NRA calls for armed guards in schools, taps Hutchinson to lead plan

Posted: December 21, 2012 at 11:18 a.m.
Updated: December 21, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.

The National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, gestures during a news conference in response to the Connecticut school shooting on Friday, Dec. 21, 2012 in Washington. The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association called for stationing police officers in schools as the proper response to the Dec. 14 school shooting in Connecticut and blamed “blood-soaked films” and video games for the violence.

The NRA also announced a plan to develop a comprehensive school security plan for use nationwide, an initiative that is being headed by former U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, an Arkansas Republican.

“The only thing stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s chief executive officer, said Friday at a news conference that was twice interrupted by protesters. He urged Congress “to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.”

Beyond paid security, LaPierre said school systems could tap into retired firefighters, police and military personnel to create school “security forces.”

Read tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.

There are about 67,000 elementary schools in the country. Assuming that an armed guard costs $50,000/year, that would add up to $3.35 billion/year.
Or one armed guard for each school K-12 would cost $5 billion.
So good of the gun industry to pay for this, as a cost of doing business.
Oh, they didn't offer to pay? It seems even the gun industry doesn't make enough profit to pay for this.

Posted by: Coralie

December 21, 2012 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I agree Coralie. Our money is much better spent on things like Solyndra.

Posted by: JB30

December 21, 2012 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Solyndra, Heh, Heh, Heh, egg on face. Splat! Liberials don't ya just love em.

Posted by: JailBird

December 21, 2012 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>So good of the gun industry to pay for this, as a cost of doing business.
Oh, they didn't offer to pay?<

You didn't get the memo? Arkansas' ASA! says it will be done for free:

In case some easily forget, Columbine High School had an armed guard on duty:

Posted by: cdawg

December 21, 2012 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Solyndra lost $500 million, about one-tenth of the annual amount needed to place one armed guard at every school K-12.
And in general I think our money IS well spent on renewable energy. ,

Posted by: Coralie

December 21, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Many of the schools in the NW AR area do have armed police officers on site daily...School Resource Officers.

Posted by: Dellmann

December 21, 2012 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think they are going to be armed volunteers with big guns like me. I will sit at the entrance of your grandchildren's school with my Kimber 45 Auto and a bag full of chips and clips and your little grandbabies will be safer than they will be at home. The potential killer will only hurt those children when said killer prys that weapon from my cold dead fingers. Rest easy Coralie. "Armed Citizen on Guard."

Posted by: JailBird

December 21, 2012 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If you can't defend the issue, change the topic.

We have the Republican Congressmen throwing their speaker under the bus because we can't cut sufficient spending, and the ultimate conservative standardbearer is saying let's spend money on guns and guards.

They got it wrong. The way to stop a bad guy with a gun it to prevent him from getting a gun in his hands. I know, you can't prevent all of them from getting guns. How about we prevent some? How about we prevent them from getting weapons that are SO leathal? Wouldn't it be better to limit them to 10 shots at a time instead of 30? Wouldn't it be better if he killed five instead of 26?

We already limit access to some weapons. We cannot get fully automatic (machine) guns, RPGs or many explosives. How many shots to we need to bring that buck down?

Posted by: pricem36

December 21, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."....George Orwell

The answer to your stupid question, pricem, is as many shots as it takes.

Posted by: JailBird

December 21, 2012 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>We already limit access to some weapons. We cannot get fully automatic (machine) guns, RPGs or many explosives.<,

You can get machine guns if you pay a fee or tax and undergo an investigation.

Additionally, the nutjob, Justice Scalia, is thinking of ways to rule that hand or shoulder launched rockets fits into his definition of "keep and bear."

You can also get guns even if you're a convicted felon, convicted of violent crimes or gun crimes:

Posted by: cdawg

December 21, 2012 at 5:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good job Coralie! Now if we can just find 9 more wasteful expenditures like Solyndras we'll have it paid for. I'm sure it will be tough but we can do it!...

What? You don't like that? Solyndra is good you say? Still think the NRA should pay huh?

