whether or not they have ever had an OUI or not…but just going on what they MIGHT do. That’s not remotely rational or legally going to happen.

          • Bright

            Well it appears you’ve given up on anything but removing all firearms? There are already defined cases that require denial in other states. You can say certain types of weapons, but I can almost guarantee you that 95% of hunting rifles common in trucks during deer season are more deadly, more accurate and capable of longer ranges than the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle. Do you think a person intent on killing many innocent people cannot find another way? Oklahoma City, Olympic Park, London?

          • Anonymous

            Your comparing apples and oranges……we don’t have 11,000 people killed in this country every year due to bombings we have 11,000 people killed every year due to guns. Think you can go into any store and purchase some C4 explosive? No you can’t and WHY is that? Because it is tightly regulated and controlled. You must be a licensed demolitions expert, which requires a considerable amount of training and an extensive legal vetting (and, lots of paperwork). Try again.

          • Bright

            So these people won’t find another way? Do you think the guns make them crazy? Does a drug addict go without or take something else when his/her drug of choice isn’t available? If you think anyone today can’t find how to make a bomb, you might want to stand erect and shake the sand out. keep up the gun hysteria and ignoring simple logic, it’s worked so far.

          • Anonymous

            No it’s not genius….in this state if you have been blue papered you can not purchase a gun for 5 years post blue paper event and then you can other than that ANYONE can buy a gun……after all it’s their second Amendment right just like it is yours. Try again and get your ‘facts’ straight.

          • Anonymous

            Bill=facts straight? Wow. Good luck.

          • You say you have them…so…

        • Bright

          And how did we get to the point there were no rocks?

          • Anonymous

            Really ? THAT’s your response after 26 people were murdered this last week ? Not so bright bright try again when you actually have something of substance to offer.

          • Bright

            Wow, guess you need to have it spelled out for you. How do you think we’ll get to the point where no one in the US has guns? Is this a reality to you? Funny as soon as someone interject reason into your silly analogy you try and jump back to the actual issue. It’s people on both sides of this issue that take extreme views that ensure we’ll not take any steps toward preventing further tragedies. That includes you peace pipe toking Utopians.

          • Anonymous

            Did I say ANYTHING about people not having any guns at all ? NO. Don’t be so obtuse and hysterical. Why does anyone need an assault rifle ? To shoot 45 deer or 45 moose or 45 bear at one time ? No it’s to shoot 45 people at one time and that’s the ONLY reason. We need to R E G U L A T E certain types of guns no one is saying that all guns be need to be banned. Stick with rocks you’d be scary with an actual weapon.

          • Bright

            I have plenty of actual weapons and no one has anything to fear from me, unless they intend on putting my family in harms way. You clearly do not understand basic firearms ballistics and won’t listen at all to reasonable answers. Again, like so many others, you are part of the problem just like your polar opposites in the NRA. Failure to rationally discuss and understand both sides will result in zero progress.

          • Bright

            Hysterical and obtuse, really? What do you consider an assault rifle? Please give us a definition so we can rationally debate the merit of the firearms you indicate no one needs.

          • Anonymous

            Seriously? If you’re too lazy to educate yourself I suggest you look up the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act which clearly defines what the criteria of an assault weapon comprises. Duh.

          • Anonymous

            BS another fanatical response.

          • Bright

            So anyone who disagrees with you is a fanatic? This is the problem with this country now, no one wants to even remotely listen to the other side. Your all or nothing view will not get you anywhere, much like the NRA’s foolish ideas on the subject.

      • Anonymous

        That is a pathetic answer. especially when we wonder about you and your comments. It also speaks of needing to stop cutting the funding for mental health care.

  • Anonymous

    i won’t even give this article the time of day it would take to read this view. IT seems to be saying if we eliminate all the people these guns will not be a problem?

  • The History of Gun Control
    *Soviet Union established gun
    control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
    defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    *Turkey established
    gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    *China established gun
    control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians,
    political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were
    rounded up and exterminated.

    *Germany established gun control in 1938.
    From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other
    “mongrelized peoples,” unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    *Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
    1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    *Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979
    300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    *Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
    1977 1 million “educated people,” unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
    and executed.

    That amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who
    were slaughtered by their own governments – governments that had first rendered
    their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms.

