I think we should vehemently reject LaPierre's violent, dystopian version of America. He and his supporters are the ones who need mental health services, for sure.

This asinine NRA way of thinking either (i) has to be stopped, or (ii) be shown to be the utter nonsense that it is. Good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns, indeed. Other countries around the world do the sane thing and have controls on guns and gun ownership for good guys and bad guys.

The days of the wild west are history but it is clear that they live on in the pea-brain of Mr. LaPierre. Is Mr LaPierre a god guy or a bad guy? Should we issue white hats and black hats to make it easy to tell?

If the money that is spent on dealing with gun violence was spent on mental health assessments and services instead, there would be no need for armed good guys to be on patrol, and those who need help, would be better off.

The only way to stop kids being killed in a school is to have a good guy with a gun. Teachers with the proper training and a concealed to carry permit would be ideal. Armed cops probably won't help, as they will be in the wrong part of the building, and when a shooting happens you only have seconds to stop it. There is no way to get the guns out of criminals hands.

By making the schoo lgun free they made all those people easy targets, all it takes is one mentally defective persson to take advantage. Bloomburg has the sullivan gun law ask him how many gun deaths take place in new york city. . He has made his people available victums.

I guess my question in all this we have our rights under the U.S. Constitution but they're not all absolute. We have the right to free speech, but in Schenk vs. U.S. the Supreme Court ruled it's not an absolute right; we can't falsely claim fire in a crowded theater. So is the right to bear arms an absolute right or are there reasonable restrictions?

The common denominator turning an ever wider range of our society into armed camps (and now proposing to expand that into our schools) is the NRA and it's increasingly absurb efforts to put guns into ANYONE's hands including the mentally ill, unvetted and untrained "good guys" (whose only qualification appears to be breathing and upright), and even those with felony convictions.

Isn't it time we look at who profits the most from unfettered gun ownership and proliferation .... gun and ammunition manufacturers and the NRA ... and ask who is REALLY being served here? Because the NRA is clearly NOT acting on our behalfs nor our safety, but the ongoing income they indirectly realize by promoting expanded and completely unrestricted gun sales disguised as constitutional rights.

@ Sophist: but the first part of that says, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." It seems that there's room for interpreting the spirit of the law without violating the letter of the law, no?

2nd amendment was designed to protect the states and people from the federal government wasn't it. Unless you own an aircraft carrier you are just kidding yourself in that respect. Stocking up on small arms has no value other than to line the pockets of the gun industry. Thank God the tobacco industry didn't have an amendment they could contort and hide behind.

The NRA has opposed restrictions on gun ownership for the mentally ill and supported gun ownership for convicted felons. The NRA proposal said nothing about sworn, trained, and vetted police officers in schools. All the NRA said was "armed security" with no requirement for training, vetting, or qualification described.

"Armed security" carrying weapons from NRA partner gun manufacturers purchased with public funds to ensure more fear based lining of NRA and gun maker wallets. Isn't time we explore THAT relationship along with the spurious claim that the NRA and gun manufacturers are only looking out for our safety and constitutional rights?

Instead of putting firearms in every school, why not put a teacher in every gun shop?

Yes, I have plenty to worry about. Starting with NRA proposals to turn public schools into armed camps paid for with public monies, ensuring an expanding market for gun and ammunition manufacturers and cash flow to the NRA . Continuing with NRA efforts to put guns in anyone's hands as long as they are upright and breathing using a bastardized interpretation of the Constitution as rationalization.

Follow the money ... the NRA's proposal has nothing to do with the safety of our children. It has everything to do with creating yet another market for gun and ammunition sales, in this instance publicly funded. Everything the NRA has done since the late 1960's has been clearly oriented towards expanding and sustaining a domestic weapons industry and market, enriching not only weapon and ammunition manufacturers but the NRA themselves.

Their argument that more guns = more public safety has been shown to be the lie it is with the repeated public slaughter of children and young adults in places they should be safe, were it not for the guns.

Conneticutt already had an assult rifle ban, but the shooter's mother had this gun illegally. So the gun control ban worked very well, huh? This is an example of: that people will have guns if they want them, and I assume she was not even a criminal intent on using the guns to rob and kill people. We already know there are black market guns with no serial numbers that will never be found if there is a gun ban. So then only criminals will have the guns. Comforting knowledge!