Tell ya what. You get your liberal buddies to pay for Obamacare and I will get the gun crowd to pay for school security. Deal?

Posted by: JB30

December 21, 2012 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Don't think she will agree to that, JB. Reason seems not to work in a liberial mind.

Posted by: JailBird

December 21, 2012 at 6:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hate to point this out - "Assault weapons" and high capacity mags are already out there and have been for years. Any new laws will only affect FUTURE sales. Unless the Govt. is ready to pull on it's jack boots and go house to house to confiscate existing weapons, nothing will change. The NRA's proposal is the closest thing I've heard to a measure that will prevent future massacares NOW. The last "assault weapons" ban had no effect on crime or school shootings. Why would you think a new one would?

Posted by: cjranger

December 21, 2012 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The plan will be rejected by those that would just as soon support "organizations" like Code Pinko. If it weren't for the fact that I'de be robbing my son of interaction with so many other people on a daily basis, I'de have my wife homeschool him where he would be in an armed and guarded classroom everyday.

Guns are not the issue.

"Why don't you go bust them boys that sellin' crack." --Justin Moore

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 21, 2012 at 8:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rupert Murdoch's NY Post daily newspaper headline:

Posted by: cdawg

December 22, 2012 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The New York Post and the New York Daily News tore into the National Rifle Association on Saturday for the gun lobby's bizarre press conference held in response to the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre.

On Friday, the gun lobby broke its silence to comment on the Connecticut school shooting, which took the lives of 20 first-graders and six adults. In a widely-panned public appearance, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre blamed gun violence on everything from video games to the media, and advocated placing an armed officer in every school in America.

Responses ranged from disgust to disbelief.

The conservative New York Post, which called LaPierre a "gun nut" and "NRA loon" on its Saturday cover, may be taking its cues from its owner, Rupert Murdoch. In the wake of the shooting, Murdoch spoke out about the need for stricter gun control.

"Terrible news today," he tweeted. "When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy."

Saturday's New York Daily News cover called LaPierre the "craziest man on earth." The tabloid also published a pro-gun control cover last Tuesday.

Posted by: cdawg

December 22, 2012 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

LaPierre is a "gun nut" and a "NRA loon", however the title of "craziest man on earth" is subjective. God help us, but we need more men like LaPierre in the United States.

Posted by: JailBird

December 22, 2012 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "Our money is much better spent on things like Solyndra.">>

Anyone who peddles the entirely bogus Solyndra example, is necessarily confused about the facts. There are no known exceptions to this rule. It's a fake media invention like Fast & Frivolous. Media Matters has an excellent unpack of the whole situation here: ... one/189786

See the chart at the top showing who manufactured it with media hype (FOX).

Some excerpts:

"In the media's discussion of Solyndra, less than 1 percent of TV coverage and 4 percent of print coverage explained that Congress expected that not all projects would succeed. None of the major outlets explained that most loans went to low-risk generation projects. Congress budgeted $2.47 billion, or more than 15 percent of the total value of approved 1705 loan guarantees, to cover for defaults. To date, only three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million. All three of the defaults were higher risk loans. But a Bloomberg Government study found that "87 percent of the $16.1 billion in loan guarantees is backing 18 power generation projects, which have a low risk of default because they were required to have buyers for their power output." That study found that even if all of the higher risk (non-generation) projects defaulted on the full amount of their loan guarantees and "no assets were to be recovered, the DOE would still have $446 million remaining to cover additional project losses."


"Not a single media outlet mentioned that Solyndra attracted more than $1 billion in private capital and was seen by many as a promising, innovative company. And only 3 percent of TV coverage and less than one percent of print coverage mentioned that the loan process for Solyndra started under the Bush administration."


"A Long Investigation Turned Up No Evidence Of Wrongdoing. Bloomberg Businessweek's Joshua Green reported that an extensive investigation by House Republicans found no evidence of wrongdoing in the loan guarantee program. He also noted that Solyndra was seen by many business experts as promising:"

"Bush Admin. Advanced 16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions."