    A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be
    gangster or criminal. An disarmed man does not.

    • Anonymous

      Then join the lmilitary.

      • I have! Done my military duty now doing my citizen duty! Protecting the Constitution from moonbatts who want to destroy it once again!

        • Anonymous

          Hmm maybe a visit to the VA is in order.

          • I will always use my second amendment right to defend your first amendment right to insult me and my military service!

          • Anonymous

            whatever Bill. Use some excuse instead of personal responsibility.

    • Anonymous

      and you really believe this crap , that’s the REALLY scary part.

      • Yes, I do believe what history has to teach!

  • Anonymous

    Obama is creating this fear by preventing the true story of the school shooting from getting out, The shooter used pistols, the rifle was found in the car unfired. Why is he hiding this truth and surpressing the evidence in the case, To get the people to cry for gun control.. It will come out after the holidays. Obama wants it done right off before he releases the report that is why he put a rush on it.. Yet it has been proven time and time again that people are easily led, testing my ability to repeat myself.. It is safer to hang out at school then to drive a car or bus to the school

    • Ya that Obama is coming for your guns. Better be ready.

    • Anonymous

      BS.

    • Anonymous

      You’re baked.

    • Bright

      Clearly if this was true it’d be a huge deal, as I’ve asked before, please cite a source for this.

    • Anonymous

      too much time on black back grounded websites pushing conspiracy theories???..are you posting from that fantasy concentration camp they told you Obama was going to create( but didn’t )?

    • Anonymous

      Our president authorizes the use of drones which have killed many innocent babies. How much does a drone cost with missiles? And people are more worried about the cost of protecting our babies in schools?

  • Anonymous

    The constitution gives the right to beer arms? Does this mean every drone in America has the right to defend itself. This arms race will make the last cold war seem minor. Every family will have to have an air force just to send their kids to school?

    • Anonymous

      Beer or guns……

  • Maybe now, with the disarming of America by the liberals…Obama can get that “Civilian National Security Force” He wanted so badly!

    Remember when he said…”We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/11/flashback_obama_wants_civilian_national_security_force.html#ixzz2Fj6BLaJt

  • Anonymous

    Pathetic and a cop out.

    • Anonymous

      Solving the problem no matter what weapon a whackjob chooses vs just making them choose a different one. Banning any type of gun is like trying to pump air into a tire with a hole in it. You need to patch it first. China has shown that wackos will use a machete. Replacing one type of violenceot. With a different one doesn’t solve anything.

  • Anonymous

    When is this country going to realize that this has nothing about taking your guns away. It has to do with assault weapons.

    • But we dont have Assault Weapons!

      • Anonymous

        Then you are all set Billy.

        • I know!

          • Anonymous

            Don’t leave the bunker.

          • Bright

            Rox doesn’t even suspect nothin.

  • Anonymous

    Wayne LaPierre demonstrates that he has gone ’round the bend. So his solution is to put more armed “police” everywhere so we will all be safe? why don’t we put armed vigilantes in all movie theaters and churches?

    Time for a FACT and REALITY CHECK: the problem is notsolely guns, the problem is not solely criminals having illegal weapons, and the problem is not solely about access to mental health care; the PROBLEM is about a culture that WORSHIPS at the altar of the NRA; a society that believes that violence is the way to solve all problems, real and imagined, large and small; a society that thinks violence is an acceptable form of entertainment; a society that believes it is acceptable for politicians of any stripe to declare that they will invoke “Second Amendment remedies” or foment “armed revolution” if they lose the election or don’t get their way with Congress; a society that believes the solution to gun violence is, of course, more guns. When, and if, people are willing to sit down and PUT IT ALL ON THE TABLE and have a REAL discussion, then, and only then, will we begin to see an improvement in our society and an end to needless bloodshed.

    • Anonymous

      and to think it took them a week “to think that one up “!!

  • Anonymous

    While the NRA press conference was going on, one bad guy with a gun shot at least two good guys with guns and seven others, killing at least four-in PA

    The NRA wants to put guns in every school in the country for security. In other news, the American Restaurant Association wants to put fast food outlets in every school to solve the childhood obesity problem

  • Anonymous

    I think this is a good idea. Not a cure-all, but a real approach to increase security. But why not have gun control too? Together, these things might actually work.

