I've been invited to share my views with the White House today...

Still holding, getting announcements that it will start shortly.
I'll mention the correlation between the use of prescribed drugs and the perpetrators of these crimes if I get a chance.
 
On now, they have put the audience in a "listen only" mode.
icon_smile_angry.gif

Q&A to follow....
 
I don't like this position of armed guards being the solution, either. All school personnel should have the right that we already are suppose to have under the 2nd Amendment to carry a weapon for their and our children protection if they wish to. School "Gun Free Zones" should be banned and self defense instructions should be encouraged for all school personnel.

For the most part, other than maybe a few States, or a few little towns ( I think Utah has mentioned considering) you will never see this either. It opens the municipality to lawsuits in the event of a teacher involved shooting. BIG lawsuits, and then the teacher himself losing his house and all assets in some BS civil suit later.
Teachers are teachers, not trained CQB specialists. Half of THEM are not all with it either, if you know what I mean. That will never happen widespread, and doubtfully at all.

I could see it now... a Multiple shooter event and teachers shooting up the hallways taking out who knows who... probaby catching others in crossfire...there are WAY too many variables to consider, and a bunch of teachers armed leaves room for DISASTER.
 
Last edited:
We have quite a few police stationed at schools, they've been there a long time.

A firearms association announced a FREE to teachers, shooting/training program.

1050 have inquired so far for 24 initial positions.

Supposed to be a 3 day course, lodging including.
 
Thinking Points for more info?

After 911 DHS was formed? TSA? Flight Crews got training and also armed? more Sky Marshalls?

Why not try armed security for schools and better overall security?

Education, Values, respect, common decency for fellow man,

2006, West Nickel Mines School?
,

Maybe this post was mistaken by others or I was not clear,


I posted this for Ideas for talking points not as an exclusive only idea
The Post/Idea was to trigger thoughts, ideas and talking points for the
OP
 
Last edited:
For the most part, other than maybe a few States, or a few little towns ( I think Utah has mentioned considering) you will never see this either. It opens the municipality to lawsuits in the event of a teacher involved shooting. BIG lawsuits, and then the teacher himself losing his house and all assets in some BS civil suit later.
Teachers are teachers, not trained CQB specialists. Half of THEM are not all with it either, if you know what I mean. That will never happen widespread, and doubtfully at all.

I could see it now... a Multiple shooter event and teachers shooting up the hallways taking out who knows who... probaby catching others in crossfire...there are WAY too many variables to consider, and a bunch of teachers armed leaves room for DISASTER.

The most essential part of this proposal is that the school personnel(s) are WELL trained in PROPER defense and weapon training. I hear you about the quality of teachers, but that kind of school personnel (teacher, principle, janitor, nurse, cook, etc.) would be vetted out in the training process. I'm not proposing that all school personnel would be armed. What would the cost be to have armed professional guards at all schools? If there was a legal suit from some tragic event, would the cost supersede the annual cost of armed guards?
 
Last edited:
Skip the righteous outrage. These guys have heard it and discount it reflexively.

These guys are policy wonks. Speak to them in their own language. Remind them that a policy which obstructs and inconveniences 99+ percent of the population in order to deal with the less than one percent that are the actual problem is a BAD policy by definition because it is spectacularly inefficient. The proposed ban on military profile sporting rifles is a solution in the same sense that carpet bombing a city is a solution to the problem of neutralizing a handful of enemy military commanders who happen to have a bunker there. The city is not the enemy. The commanders are.

Get the psychopaths and mentally damaged first, and then if there is still a problem (which I will guarantee there won't be), you can revisit the issue to see what the next most effective and efficient step will be. An outright ban will still be way down the list.

Absolutely spot-on.
 
I'm late to the party, but I want to throw out a little food for thought here.


A comment about this:

As for "common sense" solutions, I'd recommend the following:


And, as much as I hate to concede it, ALL firearms sales must be brokered by an FFL holder. The ultimate goal of this will be to ensure private person-to-person sales undergo an NICS check. Yes, it means you have to pay background check and transfer fees, but HONEST FFLs won't gouge you on them. Again, no slippery slope because no information is being tabulated on you other than what's already being reported to State and Federal officials whenever you purchase a firearm through an FFL.

I feel this is a VERY dangerous area.

How could it be enforced?
There are millions of guns in this country with no paper trail because they existed before paper trails were required, or they were given as gifts, or they were inherited, or they were privately purchased.
IF they get such a requirement in place, we all know it will be violated continuously.
THEN they will start pushing for REGISTRATION because private transfers can't be tracked until they get them all recorded.
Think about it.
 
OK, back from the call. I did not get a chance to say anything,:(! as Mr. Reed announced his boss was calling him over to the West Wing.

But, of the 10 or so people who did get a chance, 8 were definitely on our side. Lack of enforcement of existing Federal laws was mentioned repeatedly, as was the ineffectiveness of writing laws that criminals or madmen, by definition, would not follow. So in that respect it was good.