To see no end of the successes in this program, all one needs to do is go here and see them listed, by category:

Further reading: "Five myths about the Solyndra collapse"

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 11:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As mentioned in another thread... The NRA is basically a publicity sales front group for the billion dollar firearm industry. Stir up fear and paranoia about gun control and lie about it a lot (examples upon request).

So this is their latest sales gimmick:

"[NRA] president Wayne LaPierre proposed a program that would put armed guards and perhaps other adults with guns in every school,...

Nichols, of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, described the NRA’s proposal as preposterous.

“I think it’s an absurd and dangerous idea,” Nichols said. “But as with so many of their proposals I think its real aim is to encourage the sale of more firearms. The biggest donors to the NRA are firearms manufacturers. Besides, arming and equipping all these people he wants to put in schools, having guns where kids see them daily is a tool to market weapons to the next generation.”

Hopefully in a few short years (if not already), the NRA will be viewed as the tobacco industry has been viewed after being exposed trying to cover up all of the deaths their product causes. GHW Bush's letter to the NRA in 1995 shows how nuts they have become and it's worth reading:

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 11:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you fayfreethinker for a well-reasoned, researched, and respectful post.

Posted by: albrown1959

December 23, 2012 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

stopping "mad" guys or "bad" guys?

FFthinker that was excellent food for thought.

but i also think the real problem is how many single mothers out there raising disturbed male Adult children. the big tough men with their big guns usually abdicated this job to women who are not physically strong, do not usually have guns and are usually underfinanced to take care of the problems of mentally challenged young men. whom they usually love and want to get help in their care BEFORE they hurt others or themselves.
I bet alot of the mentally ill are also cared for by grandparents! i bet their are millions out their who need assistance NOT GUNS.
they could be the caregivers of the returning males damaged by war or just victims of birth related disabilities.
but of course it would be easier for those caregivers to know their mentally ill can not get
guns so easily. it is time to address the mentally ill and what we can do in our society to help them and their caregivers better?

Posted by: ladyLiberty

December 23, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

here is one of those mothers who are calling out for help:

Posted by: ladyLiberty

December 23, 2012 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What we need are more untrained, volunteer armed guards like George Zimmerman.

Posted by: Coralie

December 23, 2012 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think we all know what Solyndra represents, so instead I'll just ask the libs in this thread one question:

Did you go bonkers when Slick Willie made the same suggestion?

"In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking"

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Slick wasn't behind COPS in school. It was Hillary, and it was to protect female teachers from Slick.

Posted by: JailBird

December 23, 2012 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The NRA isn't proposing Cops in School but armed volunteers.
To have a trained armed guard in every school would cost a lot more then $60 million.

Posted by: Coralie

December 23, 2012 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

When you get past the first million, you are way beyond my pay grade.

Posted by: JailBird

December 23, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, volunteers don't cost anything. That's why they're called volunteers.

You should read the speech instead of relying on left-wing blogs to tell you what you're supposed to think.

As I said before, the NRA called for a cop in every school immediately...

"I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school - and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January."

Also in his speech was a long-term plan which would include a blend of trained security professionals.

"Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer - relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.


The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now."

Read more:

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 8:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I is one of them, retired police officer, large city, been to academy, still comissioned, friearms instruction trainer, Have Big Gun will Shoot to kill any bad guy looking to harm babies in schools if liberial teachers will shield yourng inocent eyes from destroyed mangled would be shooter whose head is not now not recognized as human being. All babies alive and would be shooter dead and big fat hog of mother standing off the side telling news babe, that he was such a good boy, just got in with the wrong crowd and I though buying an AR15 would help him be someone in his peer group. And then he ran into this preditor at the school door who did not seem to understand that Little Billy with AR15 was only going to show the children how to use the weapon and mean police officer just worldn't understaned that Little Billy ment no harm with AR15 and now my little baby is dead. He was a good boy.

Posted by: JailBird

December 24, 2012 at 12:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens"
Who are they? Trained and qualified how and by whom?
Police dept. budgets are strained but policemen will go out and work for nothing, yes?