  • Lazerus Phoenix

    Picked up my assault rifle to day! Thank you obama and all you Leftists for proving to me the need for one!

    Normally I never would have bought one, but thanks to you I did!

    Well done!

    • Anonymous

      You want a cookie?

  • Anonymous

    There is a school of thought that claims to show the absurdity of an argument by carrying it out to its ultimate absurdity. The NRA has just done this to the right to bear arms. This school of thought doesn’t have to be protected by armed guards.

  • Anonymous

    The predictions were correct; if LaPierre gets his way, this is the end of the world as we know it. Of all the possible responses, LaPierre’s is far beyond anything I could have imagined. Further saddened by seeing how many people voted in agreement.

    • Anonymous

      Agree. So instead of funding for mental health and banning of assault weapons we want our children to go to school in an armed bunker. Pathetic

  • Anonymous

    Yeh, I know I’ll never get the information, but would be SO curious to know how many people who are now saying “this is a GREAT idea” are the same ones who were damning the NRA to hades a few days ago. :D

    • Anonymous

      I thought Libertarians are about smaller government. We will be making schools battlegrounds and bunkers. Pathetic.

    • Anonymous

      not many…

  • Anonymous

    This clown should top the list of DENIED background checks

  • Just renewed my NRA membership!

    • Anonymous

      Sucker.

      • Anonymous

        He doesn’t even realize.

      • FW

        Joe I just made a $100 donation to the NRA in your name thanks..

        • maineiac123

          Just another sucker.

          • FW

            Very well thought out statement. You must be an educated person.

  • All schools should be “Gun Free Zones” …that way no criminal or mentally ill person will take a gun there!…

  • Anonymous

    Columbine High school had an armed guard his name was Neil Gardner he was a Jefferson County Deputy and we all see how well THAT worked out didn’t we???

    • Anonymous

      and then there was Fort Hood (you know….. a military base) and Virginia Tech which had their own police department.

      • Bright

        Both cases and many more are proof that relying on someone else for you or your familys’ safety is foolhardy. As you say, Ft. Hood and V Tech had nearly on site law enforcement and still ended up with many dead. I guess as a law abiding American I should be allowed to defend myself as it appears we can’t rely on others.

  • Anonymous

    I understand the recent events have caused panic among adults but is it really necessary to cause fear to become a part of our children’s day to day lives? I can not even imagine the psychological repercussions of asking our children to live in a known hostile environment every day.

    • Anonymous

      The true problem is, that Fear really is a part of our children’s day to day lives. Whether it’s going to school and having tragedies like this happen, or walking down the street and being abducted, the world has grown to be a very cruel place for our children. In this state alone when you see how often pedophiles and sexual assualt against children go nearly unpunished, it makes you cringe to even think of. I worry for the future generations of this and other countries. I wonder how long it will be before everything is guarded and people have to have scan codes to get into places that the public go. I Fear we are not that far away from such a thing.

  • Superuser23

    Great idea! Who is paying for it? Ahh right…the NRA isn’t so they want someone else to pay for other people to get shot….brilliant.

  • Anonymous

    When gun nuts write gun laws, nuts have guns.

  • Anonymous

    Yep, let’s put guard towers around all our schools with snipers in the towers. Razor wire over chainlink fences with a riprap barrier around all our schools. We can hire undocumented workers to do all the labor. The NRA would gladly supply the security guards to oversee the labor.
    We won’t be spending any money on silly psychatric hospitals or services. Can’t reverse 60 years of dismantlement.

    • Anonymous

      and then lets so the same to every mall, movie theater,. PO, work place , church etc…POLICE state anyone ? Brought to you by the NRA on the taxpayers dime ,no less. Ridiculous the NRA statement is like letting the fox watch the chicken house.

  • James Klowning

    That’s it? I’m an NRA member and I find that weak. Let’s tighten up some stuff. The time is now,.

    • Anonymous

      I’m a gun owner and NOT an NRA member they don’t speak for me. There are 300 million guns and ONLY 3 million NRA members … 10% …

  • Anonymous

    We should actually ban assault guns of every type and have armed guards in every school. The NRA should probably be sued.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s face it! The best police response time (probably around five minutes) is not fast enough to prevent a lone person (using any kind of readily available or improvised weapon) from doing incredible damage in an unprotected place. Secondly, the weapon of choice can be anything from a bottle filled with gasoline to a chemical mixture that generates chlorine gas to a firearm (this is not a comprehensive list!)