Mr. Reed invited those of us who didn't get a chance to speak to email him. I will, as soon as I can get it (since they didn't provide it.)

Sorry there wasn't much drama, but it was good to see our side better represented than the anti's. :D
 
Gotta agree...

I'm late to the party, but I want to throw out a little food for thought here.


A comment about this:



I feel this is a VERY dangerous area.

How could it be enforced?
There are millions of guns in this country with no paper trail because they existed before paper trails were required, or they were given as gifts, or they were inherited, or they were privately purchased.
IF they get such a requirement in place, we all know it will be violated continuously.
THEN they will start pushing for REGISTRATION because private transfers can't be tracked until they get them all recorded.
Think about it.

In fact, I was (if given the chance) going to suggest that they just enforce the laws they have on the books already. It is already a crime to sell to a prohibited person, and it carries stiff penalties. But if the figures I have seen are correct, of the over 70,000 cases referred to Federal LE for Federal firearms violations, fewer than 100 have been prosecuted.

Other callers did take up a comment by Mr. Reed about the 38 states that are not updating the information in the NICS system. The obvious consensus observation is that if they are not using the laws and systems already in place, they have no business passing new restrictions. That was good to hear that one hammered on by the other callers.
 
On transfers...I have owned and sold more guns in my life time than I can recall. When i was a young man we traded guns all the time in NH. Today I always transfer through my FFL unless I am giving a gun to a friend that I know has no record and is responsible. I do not want to be the one that sells a gun to a felon or someone that is not responsible mentally to have one and it can blow back on you. Its just protecting yourself.
John
 
I feel this is a VERY dangerous area.

How could it be enforced?

When it all gets down to it, no legal system in existence can prevent a crime. The goal is not enforcement; the goal is to patch any existing holes which currently exist in the NICS background check system and demolish the "gun show loophole" argument by utilizing an existing system whose only "drawback" are the fees associated with using it and making it apply to everyone rather than just over-the-counter transactions at a brick and mortar. If anything, I argue for it strictly from a liability perspective as I would never sell a firearm to someone without first making sure they're not barred by State and Federal law from owning one.

There are millions of guns in this country with no paper trail because they existed before paper trails were required, or they were given as gifts, or they were inherited, or they were privately purchased.

With all due respect, I specifically referred to person-to-person sales and not gifts/inheritances. There are already existing laws on the books governing the purchase of a firearm as a gift to a family member.

Could this lead to arguing that receiving firearms as gifts and inheritances should also be subject to the recipient's ability to pass an NICS check? Possibly, but I fail to see what the cause for concern is. Why the fear of paper trails? Unless you hand over your collection to your next of kin before you depart from this world, there are already "paper trails" in the form of wills and estates. Ever file for Bankruptcy? Federal law requires you to list your firearms as assets, even if they're antiques that were never previously "on the books." Live in a state like PA? Their State Police maintain what is arguably a full-fledged registry on all firearms sales.

The truth is that unless you're clandestine about every single transaction you make involving firearms (and skirting a few laws in the process), a government employee with sufficient access to public records will have little trouble tracing them back to you.

IF they get such a requirement in place, we all know it will be violated continuously.
THEN they will start pushing for REGISTRATION because private transfers can't be tracked until they get them all recorded.
Think about it.

If the goal was to "read hearts" and predict criminal activity, I would agree with you that it's a bad idea based on a very shaky premise. I assure you it's not. I'm certain we would both agree that it's also absurd to believe that NICS is an aegis against all unlawful and improper firearms use; people WILL "slip through the cracks." Registration isn't going to prevent that either. No, the true goal is eliminate criminal and civil liabilities by adopting a system that admonishes individuals to perform their due diligence when selling firearms to another individual at the cost of adding "middleman's fees."

Mr. Jarrett... I mean no disrespect, but if you're looking for a libertarian utopia where the only "law" governing private interactions is the honor system, then this isn't your shop. While I find the idea of protecting people from their own lack of judgement by requiring them to do the responsible thing somewhat unpalatable, I fail to see the principle behind opposing such a law.
 
I would point out that a AR15 is per definition no assault rifle and of course how the medias are reporting false information about the sandy hook incident
 
In fact, I was (if given the chance) going to suggest that they just enforce the laws they have on the books already. It is already a crime to sell to a prohibited person, and it carries stiff penalties. But if the figures I have seen are correct, of the over 70,000 cases referred to Federal LE for Federal firearms violations, fewer than 100 have been prosecuted.

Other callers did take up a comment by Mr. Reed about the 38 states that are not updating the information in the NICS system. The obvious consensus observation is that if they are not using the laws and systems already in place, they have no business passing new restrictions. That was good to hear that one hammered on by the other callers.

Most excellent.
 
Back
Top