The ecurity issue is one that needs filling by changes of tactics and arming more plainclothes security folks.
The arming of everyone as David seeks,
is silly and the money could better be spent
by providing schools with more armed personnel
and certain full body armored elite teams that would practice "urban assault" tactics.
My position is being misrepresented and distorted.
I never suggested that the students be armed from the public treasury,
just as thay do not get free pens, nor free paper, nor free shoes.
RATHER, I suggest that the students' OWN
preparations for self-defense NOT be obstructed by the polity.
I further suggest that thay be trained in defensive gunnery practices,
the same as we were trained to swim, for safety reasons.
Schools have had many, many rifle and pistol teams for many generations,
certainly since Congress established the Director of Civilian Marksmanship,
around the time of the First World War
( from whom I purchased a .30 caliber M-1 Carbine for $20
and a .45 caliber Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol for $12 )
The perps are universally narcissistic and have some major wiring problems ,
so , once they begin their acting, its too late,
the time for intervention has passed
and these kids must be neutralized as quickly as possible.
I believe that a hollowpointed .44 special round
directed into the lower intestines wud effect swift neutralization.
Columbine was a perfect example where kids were being killed
while police were methodically closing in on the perps.
Its no critcism of them, they were instructed to assume that the perps
could meld right into the crowd of schoolkids.
That is not what happened.
The police were too cowardly to enter the school
until several hours after the murderers had already committed suicide.
( The police were afraid of all the bombs. )
Thay limited themselves to false promises of armed assistance,
over the telefone, while teachers and students were literally lying on
the floor bleeding to death, waiting for help. Thay DID
bleed to death, waiting for the police.
( That IS
a criticism of the local police, and it is indicative of the wisdom
of relying upon help from society, instead of being self-reliant.
Let us be COGNIZANT that this is the dichotomy of American philosophy:
the old self-reliant right, and the newer collectivist reliant point of vu,
as evinced by Reginald Denny in L.A. and by Kitty Genovese in NY,
both of whom found out, empirically, how safe it is to rely on the police.
BOTH of them were in full and perfect compliance with ALL gun control laws.
Surely the suppressionists must be PROUD
( Their abusers shud certainly be grateful to them for obeying the gun control laws; RIGHT ?? )
Arming everyone (like David states regularly)
would not be a sane solution because the number of accidental shootings
(like "friendly fire" incidents could make a bad situation much worse).
By THAT reasoning,
all police stations shud be disarmed
on the grounds that thay might have an accidental discharge
in friendly fire circumstances, and of course we know that that happens
; right ??
PLEASE NOTE that this is more than an examination of the WISDOM
of repealing laws that sabotage the citizens' abitilty to defend their lives and property:
this concerns a matter of USURPATION
of power by government,
that was never granted to government
( like the power to choose your favorite color for u and assign it to u ),
but this concerns a usurpatory seizure of power that was explicitly denied
to government so that the citizens 'd be able to control, modify,
and even overthrow government AGAIN, if thay so chose,
as thay just had done in their very recent memory in the American Revolution.
Under the old English Monarchy, the GOVERNMENT had been sovereign.
The King was ofen called " the Sovereign. "
The establishment of the American Republic rejected
that point of vu.
In the nu government, the CITIZENS were sovereign
and government was only hired help
, like realty owners hiring a property manager.
By assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.
US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic since it offers a strong moral check
against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally
...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER
together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who reiterated that idea, adding:
"The meaning of the provision... is that the people ...
shall have the right to keep and bear arms and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose."
The Constitution no more allows any government to control guns
than to edit the Bible or control who has one.