No. The NRA is only tone deaf to the Limo Liberals that inhabit DC and the MSM...

another stupid new york liberal. I would like to know if any of these idiot journalists have a child in a public school. I dont know of any parent who does not want an armed guard at this point.

Bad link?

The liberals berate anyone who doesn´t conform to the "mood of the country", that is, whatever the liberals say it is. These people walk among us. They are more dangerous and insidious than any foreign enemy we have ever faced.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/aiming_at_foes_but_shooting_itself_CoWUncAocGBBnMr4nQLE8M is the link.

Tobin hits the nail on the head. It is, however, necessary to read the column to appreciate this.

LaPierre blew it big time. His remarks can be and are being reported to make him sound like a nut case. He did immense damage to the cause by his intemperate and ill-considered speech.

The issue now is not "assault rifles." A ban on semi-automatics and ammunition is a certainty. Anyone who doesn´t comprehend this is seriously out of touch with the mood of the country, like LaPierre. Remaining in denial about this makes the job of safe-guarding the right to private gun ownership harder.

Banning "assault rifles" is merely the first step, but it would have been strategically smarter to give some ground on this issue to form a stronger line of defense a little further back. It is a wise military maxim never to reinforce failure. One must know when to withdraw in order to reform and continue the fight. LaPierre and his supporters are, whether they know it or not, following the strategy of George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn. There are just too many Indians to tackle on the question of "assault rifles."

We think Tobin and the NY Post are tone-deaf to the murder of tens of thousands babies in the US abortion mills.

#2, I´m not from New York (never lived there), not a liberal, and I think armed guards in schools would be a waste of money. Because if you spend the time and manpower to put armed guards there, then you don´t have armed guards in stores, at Saturday morning soccer games, at pick-up basketball games down the street, at birthday parties in private homes, etc. You can never, ever provide armed guards in every single place that children are likely to be...and if you try, you will horribly distort childhood and the child´s ability to learn independence and self-responsibility. As well as spend enormous sums of money that could be far better spent addressing the roots of the problem.

Where is the outrage at the daily murdegrs in Chicago?

fyi...Chicago seemed to agree with the NRA, they had police in schools. It was more to control the riotous tendencies of some, but the core point remains.
Rahm was looking to cut them due to cost, (not sure if he ultimately cut the program or not). Guess the children of Chicago aren´t worth the cost, regardless of what he says. Typical liberal response, say one thing do the opposite and scaremonger that the opposition forced you to do it...lol.
(...unfortunate for us his brother crafted Obamacare...)

I personally didn´t care for the NRA´s chosen address.

I like guns. I like the NRA.

I don´t like armed guards at schools. I think its creepy. I also think it´s impractical and a complete overkill.

Allow teachers to voluntarily utilize their cc rights. Offer training. Run drills.

An armed guard will be a sitting duck and do more to destroy gun rights if it doesnt work..

It will also desenatize children to seeing armed men there for their protection instead of the people who they look up to, respect an learn from everyday. Their teachers.

Its a subtle but important message.

Training some members of existing staff with firearms and granting them concealed carry permits is a better answer than hiring armed guards.

I guess the writer didn´t listen to the speech. Clearly he doesn´t have a clue about the situation. The anti-gun nuts don´t want to compromise. Even being deferential is taken as a sign of weakness. LaPierrie understands that. This is just one more liberal rant. And from "Commentary". Too bad.

Go ahead and disarm everybody then see how safe the people at this lunatic "newspaper" feel. Get a grip libs although I know that would require thinking, something you are obviously incapable of. Gheeze, get a life.

I like the NRA and think that gun training is valuable for everyone that can pass a test and is qualified. I also think that armed guards at school will attract the crazies. It is not a common occurrence and a lot like the attacks on Columbine, and other groups. You make the shooters intent on getting attention. The Clutter family, the children in schools - who knows what the shooters are thinking. Make sure the punishment is death instantly and not 20 years of appeals.

Note to fellow conservatives: Let us try not to become like self-righteous Leftists in our passionate indignation and ignorance. Let us, that is, acquire the facts before taking a position on them.

Jonathan Tobin, for example, is not a New York Liberal. He is a Neo-conservative and the editor of Commentary Magazine, an excellent publication. His column makes important points about the reality of the situation we face today. Some may consider them to represent bad news - but shooting(!) the messengers of bad news is seldom a winning strategy.

