State of Israel rejects NRA claims about gun and school security policies.

As I have stated several times now, I am a supporter of our Second Amendment rights. As such, it is disturbing to have noted spokespersons make erroneous claims. This focuses attention upon the erroneous claims rather than on the main topic. To support having police officers in every U.S. school, a stand with which I agree, Wayne La Pierre used the way Israel deploys armed guards at their schools as an example not only of a nation committed to the safety of its schoolchildren, but also an example of a nation where violence at schools had been a severe problem and was cured with the introduction of armed guards in school buildings. This article from the Toronto Star quotes a spokesperson from the Israeli foreign ministry disputing La Pierre's claims.
Here's the link:

No votes yet

agree including you !
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one.

Ask a cop why he carries one ...God-are all Liberals as convoluted as this zero ?!

Thought so...

(Am completely convinced of that.) And, am glad we agree on armed police or armed guards in schools.

As to LaPierre, personally, I am not a big fan. He tends to mis-handle public relations for his organization. All the NRA had to do, was express it grief at the school tragedy, and possibly their support for armed guards in schools, and leave it at that for now - at least until the liberal feeding frenzy dies down. LaPierre should have avoided press conferences and tv appearances. Instead, he jumped at the liberal press's demand that he say something they could attack. Accommodating the liberal press served no purpose - OTHER THAN to provide red meat for liberals who have been waaaay too happy that one of their pet topics is up for discussion again. The tragic REASON - the deaths of these innocents - that's a side story to these ghouls.

But look again at the beginning paragraph of the article in question:

JERUSALEM—Israel’s policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America’s top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.

OK, I get it -- Amy what's-her-face has an agenda. But didn't she twist herself into a pretzel here? I mean, seriously - she doesn't think "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" ARE terrorists? Or better yet (what an idiot this woman is) -- she thinks that armed guards at Israel's schools are going to card check individuals wishing to do school children harm, and ask "Are you a terrorist or just a crazed or disgruntled gunman?"

This woman is a card-carrying moron.

We don't need armed guards in public schools. It's a needless expense. Public schools are packed with adult American citizens, who in Ohio as well as Connecticut have the full right to keep and bear arms for their self defense. Telling them to be unarmed in a public place is 100% unconstitutional.

That's why these school shootings will continue. And it's exactly what the Liberals want. They want Americans to finally get so "shocked" and horrified by the latest school massacre that they will then tolerate even more unconstitutional law restricting guns, which for the Liberal schemers ideally means a 100% gun ban in all public places.

When Libs want a " a 100% gun ban in all public places" that means for law abiding citizens. The only ones armed in public are those willing to break the law.

In other words, the ONLY people carrying guns in public already have the mentality to commit crimes.

There already IS a law against carrying a firearm within 1000 yards of a school, but that law didn't stop the Conn. shootings.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

"That's why these school shootings will continue. And it's exactly what the Liberals want." So true.

I was reading Sen Feinstein's new proposal this morning. They're going after handguns as well. I thought the problem was "assault weapons and high capacity magazines"?

The primary weapon at Sandy Hook was not a handgun. A handgun is the only gun that can realistically be "concealled" whereas most assault weapons cannot (Yes I'm aware of a shortened AR-15 with a completely collapsable/removeable stock). So if they are not the problem here why are we regulating them?

Also I find it ironic that David Gregory held up a 30 rd magazine for an AR-15 (I own several despite not owning an AR-15) and said they should be banned and now he's in hot water.... because it was banned where he was at at the time. It highlights the real problems with gun laws, they are so convoluted and rarely is there reciprocity from one area to another than the fear of being prosecuted for just owning something that is legal a few miles away that it's easier just to not own it.

I mention the magazine because the same magazine is used in M4s and M16s and I own several for when I go to the range because the ones I own and maintain are more reliable than that which the gov't issues me for several reasons. I do not own any of the weapons they go to, just the magazine. Now let's say I were back in VA where I spent 4 years, and forgot my pack was in the trunk of my car. My wife borrows the car unknowing of my gear in the back, goes shopping in DC, gets pulled over. Suddenly she is treated like a common criminal about something she was totally unaware of and most would not even know was illegal.


Standardization of gun laws is vital. The proper enforcement of laws already on the books would help dramatically. We should not criminalize law-abiding citizens and/or their innocent spouses.
I am concerned with gun owners being more responsible. Too many gun owners allow full access to their guns to anyone who enters their home. That's scary!

"I am concerned with gun owners being more responsible. Too many gun owners allow full access to their guns to anyone who enters their home. That's scary!"

It's also a pile of bullshit. "Anyone" might include neighbors, friends, your kids, your kids friends, the paper boy, and so on, wouldn't it? And of this population, any, or all of them are given full access to the owners' guns? Maybe this goes on, on your Home World, but it doesn't HERE.

Standardization of gun laws is vital.

We already have that. It's called "not infringe".

It's illegal in the states of Ohio and Connecticut, as in most states, for the federal and state governments to pass laws against, or otherwise simply act against, the rights of adults to keep and bear arms. (County and muni governments can't exceed that mandate either.) By illegal I mean it's written as an affirmed right in numerous constitutions in English language that can't be any clearer.

And yet people claim it's "illegal" for a teacher, administrator, other worker or even a visitor in a public school to holster a gun on their person in case some wackjob busts into the school and starts shooting kids.

This is untenable. We have an insane society and Liberals are largely to blame for that.

Do you know many elementary school teachers? Most are compassionate, caring people who have no interest in learning how to use a gun for the one in 50,000 or so chance that an armed person or persons will attack adults and/or children at their school! And where would they have this gun? On their person? What about accidental firings? In a desk drawer? What if a child got it? In a locked drawer or cabinet? How would they get it in time to save anyone?

I have had this argument before. Officers in schools are neighborhood resource officers. When I was teaching at DeVeaux and we had a police officer assigned to our building, the officer was NOT chained inside the school. And officers are only assigned to the schools on school days and during school hours (Duh!). Our officer often left the building to go on calls in the surrounding neighborhood, or to other schools. It's a great way to decentralize police forces, but there will be a cost.
We need properly trained police officers in our schools -- not volunteers, not teachers who have neither the inclination, the time, nor the expertise to use a gun effectively. So sorry if this costs a little money.
GZ -- How much would you pay to save one child's life?

Well again you are denying that 1 person in 50K their constitutional right to protect themself. Shouldn't this apply to every other one of the bill of rights as well? Are you willing to give up your freedom of speech because another 50k don't care for what you're saying. Again, this isn't saying it couldn't be without regulation which is fully allowed according to SCOTUS.

For instance, a double action revolver is not very prone to accidental firings. If you're familiar with double action then I need not explain why. Additionally there's nothing that says an additional safety requirement need not be added as well. Personally I believe any area that has a ban on people carrying weapons for their personal safety like schools and government buildings the institution then has the responsibility to have an armed individual on sight to protect the safety of those within it.

"Our officer often left the building to go on calls in the surrounding neighborhood, or to other schools. It's a great way to decentralize police forces, but there will be a cost." There are many retired Cops and Marines I know would would very happily take a job working at a school as armed security. It would be a 8-4 job, summers off, on top of their retirement. What do you think they're doing now? My brother-in-law is considering the early retirement the Marines are now offering for a variety of reasons. He is a MP. He would do this in a heartbeat.


Please read more carefully! I NEVER stated that teachers should not be able to own guns and carry them. I stated that MOST elementary teachers with whom I worked and who I know do not WANT to have that responsibility when it is overwhelmingly likely that they would never have occasion to need one! I taught for 35 years. I never was in a situation in 35 years, nor did I see one faced by others, where I wished I had a gun on me. The need for a gun by a teacher was the 1 in 50,000 reference, not prohibiting any law-abiding citizen who wants a gun to not get be allowed to have one, even a teacher. As I write this, I'm sure there are teachers in Ohio who will carry a gun into their classrooms legally the first day after Christmas Break in January. My point is that we can't rely upon teachers as gun carriers, because most will choose to NOT carry!
And the shooting of 3 police officers in New Jersey yesterday, at a police station, by someone who was unarmed at the time and took a gun from a trained officer, shows that, while I SUPPORT HAVING TRAINED POLICE PERSONNEL IN SCHOOLS, it is no guarantee of safety. It's an improvement in security, but not a be-all and end-all. Your idea of using trained retirees is a good one which would save money.

I would hope that any person who wants to carry a gun would get advice from someone like you who has a wealth of experience with various guns. Unfortunately, many purchase guns in a "knee-jerk" reaction,and are not fully prepared for the responsibility of gun ownership. That is what creates more dangerous situations. Gun owners have a moral responsibility to secure their guns. Period!

There are plenty of things about which we disagree. Since I have great agreement with you on this issue, I was trying to support you on this one! I have stated over and over again that I SUPPORT FULL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! I SUPPORT FULL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR TEACHERS WHO WANT TO CARRY A GUN AS WELL!! Sheesh! Get it right! PLEASE!!!

How much would you pay to save one child's life?

I will never pay my freedom. This is the key element you Liberals never understand or admit.

Not that Liberals have any place to speak here about the lives of children, since they intentionally put children at risk in "gun free zones" called schools so that their agenda of overturning our gun culture can happen. Compassion? Don't make me laugh.

Adults in public places have the right to keep and bear arms. This is explicit in states like Ohio and Connecticut. Schools are clearly under threat, so the adults there should be doubly asserting their right to arm themselves against attackers.

every school and have armed guards at every school !
And have, for decades !!!!

Find another lying post by some other lying liberal you'll eat like a hog eats slop !

I'd bet my life that you bought into SantaObbamma's, "recovery" from June 09-June 12 , didn't you ?!
And Toledo's schools rival any schools in Cleveland , Detroit, Chicago, St.Louis, etc.!!!

SUCKER !!!!!

when will we think clearly about a very real truth Criminals don't obey gun laws . crazy people don't care about gun laws only law abiding citizens obey laws . but criminals and crazy people do know how to read Aurora, Colorado As many now know, the Cinemark movie theaters in Colorado ban permit holders from carrying their guns into the movie theater. The media mentions that the theater was "close to [the killer's] home," but where there other movie theaters? What were the rules for guns at the other theaters? Why might the killer have picked the movie theater that . Of the seven theaters showing The Dark Knight Rises on July 20th that were within a 20 minute drive of the movie theater, six allowed permitted concealed handguns and only one denied them at the time of the attack. we all know that you can know no one had a gun at the school but a crazy guy one law maker says you should pay for back ground check when buy agun his this to make money or to save lives i think to make money and tou will paythe law abiding .. just saw that one more person got thrown in front of subway train how many more must die before we ban subway trains .500 hundred murders in Chicago ill they have laws NY .Ca . working real well ya right


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.