    In this case the mother is mostly responsible. First, she apparently did not secure her firearms. Secondly, she knew her son was unstable and should be committed to an institution, she took steps toward having that done – BUT SHE LET HER SON KNOW SHE WAS TAKING THOSE STEPS – thereby triggering the rampage that ensued!

    Now every anti-second amendment nut in Washington or elsewhere is exploiting this tragedy to suit their own personal bias – most knowing full well that what they are proposing will have no effect in improving safety for anyone in any venue!

    • Anonymous

      The Mother had how much money that she could not get some professional help for her son??????? I know about this. You help your child.

    • maineiac123

      Yes we’ve seen how many bottles filled with gas or a chemical mixture that generates chlorine gas have been used in the senseless slaughter of our children. No, we can and should be able to control/ban certain types of weapns, and the weapons this thing used should be banned.

      • Anonymous

        BSSMF! Another knee jerk reaction!

  • Anonymous

    This idiot LaPierre won’t be satisfied till someone kills a member of his family. Well maybe he just wouldn’t care, seems like all he cares about are guns.
    He says arm the school teachers, have guards outside the schools, is he willing to pay the wages of these guards??

    They’d kill the guard and continue on their killing rampage.

    • maineiac123

      “They’d kill the guard and continue on their killing rampage.” You’re right but the NRA and these gun nuts will never admit that.

  • Liberal Soup N Crackers

    We could easily put armed security in our schools by simply displacing a few un-needed administrators. That would keep the whole effort cost neutral.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t see any solution, ever. When I consider the options…..more gun control, this only effects the law abiding citizens, armed guards at the door to schools, well, they would just go in through a window, shoot out another door etc, better mental health services, many people do have access to wonderful mental health services, that does not ensure that they wont ever snap and do something violent, and there are times that we wouldn’t know that someone suffered with mental illness until they do something violent, so that won’t fix it. The ONLY fix is personable responsibility, common sense, morals, and ability to make logical intelligent decisions. And there is certainly no way to regulate that, and these are all things that seem to be on a steady decine for years. It seems that IF she knew her son was mentally ill, then she should not have had weapons around, or even a part of her life! Many parents of mentally ill children, or autistic children choose to NOT have things in their home that could be dangerous, they know they have to be more cautious. I don’t know, it just kind of seems hopeless, you just can’t fix people:(((

  • Anonymous

    The schools are fine. It’s our culture that’s the problem.

    If you “control” all the guns, what’s to keep a person who’s willing to kill children from walking in with an explosive belt or something? You’re not solving the problem by placing an armed guard in every cash strapped school across the country.

    WE are the problem. We the people. Until you get tired of glorifying the military, buying violent video games, and seeing murder and violence on half of the cable TV channels, you’re sending a message that that’s okay and it should continue.

    And the weak ones will see it as a channel to vent their anger through. We’ve made our bed. Not too comfortable, is it?

    x

    • maineiac123

      So called violent video games have nothing to do with this. Research after research appears to say there is no relationship. It is partially our culture and I don’t think many are saying control or ban all guns, just certain types that really have no place in a modern society. Guns like the bushmaster or pistols that hold 15 shots. Those guns should be banned completely and even those already owned should be removed as far as I’m concerned.

      • Bright

        “Research after research APPEARS to say there is no relationship.” That’s conclusive evidence if I ever saw it. What do you suppose accounts for our steady decline in the value of human life? I know, the guns, they speak to us in our sleep right? Doesn’t the sand in your ears hurt?

        • maineiac123

          It may not be conclusive but it’s a whole lot more evidence than a mere believe which is all that you have. I’m not sure we have a steady decline in the value of human life. I think that is something you’ll have to prove to me, and not just say “I believe”. Obvously your nick is wrong, if you want to put up belief against research.

          • Anonymous

            What we actually have is a steadily declining rate of violent crime, even with the high profile multiple shooting incidents.

      • Anonymous

        spoken like a true video game addict

  • Anonymous

    This is ridiculous! Who is to say the armed guard wouldn’t be some nut case and open fire! zero tolerance concerning guns on any school grounds.