Fine. Let them do it, the ignorant bastardos.

Unless they are willing to register EVERY machine tool in existence and EVERY ounce of metal stock we will build them ourselves.

WE will always be smarter than every politician and every mechanically ignorant (stupid) leftist bootlicker. I will do it just to annoy them.

Why can´t we ask them to reflect on their mistakes when all they do is point the finger at conservatives?

What #1 and #2 said and all other believers in the 2nd Amendment in this Country. If this pathetic article in the NYPost is an example of the "conservatism" of Tobin, then the definition has been changed. The "foes" LaPierre was talking about are in the media and democrat party and Tobin proves that point. The actual "tone-deaf" in this Country ARE the anti-gun-anti-2nd amendment scribes toiling away for leftist organizations. IMHO, LaPierre is right.

Some posters sound like they have meekly accepted the leftist argument. It is false. Whether you think certain guns should be banned or not, the real agenda here is to disarm law abiding citizens. Gun laws have never and will never work with criminals bent on killing people. This feel good strategy will make the world even less safe than it is now.

Attach a Dunkin Donuts to the back side of every school. Let the school run it for a profit. It will attract police officers and repel anyone who is looking for easy targets. Park a cruiser or two in plain sight out front. Free donuts for the officers, but they have to walk through the halls to get them. If your town needs a new police station consider adding it to an existing school if space allows.

What are you all reading and commenting on? There´s no link to the article.

Didn´t the NRA support Harry Reid in 2010?

AS I drove around on errands yesterday, I passed a gun store. I had never seen anything like it- line out the door and around the building. So maybe gun bans are inevitable in the NE and places like CA, but in southern states, I don´t think so.

I heard the speech.

He sounded perfectly reasonable.

Being demonized by the media is proof of how correct he is.

Judging from the howls and shrieks, I would say that the NRA hit their target.

The rank hypocrisy is pathetic.

But not unexpected.

LaPierre’s statement should have appeared on the NRA magazine’s editorial page. A presser just gives the lunatic fringe a venue to howl.

The NRA supported Harry Reid in 2010, didn´t it? Wouldn´t it be great now if there were a conservative in the Senate instead of NRA-supported Harry Reid?

One thing I learned in school, is that schools are violent hellholes. The money wasted on football - training kids to be violent - could go to hiring guards to keep them safe.

Let´s just guesstimate that each child is worth at least a million dollars. What kind of store would have hundreds of millions of dollars of fragile merchandise in the open, with no guards?

I attended two institutions that had previously had shootings. The shooting was only the capstone course of violence, and though nobody was shot while I attended, the assaults continued with sotto voce (not silent) approval of the faculty.

The other big thing I learned in school is that it never gets better.

Tobin was born and raised on Long Island. He no doubt was steeped in the Sullivan Act since birth. I doubt that he would know a pistol from a revolver from a shotgun from a rifle. He may be a conservative, but he has no business writing about the NRA of which he clearly knows little.

I have an idea.
How about every school hires a US Marine veteran?
Perfectly trained from the get go.
Better qualified than most local cops who only care about their pay and benefits.
Most veterans can´t find a job, we would create thousands of jobs overnight.
Give him a suit, call him an assistant pricipal or something.
Inside the suit jacket a Colt ´45.
Pay him a decent wage. Problem solved!
No crazy loon would even consider going into a school after our kids, knowing he would have to face the force of a REAL armed man: A US Marine!

And what "country" is he writing about that he says the NRA is tone deaf to? I would bet my boots that the 20 Million or so Texans are ready to march lockstep with Mr LaPierre

I don´t like the idea of having armed guards in school for a couple of reasons. The cost is high and there is very little benefit. One security guard is a weak defense against surprise. If he is ambushed or neutralized at the onset, his usefulness is minimal and the loss of his gun may be the method of choice for the perpetrator to obtain a weapon. Allowing the faculty to carry weapons might be beneficial, but there are social and physical problems. As with the security officer, a surprise and the weapon can change hands.

I envision another method. Like fire extinguishers, have one or more firearms on campus for emergency use only. Unlike fire extinguishers, hide and lock them so only authorized people will know their location and have a key to access them. Select faculty members would be screened and receive training. There would be a sign something like: "This school has lethal response capability on campus" to announce the fact that a deadly threat could be met with a deadly response.