My children and grandchildren would not be going to any school where an NRA inspired atmosphere of fear and armed patrols are installed to replace the childhood joy and learning essential to education.

Now you answer a couple.
Why are we the only country in the world having a conversation about weapons in our schools? Why are we the only country experiencing this problem?

It obviously stems from the insane number of weapons in America. And the only suggestion the NRA has is to increase their numbers and to promote their presence in schools, part of their continued efforts to create, expand, and protect markets for gun and ammunition manufacturers (thereby ensuring continued cash flow to the NRA)

Again, follow the money. For example in 2007 3,717,831 guns were manufactured in the U.S. In 2011 that number increased to 6,107,512 guns made in America. During the same period the NRA promoted efforts to allow convicted felons to own guns, opposed efforts to restrict gun ownership by the unstable mentally ill, opposed efforts to control gun smuggling across state and international lines, and opposed (in partnership with gun manufacturers) the microstamping of weapons to allow more effective tracking by law enforcement of smuggled and criminally used weapons.

The NRA has no interest in our public safety ... in fact, less public safety works in their favor. They are clearly focused on expanding and sustaining the domestic weapons industry and it's markets, enriching not only weapon and ammunition manufacturers but the NRA themselves.
More guns and broader gun ownership do NOT improve our public safety. The evidence lies in the fact that of all the industrialized countries we are the ONLY one having this problem and this conversation

City of Atlanta schools had armed cops in them while my kids went there. They were not kept safe. The NRA idiots now advocating that we hire armed guards must know that money would come out of teachers' pay.

This is all a distraction. The NRA doesn't want to discuss the reality, which is that despite all our armaments we're less safe, not more safe. When someone has the drop on you, you're dead and that's that.

We can be safer. We can disarm. We can pass meaningful gun control legislation, start treating guns like cars (which also kill) or prescription drugs (which also kill). The gun fetishism now coursing through the right has become like crack addiction. There's a reason why mass murders are occurring in wealthy areas filled with NRA members. Guns are crack, crack is whack, and until you put down your weapon you can't hope to be safe.

OK, I am 100% anti-gun, anti war, loath the NRA, super liberal, BUT bringing our troops home, giving them great jobs here in the US, closer to their families, being a full time force at schools, hospitals, etc. Heck, I would like to see them on every corner! Better here than over seas!!!

Also I would like to inform everyone, that for over a decade, Senator's and Representatives in DC have full time police officers at all of the daycare centers they send their own kids. With gates, parking passes, video camera, etc. And YES when the kids go out to play, the police patrol the playground and dont let people stop to look in. They have full fences and thick trees blocking the view. Having MORE police may not work, but I am 100% sure it wont make it worse and creating jobs as well. "States dont have the money" The federal government has plenty of money, they just choose to spend it on making our military larger to protect people in other countries.

Interesting spin from someone claiming to be anti gun, anti war, anti NRA ... but who has swallowed the whole NRA scam that more guns = more safety and tries to pitch it as jobs program. Not terribly believable.

Some numbers:
- Americans have the highest civilian gun ownership rate in the world with about 270 million guns, compared to about 3 million held by the military and less than 1 million by police.
- 70-80 million Americans own guns. Of these 20% own more than one gun.

According to NRA logic we should be eminently safe, yet we are not. Statistically we would be far safer in any western nation that regulates guns than we are here. The difference?

The NRA and it's collegial relationship with gun and ammunition manufacturers in which the NRA acts on behalf of manufacturers to create, expand, and preserve domestic gun markets regardless of the cost to our public safety, including the safety of our law enforcement (and now Fire and EMS) providers.
Their newest market? Our children's public schools.

Guns do not equal violence and murder. Culture has much more to do with it.

The Swiss have roughly as many guns per capita as we do. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men are given a fully automatic SIG 550 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

The Swiss homicide rate (1.32 per 100K) is lower than that of the UK (1.41 per 100K) where guns are severely restricted.

The availability and presence of guns does not equal death, danger and destruction. The actions of a country's citizenry plays a much larger role in that.