    • FW

      Yes, because the zero tolerance NO GUN signs work so well now

      • Anonymous

        I think those no gun signs just invite disaster.

    • maineiac123

      If Sandy Hook had had an armed guard, I suspect there would have simply been one more adult that died….the armed guard.

      • FW

        and the glass is half empty.

  • Anonymous

    While we’re putting armed guards at the school, let’s also put them in movie theaters, restaurants, Wal-Marts, and other places nuts congregate. The one thing this will be good for is unemployment. There is no reason for any sane person to have automatic rifles with huge clips. Guns should be used to hunt and to protect oneself, and last time I checked, you didn’t need 60 rounds at a time to do that. The NRA is stupid, at least on this count.

    • Bright

      Automatic rifles are not the issue, they’re already illegal without a special license and extreme tracking (that works). So we’re talking about semi-auto, just like huge percentage of common hunting rifles. The magazines are typically 30 rounds, not 60 but I suspect that’s not a soothing thought. Think about this though, in nearly every case, the mass shooter carries more than one firearm, allowing for rapid transition if one is empty or otherwise fails. reloading can be done in seconds, muskets have gone away for the most part. These shooters choose military looking firearms but not for the same reason the military does. These shooters need not concern themselves with year after year reliability, the ability to go long distances with lighter weight or modularity of the weapons platform that allows basic training to carry through numerous special weapons all with the same features in the same places. The round they fire is a relative wimp compared to most on the market, yet these murders choose them? Why?

  • Bertha Gruntz

    I’m not sure what the ultimate best answer is to this, but it cannot involve the disarming of the law-abiding American public. I believe a more thorough background check process might work. Certainly whatever it takes to keep firearms out of the hands of unstable people and criminals. Digital trigger locks to prevent stolen guns from being used?

    • Millicent

      Fingerprint trigger locks.

  • Anonymous

    fools

  • Lord Whiteman

    IN 1993 NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre called law enforcement agents “jack-booted thugs” now he wants to put one in each of our 99,000 schools.

    • Anonymous

      I think he was referring to recent Federal Agents, not local law enforcement……remember the terrible situations starting back to Wounded Knee, Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

      • Lord Whiteman

        He was referring to the law enforcement officers who where murdered by a cult of child rapists near W Bushes ranch in Waco.
        The NRA are traitors who hate the USA and belong in prison.

  • Anonymous

    With this kind of stupidity, the NRA wants to give the kid peddling pop corn in the movie theater an AK47 for security.

  • Anonymous

    I am sure little kids would LOVE walking into a school past an armed security guard…For crying out loud, what are we a third world country? Regular civilians do not need anything more than a basic hand gun/ shotgun. Nor do they need tons of ammo. Lack of gun control was not the only cause of the tragedy in Connecticut, but it sure was a contributing factor. The other issue and the main cause was a mother allowing and promoting this activity with a young man who clearly did not have the mental capacity to be safe around it. If she had not had access to these types of guns, the number of children and adults who were killed would not have been so high.Even ONE of the poor souls that died was too much. There was a way to stop this before it happened. There had to have been signs that something was clearly wrong with this man. We all need to start helping each other and looking after each other. AND people need to start helping themselves too. Don’t turn the other way if you see someone in need, or is a danger to themselves or others. I for one am going to start with 26 acts of kindness. I cant change the world, but I can sure try and change my little corner of it.

  • Anonymous

    This is one time that I will join in with the local RedNecks–at least–arm the teachers and principal. Way to go!

  • Anonymous

    Well Governor LePage is this guy full of moose crap or are you going to fall in line with the funding??

  • Bright

    When the President’s security detail and all other politicians details go back to revolvers and pump guns, so will I. Who says their lives are worth more than us common folk. The Secret Service, FBI, DEA, state polices and many others seem to feel that semi-automatic firearms with high capacity magazines are required for protection just maybe they’re onto something. American’s lives should never be of lesser value than that of our elected officials. Lead the way Mr. President (regardless of party).

    • maineiac123

      Boy this does show your nick is wrong.

  • This Charming Man

    The NRA is not anybody’s friend; except the gun and munitions manufacturers.

    • Anonymous

      Like the President and the US government is? Do you really want a society where the police are increasingly militarized, while citizens are considered a danger to society?