Posted by: Coralie

December 26, 2012 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Needs change, Coralie, used to it would require a noble sum of cash to get me to jump into a "hot" area where there might be a fire fight. Now to legally get away for the troll and her toliet bowl cleaning obsession, I would face Statan at the gates of hell with a bean shooter that look into that toliet bowl one more time. I will guard the little munsters for a good meal.

Posted by: JailBird

December 26, 2012 at 9:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gawd, I must have wrote that when I was under the influence of Tidy Bowel fumes.

Posted by: JailBird

December 27, 2012 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens"
Who are they? Trained and qualified how and by whom?"

Moneymyst and others with professional training would be a good start. Congress can set standards to determine what kind of training is required.

"Police dept. budgets are strained but policemen will go out and work for nothing, yes?"

Again, you should try reading the speech (I'd settle for just reading the part I quoted above)

Here is the answer to your question (in case you missed it):

"I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school..."

He's calling on Congress to fund this, not the local PD's.


For the record, I still favor allowing those with a CHL to carry in schools like they carry everywhere else (in place of the NRA's plan). The "gun free" zone experiment has proven to be a total disaster and nut job magnet.

Posted by: JB30

December 27, 2012 at 3:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Moneymyst and others with professional training would be a good start."
That sort of armed guard would send me into home schooling.

Posted by: Coralie

December 28, 2012 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm an equel opportunity protector, school or home. Have gun, will protect.

Posted by: JailBird

December 28, 2012 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't know if anyone has suggested this, but I would be in favor of the National Guard posting a person in every school. They could rotate between personnel. Aren't they on call anyway?

If we had an armed Guardsman / woman posted there would no longer be a "gun free" killing zone available to lunatics.

Posted by: patrioteer

December 28, 2012 at 7:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


That could be mandated by Governors in individual states.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 28, 2012 at 9:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You know, just as there is a "judicial temperament" there probably is an "armed guard in a school temperament" and not everybody who knows how to shoot a gun has it.
The military trains people to kill. That is their mission.
So what is this armed person supposed to do for the days and years just waiting for the off-chance that he or she will get a clear shot at a clearly dangerous person?
Do you see any potential problems here?

Posted by: Coralie

December 29, 2012 at 2:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Moneymyst and others with professional training would be a good start."
Is MoneyMyst a retired policeman?
How would you know?
In this armed-guard scheme, how would you certify a candidate for emotional stability?

Posted by: Coralie

December 29, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )



"The military trains people to kill. That is their mission."

Are you the resident expert on the military and killing now? You have real big misconception of the purpose of the military and what it trains people to do, especially the National Guard in this instance.

We can't protect our kids with rainbows and well wishes.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 29, 2012 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

On my office wall I have framed certificate that says,
State of Arkansas
Commission on Law Enforcement Standards
is awarded to
.............. ............
who has qualified pursuant to Act 452 of 1975 as a
Certified Law Enforcement Officer

Dated and signed below and sealed by the Seal of the Great State of Arkansas

I reserve my name as this is a confidential forum.

Emotional stability is a record of 30 years of law enforcement in Arkansas and Texas without a blemish.

Posted by: JailBird

December 29, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In a recent speech before the Association of the United States Army, Robert Gates articulated the following role for the U.S. military:
“Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance. All these so-called nontraditional capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning, and strategy”where they must stay.”
In other words, the military performs the tasks that the WPA, CCC, and various civic organizations used to do?
So why do they need all those bombs and tanks?

Posted by: Coralie

December 29, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Because their most fundamental purpose is to wage armed conflict, military institutions are designed for violence and coercion, and over the centuries have developed the organizational structure, operating procedures, and individual values needed to succeed in war. Authority in the military emphasizes hierarchy so that individuals and units act according to the plans and decisions of commanders, and can succeed under the very worst of mental and physical circumstances."

Posted by: Coralie

December 29, 2012 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK, Money, I'll take your word for it. Hadn't heard you say so before.
You must admit that your many apparent changes of position, desire for the limelight, and occasional incoherence do not inspire the confidence that one prefers in someone holding a gun.