Would such a system be useful in a case like Newtown? I think it would reduce the carnage. Like a fire extinguisher, its use would probably be too late to eliminate some damage that could be done. However, unlike a fire extinguisher, a potential shooter may be deterred from even trying in the first place. He would have no way to evaluate the degree of response he would meet... a far different cry from attacking a "gun-free" zone.

I am just about tired of wusses.

A ban on semi-automatics and ammunition is a certainty. Anyone who doesn´t comprehend this is seriously out of touch with the mood of the country

Teleologicus, anyone who doesn´t comprehend there is no such thing as semiauto ammunition is out of touch with reality. The bushmaster uses .223 ammo, which can also be used in bolt actions.

Oh, and last "assault rifle ban" caused the manufacturers to make cosmetic changes to their weapons so they still could be sold. And any attempt to ban semiautos will have a tough constitutional fight.

#20 et al. -

Others can speak for themselves, but I have certainly not meekly accepted the Leftist argument. Like a (handful) of other pro-gun conservatives, I have meekly accepted reality. And the reality is that there are more of THEM, i.e. people who are determined to ban "assault rifles" and, if possible, other firearms, than there are of US. This is not an argument. It is an observation. We are going to lose on the "assault weapons" issue. Indeed, we have already lost. It is time to retreat gracefully on that issue and assume a second, stronger line of defense. The alternative is to be overwhelmed and further demonized. I am not saying it is a good thing that the country is shifting in this direction. I am saying that whether it is good or bad, that is the way it is going, and we had better adjust ourselves to it lest we be run over.

The internal debate here reminds me of the Romney campaign. A small number of us kept crying that Romney´s campaign was not up to snuff and that he was going to lose unless he got it together. Others -the majority- denounced that as nay saying that merely lent aid and comfort to the opposition. But we were right. Romney lost. We saw it coming way, way back - though I admit to entertaining some hopes after the first the first debate. Romney ran a lousy campaign and he lost.

Now the same Cassandras are trying to sound the warning about the gun control issue. The country is not going to tolerate continued legal availability of "assault weapons." They are going to be banned.

I will wager that the NY Post has an armed guard or armed guards at its door. Why? They are merely protecting a bunch of disposable rag merchants, while school house our most valuable jewels. Reverse the situation.

Tell you what. Americans give up the 2nd Amendment if the lame stream media gives up the 1st. You go first, then we´ll disarm. (Yeah,right...)

Had it been a child of Tobin´s that had been murdered, I wonder what suggestions he might make...

The Left can scapegoat gun owners all they want, but they fail to grasp one very simple fact--We will NEVER willingly surrender our firearms. We understand the Left. The Left wants to kill people. They don´t care about those kids. They were hoping for a Dunblaine type of slaughter that would become a catalyst for their disarmament scheme. But given that gun sales have surged since Obama took office, they need to realize that we are arming ourselves in preparation for a fight.

The real question is how many Adam Lanza´s are there? What would you do if the next time you are at a teacher conference some demonic jackass shoots out the front door?

We finds it possible to protect our prescious dollars with thouusands of armed Brinks guards, but can´t afford to protect our children with similar means. I guess a nation that spends as much as we do on abortions can rationalize that. Our national morality is a mess.

I am with Chuck, #35. We do not need another Federal program, we need LESS Federal influence in our schools.

Every school has responsible adults who can volunteer, receive proper training and can have access to weapons in case of emergencies. There is no need for another expensive, bureaucratic program. Let states and individual localities make the decisions and get the Feds out of the way.

#35, In case I did not say it well enough, Chuck, your approach is pure genius!

#7, your caution that we can never cover all the circumstances where someone may get shot is not a reason not to address this particular problem. Children are NOT required to go to birthday parties, parks and shopping malls. They are, however, required by law to go to school, and in today´s world, like it or not, by doing so they may not come home alive. Something has to change and Mr. LaPierre´s comments made a lot of sense to me.

#36, me too.

Just his using the term ´´assault weapons´´ shows which side this guy is one. Scroom.

Ban death wish liberals too cowardly to defend those they are charged to protect.

NRA lifer.

#5, I´m not so given to surrendering to emotionalism.

Seems the facts of Sandy Hook was that the rifle was in the trunk and not used, but pistols were, This report was squashed in favor of implying the rifle was used on the kids.

Sen. Feinstein met with BATF on Election Day about an assault on the Second Amendment. She´s a gun hater of the lowest order.