  • Anonymous

    In the 1960’s, in Maine, I recall that guns were permitted in school, provided they were kept in lockers and treated with respect. I recall seeing hunters take the city bus with shotguns for hunting trips to nearby towns and return later in the day with a brace of partridges or rabbits. I also recall that hunter orange was not mandatory at that time. There also seemed to be a shared set of values concerning right and wrong among most folks. O’, I almost forgot, we didn’t have video games like “Kindergarten Killer” and foul smelling rappers with ugly messages. Maybe, just maybe, before we ejected God in 1962, we had all the protection that we needed.

    Isn’t it amazing how our culture has changed?

  • Anonymous

    look up the Riverview Gun Store with your search engine. This is where one of the guns used in Connecticut was purchased. That store has just been raided because a mentally ill individual was able to walk out of the shop without paying for an AR-15. There is much more to the story-worth checking into.

  • Anonymous

    are we trying to cut down on the number of incidents, or are we trying to cut down on the number killed per incident.

  • info@dennysriverguide.com

    I agree with the NRA. It’s common sense and a good way to protect all children.

  • Anonymous

    The sheeps still think we are back 20 or more years ago…while they continue their view of exemplary social engineering, the realist among us have got to protect our babies and teachers. Remember these are cowards who prey on soft targets and sheeps, this is why they kill themselves when they hear police coming.
    Also think about it? Did psych evaluations prevent serial killer Drew Peterson from becoming a police officer?
    Some people will just simply snap, no matter what a society does.

    • Anonymous

      Snap? Hmm, could that possibly include the vets and ex-cops you recommend to protect our babies and teachers? You know, the ones with the highest rates of PTSD and other mental issues?

  • Anonymous

    Since in Maine anyway tax payers are paying for computers for kids who don’t have one, start schooling online, save a lot of money for tax payers. No more need to worry about some nut case showing up at school’s or taking away rights of those who aren’t nuts.

    • Anonymous

      They won’t do that because they believe that kids can only be taught in the qualified government school set up.

      • Anonymous

        Doesn’t that raise the hair on the back of your neck? It’s called “Mass brainwashing”.
        Everyday I have to re-teach my kids history. They come home telling me the biggest crock of crap. Needless to say their grades aren’t good in history, because I told them they will not learn and live in lies so put down the truth even if it means they fail the class.

        • Anonymous

          What are your qualifications to teach history?

          • Anonymous

            First what they taught me in school and then looking up actual documents and also reading what non-government people write. Going to places where ‘history” happened. Put it all together and see what makes sense and having an Aunt who was a history teacher and a brother-in-law who was a history teacher.
            As I told my kids about JFK, Oswald did not do it, no one can shoot almost straight down and hit someone in the front of the throat when they already passed the ‘window’ where Oswald supposedly was hiding.
            If it’ll make you feel better I ‘teach’ only my kids history.

          • Anonymous

            A. You are so anti-school that you reference school 3 times in your response. B. No, that does not make me feel better. C. I’ll bet your kids kick some serious @ss in Tinfoil Hat Oragami class.

          • Anonymous

            Ha-ha, maybe you’ll need their services one day, not everyone is good at it Ok ask your kids or any kid about building 7 on 9/11. Or about the “re-training camps” growing in the U.S. Or why Prez.Lincoln made Africans Slaves only half citzens and Indians not at all. Or why here in the U.S. they put sickle cell anemia in black prisioners and hepatitis in others and told them it was flu shots. Ask why an American Government Scientist invented AIDS/HIV for germ warfare like they did LSD

          • Anonymous

            And there you have it folks: American Government Scientist invented AIDS. And LSD was invented by Swiss scientists. Maybe history isn’t your cup of tea.

  • Otis B. Driftwood

    You’ll notice that Bill LaPierrie doesn’t provide the funding for these armed guards. Ohh I forgot, he’s a republican, and republicans love to govern with the unfunded mandate.

    • Anonymous

      I think instead of wasting monies on stimulus that never was….they should allow funding for LEO’s and Vets to school sit. It would be a great example of how much the US people and government care about our babies.

      • Anonymous

        How much do you think it would pay? Maybe I’ll do it. Do I get a machine gun?

