school security guards

[bbqboy]

This story was on NPR the other day. Next HS over from the one I attended, and considered an affluent and successful.
http://pvpost.com/2013/03/25/sm-east-in-...taff-16857
SM East served as the subject of a lengthy piece on NPR’s Talk of the Nation Friday during which national education reporter Claudio Sanchez interviewed school resource officer Joel Porter and principal Karl Krawitz about the role of officers in schools and whether teachers and staff should have access to firearms.

Porter said after the Newtown, Conn., massacre he has lobbied for a more powerful weapon, believing that the .40 caliber handgun he carries wouldn’t be sufficient to confront a situation like the one at Sandy Hook. Porter also said he didn’t think it was a good idea to arm teachers and staff — an area where Krawitz and he have opposing views.

“You know, I’m not a gun advocate but I would have to say if I had access to a gun I would use it,” Krawitz said.
listen by clicking on link....

[chuck white]

I think every high school should have armed guards

[blondemom]

The high schools and the JR high here all have police officers that are armed, and they are there all day, and right now I can not remember from last year about the elementary school, I do remember the police being there when the kids got out of school.

[illcommandante]

We have armed officers, in our community. We put one in a DARE car, and sent him to school. And, it didn't work out well. These aren't the type of people we need around our children. They left school in uncomfortable situations. Behind in their work, and not confidant they could do better, without applying themselves.

[chuck white]

Even though our teachers were armed, I still had a crush on them.

[Prospero]

The situation with automobiles is analogous to that of firearms: there are a lot of cars and a lot of guns, and both are capable of doing significant damage if misused, either through carelessness or through actual criminal activity. There are two main differences: cars are much larger and difficult to hide, but their ownership and use is not protected by the US constitution. Automobiles were introduced to our culture in the early 20th century, and ever since, they have been the subject of a mass of regulation and legislation designed to prevent their drivers from doing damage to property, to themselves, and to other people. I think the most ardent advocate of 2nd amendment rights for firearms would be entirely supportive of all this regulation in the motor vehicle code, including the most recent additions, such as criminalizing failure to wear seat belts (or to use child seats for young children) and texting or talking on cell phones while driving. Again, the problem is not with the guns or the cars, which are merely tools, it's with their misuse by people who shouldn't have access to them. The enforcement problem is, however, immensely simplified with automobiles: any car on the road is identifiable by registration, description, and license number, and drivers are also licensed, subject to periodic testing of their competence to operate the vehicle, and required to carry insurance to cover liability for any injury they may inflict on persons or property. All this regulation was designed to promote public safety, and it would be interesting to investigate whether the AAA, during the past century, has tended to resist motor vehicle legislation or to advocate it. Largely because of such legislation, we can drive down public highways meeting other vehicles passing within a few feet of us at a combined speed of well over 100 mph, and take our safety for granted.

The NRA proposal to establish a vast federal corps of armed guards for schools is not only contrary to the most basic conservative principles of limited government (and why just schools? why not post offices and office buildings?), it is tantamount to ensuring traffic safety by creating a federal highway division with one patrol car for every hundred or so vehicles on the road.

[Willie Krash]

Many think the right to free travel to be in the constitution. It is not. To Prospero point and admittedly a stretch could I suggest that we explore the auto/gun analogy with this little passage in mind?

"As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

So the right to bear arms is argued to be absolute. If the courts have deemed a right to travel by the second amendment standard, does that mean travel by my two feet, a horse, a wagon, a car? Are automobile drivers being infringed upon?

[tvguy]

The situation with automobiles is analogous to that of firearms: there are a lot of cars and a lot of guns, and both are capable of doing significant damage if misused, either through carelessness or through actual criminal activity. There are two main differences: cars are much larger and difficult to hide, but their ownership and use is not protected by the US constitution. Automobiles were introduced to our culture in the early 20th century, and ever since, they have been the subject of a mass of regulation and legislation designed to prevent their drivers from doing damage to property, to themselves, and to other people. I think the most ardent advocate of 2nd amendment rights for firearms would be entirely supportive of all this regulation in the motor vehicle code, including the most recent additions, such as criminalizing failure to wear seat belts (or to use child seats for young children) and texting or talking on cell phones while driving. Again, the problem is not with the guns or the cars, which are merely tools, it's with their misuse by people who shouldn't have access to them. The enforcement problem is, however, immensely simplified with automobiles: any car on the road is identifiable by registration, description, and license number, and drivers are also licensed, subject to periodic testing of their competence to operate the vehicle, and required to carry insurance to cover liability for any injury they may inflict on persons or property. All this regulation was designed to promote public safety, and it would be interesting to investigate whether the AAA, during the past century, has tended to resist motor vehicle legislation or to advocate it. Largely because of such legislation, we can drive down public highways meeting other vehicles passing within a few feet of us at a combined speed of well over 100 mph, and take our safety for granted.

The NRA proposal to establish a vast federal corps of armed guards for schools is not only contrary to the most basic conservative principles of limited government (and why just schools? why not post offices and office buildings?), it is tantamount to ensuring traffic safety by creating a federal highway division with one patrol car for every hundred or so vehicles on the road.

and why just schools? Because they are reacting to the perception of the American public that it's common for people armed with an evil style rifle to slaughter our children in schools?

[illcommandante]

Anyone can shoot a gun. I do it uncommonly well. Without much practice. Not everyone can factor. Or spell. So how do they impress the Chicks? It's easy. Chicks are stupid.