The Second Amendment is not to be infringed, and this one is to fight over.

Lobs love waging war on the innocent (aka those whcich they oppose) in order to avoid confronting the consequences of liberal policies and culture.

Nothing was "implied" about the rifle being the weapon used on the victims. The Medical Examiner who did all the autopsies clearly stated at a live press conference that every piece of metal taken out of every body came from the rifle, not a handgun. This all becomes official evidence of course. Police also said every death was from the rifle. Nothing was in any way "implied".

I´ve never heard such defeatist, pathetic drivel. This battle is NOT lost. We have the constitution on our side. We have half a country full of people who are sick to death of these tyrants from both parties taking our rights without a fight. Now they want to take our ability to have that fight.
And some of you want to just roll over and accept it.
I hang my head in shame at what we have become. 20 years of my life wasted defending a country that is too afraid to even raise its voice in support of freedom.
Other posters on other threads are right. We deserve Obama and what he brings.

NY Post: et tu brute!

First, read this:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Then we´ll talk.

Can´t they just lock the doors? I guess it gets difficult to hold an outdoor recess and there´s a problem when people get on/off the bus. Maybe a fence around the grounds would work?

It would take a lot of security guards to cover an entire school anyway. I think it would be a bummer to have the uniformed security presence in schools. Just make it more difficult for unwanted visitors to gain entrance.

#56 Logic is trumped by wimps, dolts, fools and liberals. If this past election proved anything at all, it proved that. He that would forbid assault weapons is brother to him that would unilaterally disarm our nuclear capbilities.

LaPierre Nailed it by telling the truth. Liberals are too hard headed / ignorant to accept reality. They are willing to spend billions, even trillions on windmills but are afraid to spend a few $$$ protecting children.

It´s pretty depressing to even read at least half of these posts. The what if´s against any method of protection of children in school are too numerous to count. I´ve been a life member of the NRA for many years and support the statement and suggestions presented by Wayne LaPierre.

The only reason I´ve heard for not posting guards in the schools other than the knee jerk liberal rant that "more guns aren´t the solution," is that it would cost too much. Come on, we´re talking about a school with dozens or more of teachers drawing good salaries. They´re saying they can´t afford the equivalent of hiring one or two more teachers? The fedgov mandates the schools spend more than that when Michelle changes the school menu. Nonsense, we guard the banks, we guard the malls, we guard the politicians . . . let´s guard the children.

I remember the late 80´s when the NRA went through a "reasonable" phase. The state media gave them no credit, continued to lie and demonize, used the "reasonableness" as evidence of wrongdoing and weakness. There is absolutely no sense in "retreating" to a supposedly more defensible position because it won´t work.

Where is Tobin getting his news.

It didn´t take much work or too long of a wait to read that the press corps (corpse?) covering LaPierre´s speech made insulting, one-sided and obnoxious comments before he even began speaking. I.e. there was no ´objective´ coverage.

So what did you expect?

Not really, the NRA is doing ok, it is propaganda outlets like this one that spew a agenda, don´t commentate, just report...like the good ole days.

"Gun-free Zone" (killing field for children?)
20 minute response time by police while chidren are slaughtered?
Congressmen demanding security at work?
Obama demanding the Secret Service 24/7/365?


And LaPierre suggests security at schools?

Liberal have no clue as to the evil in a killer´s mind.
When Liberal´sr clidren are slaughtered in a "Gun-free Zone", what will they say about that?

Guns don´t kill people.
Poeple kill people!

I challenge every one of these proponents of "gun control" to post a prominent sign on the front door of their residence that says "THIS HOME IS A GUN FREE HOME. NO FIREARMS ALLOWED"

I challenge them to put a bumper sticker on their car saying the same thing in BIG RED LETTERS.

Should I hold my breath waiting for it to happen?

Short of declaring that the NRA was disbanding and advising all members to turn over their guns to the Feds, whatever LaPierre said was going to spark outrage on the left.

Simply because he presented an opinion that was bound to be exploited by the gun haters does not make him an idiot. Maybe it was time to get into people´s faces instead of cowering.

Some conservatives have become so, well, gunshy, at having their words distorted by the dems and media that they speak in mush to avoid a ginned up controversy. I am getting tired of that mentality.

..this tragedy was born from mental illness not firearms ...ban what you will..but without addressing the root cause..the only thing that will change...is the names .....