Posted by: Coralie

December 29, 2012 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My wife, the troll, said almost the same thing. She said; "Your inmature behavior, agressive lack of patience, intolerence of traffic laws, and frequent lane changes do not inspire the confidence one perfers in someone driving a car."

Posted by: JailBird

December 29, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )



"In other words, the military performs the tasks that the WPA, CCC, and various civic organizations used to do? So why do they need all those bombs and tanks?"

Because there are those that would seek to do us and a whole lot of innocents around the world harm, among many other things.

The overarching mission of the United States Armed Forces is to protect and defend.
Unfortunately, sometimes permantely eliminating threats is a requirement to do that.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --George Orwell

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 30, 2012 at 1:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

We got enough stuff that the Air Force could do a preempitive strike on Tehran and the whole rest of Iran would be collateral damage. Just a personal opinion, but when you get enough stuff to blow up the world one time, you need to stop at that point, no reason to blow it up twice.

Posted by: JailBird

December 30, 2012 at 4:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I was told about a fellow who went to Washington State to pick apples. On the way back home on a long strip of straight road a car with 4 ruffians came
up behind him, passed, slowed down, almost stopped in front of him, and were making threatening gestures.He would pass and they would repeat the process . The intended victim slowed down to a stop and the ruffians stopped ahead about 100 yards, got out of the car leaving the doors open and started swaggering back to the stopped driver. He had foresight enough to have taken his 30-06 rifle with him and got it from the seat beside him, opened his driver door, dropped the barrel down to the hinge and began shooting out the tires of the ruffians' vehicle. The bullets were zinging by them and they turned around and ran to their car at breakneck speed, jumped into the car and all four doors slammed in unison as they drove off as fast as they could on flat rear tires! They went on out of sight and he came safely on home instead of being possibly beaten up or worse, killed, and left on the road for the buzzards. He could have killed them all easily, but didn't. The gun was a deterrent and that is precisely why most people who carry them.
Statistics show that where gun laws are strictest, gun crimes are the highest.
Dictators disarm the people who are then defenseless against him or any other criminal. Our government is turning into a dictatorship.

Posted by: kinggeorge

December 30, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Statistics show that where gun laws are strictest, gun crimes are the highest."
Please cite source(s) for those statistics.
Did your friend require 30 consecutive shots to shoot out the tires?
Why is the idea of banning assault weapons and large magazines equated with "disarming"?

Posted by: Coralie

December 30, 2012 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, I wouldn't need 30 rounds to shoot out tires, but you might, Coralie

Posted by: JailBird

December 30, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Reference your 0450 post:

Budgets cover a whole lot more than equipment and munitions.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 30, 2012 at 11:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Even wnen the Pentagon tells congress that they don't need or want this or that, but congress gives it to them anyway because it is some Congressman's pet home project. When are we going to let the Military run the Military?

Posted by: JailBird

January 1, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Answer to your question:

When the military isn't ran by the civilian government.... that whole civilian oversight plays in you know.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 1, 2013 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There is only a slight difference between oversight and interference. Vietnam was lost because of political interference.

Posted by: JailBird

January 2, 2013 at 10:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )



"Vietnam was lost because of political interference."

I don't know if "lost" is the word I would use, but I won't disagree that the outcome was affected by politics.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 2, 2013 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The first draft of Eisenhower's famous speech that included the words "military-industrial complex included the word "congressional" as in military-industrial-congressional complex.
We now have an economy based on military production, a system sometimes called "military Keynesianism." The economy runs on military spending as much as on cars.
Whether all of our military adventures were because other countries threatened us is another matter.
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Posted by: Coralie

January 4, 2013 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Using the US military to fulfil a political mission is damned to failure if and when the politics of the mission change. Threats are largely a matter of debate. In my opinion, the last real threat, the US faced was settled in WW2. All of the others since WW2 were simply using the US military to settle political differences between nations.

Posted by: JailBird

January 4, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” -- Karl von Clausewitz

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 5, 2013 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )