search
top

Some Troubled by NRA’s School Shield

Still rolling along here with the MiFi, through the highways and biways of the Great Commonwealth of Virginia. Should be home fairly soon, fortunately, and back to real bandwidth. Bitter is busy re-caffienating as we speak to go the last leg.

I’ve noticed while catching up on reading that some are troubled, particularly over at Ace of Spades, about NRA’s School Shield proposal. Some contributors don’t understand why we need a brand new federal program. While I agree with the criticism directed at NRA for demonizing video games (a position I share), I agree with this contributor about the purpose of the proposal:

…whether it was an accident or by intent, the NRA succeeded in forcing the MBM and the left (but I repeat myself) to refocus their attention away from “ASSAULT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!” and onto something different. And who cares that the new topic doesn’t make perfect sense. It puts into the public consciousness the idea that maybe gun-free zones aren’t such a good idea.

The ideal solution is not a new federal program, I agree. But it’s a way to deal with the “Something must be done!” voters, who politicians are generally eager to appease (because it’s a huge swath of voters). If there’s one thing a politician fears is that when something must be done, they are not seen as a public figure busy trying to do something.

So is it an ideal program? No. Would it be better with a security solution that had state and local funding and control? Sure. But is it something? Yes. Does the “something involved gun control? No. Does the something reframe the issue culturally? Yes.

It’s something that can be done that’s not gun control, and it may actually help prevent more Newtowns, which I think we can all agree aren’t good for anyone, except gun control advocacy organizations. A new federal program, that in the big scheme of things won’t actually cost much, is a far better result for liberty than major new limitations on our Second Amendment rights.

8 Responses to “Some Troubled by NRA’s School Shield”

  1. Richard says:

    Anything that would interpose armed defenders between the killers and the kids will be a plus. So while I would prefer armed citizens, the NRA plan is also viable. And these would be local cops under local control, not the TSA. For those of you so inclined, you can write your letters supporting both the NRA plan and the Israeli plan. It is important not only to oppose gun control but to have a positive alternative as well.

  2. Eck! says:

    Sebastian,

    The first thing I’d like to see go that makes it all possible is that stupid gun free zone. The gun free zone serves no useful purpose save for giving the denialists a talisman and the belief of safety when there is less than none.

    So long as people live in the fervent belief that being prepared is paranoia and that their fine neighborhood is far from evil they will be the most likely to suffer if only from the shock of reality.

    Until that happens malls and other high density victim zones are places I try to avoid when possible.

    Eck!

  3. Kermit says:

    The key to this trick is that a “cop in every school” WOULD require a new bureaucracy, requiring lots of funding, personnel, and more intrusion into our private lives. We would have TSA for the schools, School Security Agency or some such blather.

    No, this is, frankly, a red herring being presented, by our side for a change. Such a coordinating and regulating agency WOULD be untenable (NOT impossible, but untenable) and certainly unwelcome. No, with the current focus on budget, etc, this is designed to point out all the more that what we need is not cops in schools, but teachers, secretaries, janitors, etc., having their Second Amendment rights restored to them.

    By throwing the red herring, LaPierre has the cover of trying to “play within the system,” and isn’t the focus of ridicule for “wanting to arm teachers.” This has brought focus to the schools for the wealthy and privileged, that can afford armed guards (no begrudging there), and presented the idea that poor schools should have security too. If they cannot afford security, why -not- allow the teachers to carry?

    A rather clever red herring, at that. Propose an obviously untenable and probably unworkable gov’t solution to a gov’t-caused problem, in such fashion as to direct attention eventually to the REAL solution.

    I don’t always like the NRA’s political games, but this one was good.

    • Patrick H says:

      Yeah, that’s a good point that both you and Sebastian raise- regardless of how good the idea actually was, it does reframe the debate. It gets people thinking about the whole idea of armed protection. I love arguing that we have armed guards for money and politicians, but suddenly that’s not good enough for kids? What’s more important?

      • Harold says:

        Exactly, and the Left that is choosing to argue against this simply because it was proposed by the eeevil NRA is looking particularly silly and frequently hypocritical (e.g. David Gregory’s children go to the same school as Obama’s, which starts with a base of 11 guards before the latter added Secret Service protection). Someone also mentioned Clinton pushing this idea way back when, or maybe it was in his big bill that included the AWB?

  4. Anon says:

    The Left has no problem with cops having guns; they have, after all, incessantly preached “call 911″ instead of arming yourself. So, suggesting that cops become armed security is an easy sell. I’m no fan of LaPierre, but had he suggested arming teachers it would have drawn even more vitriol, and the attacks from the Left are predicated on schools no longer being gun free zones, by whatever method, which will be a disaster for their position. Once it’s accepted that the solution is armed response to crazed school shooters, the discussion will move on to who is armed, largely driven by budget issues.

  5. dvc4you says:

    Don let a crisis go to waste:

    Attack the “Gun Free Zone” act of 1994

  6. Ian Argent says:

    Pretty sure, if federal funds are involved, it’s an existing bureaucracy; the same one that pays (or paid,anyway) localities to hire more cops under Clinton. They won’t be federal agents (and this is where turf-building local politics helps, the police agencies will fight tooth and nail to ensure THEIR agency gets the money and slack duty).

top