  • Anonymous

    “We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep.
    They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world… many of
    them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in
    their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be
    killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by
    school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to
    the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to
    kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of
    denial.” -Lt. Col.(RET) Dave Grossman

    Read more: http://sofrep.com/15373/responding-to-the-wolves/#ixzz2FmxrU7n6

  • Anonymous

    There are 138,925 schools in the united states. we would have to spend over 13.9 billion to hire an officer to protect these schools.
    The right wing wants budget cuts all the time but they never have any problems spending more and more and more money on the military, guns and jails.

    • Anonymous

      Sounds like a plan to me……our babies are worth much more than the extreme left wing propaganda. If they can use stimulus dollars which were outsourced to foreign countries (look at the green initiatives alone), we can certainly prevent our babies from being killed. Many retired LEO and Military Vets out there who would be more than willing to save our children and teachers.

      • Anonymous

        Want to protect children? Drive safely. Approximately 2000 children are killed in car accidents in the US every year. That means that since 9/11, over 20,000 children have died on our highways. Say that out loud when you read it. What is it about humans that make us overreact massively to the tiniest risk factors while just accepting a literal ongoing holocaust caused by other, much larger and preventable ones?

  • Anonymous

    If we want to do something “for the kids” stop focusing on hot button issues that will offer no meaningful change and perhaps go after things that actually kill kids. If politicians want to spend the time protecting the children, do it by making it federal law to wear seatbelts and to maintain a locked gate around your swimming pool.

  • Guest

    I thought you people wanted less government and fewer laws.

  • Anonymous

    I do Not believe that armed guards are necessary at all schools in America, but i DO believe that any teacher that carries a concealed weapons permit should be allowed to carry in the school so long as the weapon is always on the person. Just the fear that some teachers may be carrying would certainly curtail these young shooters from doing such tragic acts. Most of these shooters seem to be trying to make a name for themselves before they commit suicide, or are caught. They might not be that interested in doing so if they couldnt get off more than a shot or two.

    Besides most of these cowards only want to shoot at unarmed people. I doubt that they would have the guts to actually take on anyone that might shoot back!!!

  • Anonymous

    In 1999, New York police officers who were actually trained to use their weapons when seconds count , fired 41 shots at Amadou Diallo and missed 22 times.
    Last August, two New York police officers fired 16 rounds in an altercation with an armed man outside the Empire State Building. Ten people were hit – the gunman and nine bystanders.

    Does anyone think armed civilians without training would do better?

  • pbmann

    Look up the definition for idiot and/or shill in the dictionary and Wayne LaPierre’s picture will be right there.

  • pbmann

    Look up the definition for idi0t and/or shill in the dictionary and Wayne LaPierre’s picture will be right there.

  • To pay for armed security in schools, put a twenty dollar surcharge on every video game, rap “song” and movie rated other than PG.

  • Anonymous

    Obama calls for a national discussion, so that we can all consider ways to prevent future mass shootings like this one. The NRA proposes that we place a police officer in every school, just as Bill Clinton did when he was president, but the NRA is criticized by the media and the Left for making such a “ridiculous” proposal. Apparently Obama and his supporters are only willing to have their type of discussion, on how to further restrict gun ownership? I think we should look at finding ways to more easily institutionalize those who have mental problems like the CT shooter.

    • Anonymous

      Great idea! All we’ll need is the institutions and staff and we’ll be set to go! Oh, wait, neither the federal or state gov’ts have any money… damn.

  • Anonymous

    This country has 315 million people and 4 million members of the NRA hold the country hostage with very large donations into Congressional war chests … not right at all.

  • Anonymous

    The logic is simple: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!” Some say we cannot afford armed security in our schools. Instead they would rather try something else – like banning some kinds of guns – only to discover it didn’t succeed and then they will want to try some other equally ineffective action! Why? Because such actions give the (mistaken) impression that the politicians are “doing something” and that “something” fits their personal bias!

    Obama’s exploitation of the latest tragedy was essentially predicted well before the November 6 election. We are now seeing the “real” Obama! Obama thinks he has a “mandate!” Only 57% of eligible voters voted in the election and Obama got approximately 51% of the vote – that means he was elected by only 29.07% of eligible voters – not exactly a “mandate!”

    Enough already! Can we have a do-over of the election?

  • Anonymous

    Sad to see so many gun queers worried their penis extensions might be taken away from them.

You may also like