Matthew F. MN.
Ok. For the folks who think this is about the NRA making the gun manufactures rich, (or whatever) heres a solution, (perhaps a solution overall!). The NRA has valid points. And so do a few of you here. How about this. We take tactical trained soldiers of the US services. We make part of there service a six month stint in an assigned school with their weapon they were issued along with the bullets that were issued to them. After six months, they are rotated back to military duties. NO NEW GUN Purchased,, NO NEW TRAINING, NO NEW TAX PAYING PROGRAMS.Just a shift of Duty for those that have already been vetted & trained to handle high risk situations and humanitarian situations. The NRA doesnt prosper in any way. Hmm, think I'll Call my State representatives, and my NRA rep. See if they can improve on this idea. The NRA isnt Perfect, The NRA is us; regular people with regular lives, with regular children, with regular struggles, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Guns are something we own and know how to use with the hope of NEVER having to aim, let alone use toward another human being. There are no bad guns, just bad or ill people.

And you think armed uniformed soldiers are going to improve children's (combat) educational environment? BTW it would be illegal as the military are prohibited from domestic policing ... part of the constitutional and legal mechanisms in place to prevent a military state.

You obviously have never been active duty. You're not allowed to retain a service weapon OR ammunition except in training or a combat zone. And basic and advanced training has nearly zero utility in a civilian setting. And your model ignores problems such as housing, food and medical, and most importantly the absence of a command structure without which I really don't think we want an armed combat troop in a public school.

Besides the obvious cultural differences between Switzerland and America let's look at some other differences:

29% of Swiss households have weapons, in America more than 43% do.
(More NRA effectiveness in protecting a domestic weapons market)

Sales from a dealer or between individuals require a weapon acquisition permit.
(opposed by the NRA )

All ammunition sales are registered at the point of sale.
(opposed by the NRA)

Switzerland signed the Schengen treaty.
(similar treaties opposed by the NRA)

You are incorrect on one point: The Swiss militia holding military weapons have not been allowed to hold ammunition for them since 2007, due to concerns re. the immediate availability of ammunition to military assault weapons.
(quite a difference from the NRA opposition to restricted clip capacities)

Swiss carry permits require testing, demonstration of need, are rstricted to a specific weapon..
(all opposed by the NRA)

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck. If not an NRA member than what are YOU going to do in response to the NRA sponsorship of the ongoing slaughter in our country?It's not the cultural differences and it's not our culture that invalidates your Swiss example.

It's the NRA's choice (beginning in the middle 1960's) to move away from representing responsible gun owners, law enforcement, hunters, and other traditional gun owning segments of America to pursue a policy of representing the economic interests of gun and ammunition manufacturers to the detriment of us all, gun owners and non gun owners alike. The NRA's continued and aggressive promotion of expanded domestic gun markets and preservation of existing markets that allow virtually anyone to hold unlimited numbers of weapons regardless of the cost to our public safety is where the difference (and responsibility for the problem) lies.

They are right in one regard ... it's guns and ammunition that kill people, it's people that kill. So why your insistence that we continue to provide them with as many weapons as possible based only on a bastardized interpretation of the Constitution that to you and the NRA means only that one be upright and breathing to own weapons?

Why the insistence that this includes "rights" to own military assault weapons, high capacity magazines, military grade ammunition (including armor piercing and ballistic vest defeating types), and to carry them in a wide range of places NEVER BEFORE accepted in the United States as appropriate ... including churches, schools, colleges, and health care settings.

Ban military type assault weapons. They're NOT hunting rifles. Their rate of fire is far higher than bolt action hunting weapons and they even cycle faster than other semi automatic weapons. They are chambered for military type ammunition, NOT hunting rounds. They are exactly what they were designed to be, weapons to kill people with a high rate of fire, long range, and high velocity rounds designed for single shot kills and failing that, maiming incapacitation.

Stop the sale of armor-piercing bullets that can penetrate the vests of law enforcement officers and other ballistic armor. NRA support for the sale of such ammunition is unconscionable and benefits only the manufacturers and sellers of such ammunition and demonstrates once again that the NRA could give a shit about our safety and the safety of those who protect us.

Outlaw sale of high-capacity magazines that let shooters discharge 30 rounds or more in a matter of seconds. Spare me the hunting argument ... if you need that many shots hunting you're not a real hunter anyway. There is NO rational reason for such magazines outside of a military setting.

It is no coincidence that the trend of increasing casualties and lethality with mass shotings parallels civilian access to military high capacity magazines, military assault weapons, and military ammunition.