Obama’s False Tears For Gun Violence Victims – Betrayed By Innocent Civilians And Children Killed In Drone Strikes

Obama’s false tears for gun violence victims is predictably exploited to push his agenda, which are non-solutions for gun violence; his 400th ordered drone strike – which causes the murder of innocents, including children, betrays their falsehood.

President Obama’s biographer magnanimously says Obama is showing his “soft side”. Conjuring false tears to exploit others in order to push agenda is the less gracious way of putting it. He cried during the Press conference addressing the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. He lent his shoulder to cry on forthe families who lost loved ones at Benghazi. He reprised the role most recently following the Navy Yard shooting. He’s outwardly shows emotion when it suits him.

Obama’s obsession for gun control is also palpably evident, despite the policy proposals being shown to not be actual solutions. He was “visibly angry” when speaking about the failure of background checks earlier this year. Referencing Chicago gun violence over the weekend in which 20 have been shot and five killed since Friday, he urged the Congressional Black Caucus to “keep marching” for gun control. Addressing the families of the Naval Yard shooting, he said gun control “ought to obsess us.” Nevermind that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun controls in the nation – or that that Washington Navy Yard is a gun-free zone as a military installation, located within Washington D.C., effectively a gun-free zone, and the shooter used a shotgun that would have been exempted on the failed so-called “assault weapons ban” Democrats proposed. Ironically, these “solutions” would not solve gun violence. Yet is “saving even one life” really the objective?

 

The same President Obama has ordered an exponential increase in drone strikes; strikes which kill inordinate numbers of civilians over actual terrorists – this includes innocent children. He has just ordered his 400th drone strike. Bush ordered about 50 strikes. Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan alone. According to Global Research, over the past 4 years Obama has authorized attacks in Pakistan which have killed more than 800 innocent civilians and just 22 Al-Qaeda officers, or roughly 36 civilians per terrorist target. A new study fromBureau of Investigative Journalism shows how many children have died in these attacks. In just two countries, Pakistan and Yemen (neither of which the U.S. is at war with), there have been 45 children killed  by drone strikes. In Pakistan, the total children killed, ages 12 and under numbers 27 (2 girls and 25 boys; as young as age 3).  In Yemen, the total children killed, ages 12 and under numbers 18 (13 girls and 5 boys; as young as age 1). Note: Excluded from this number are teenagers, aged 13-19; the Bureau of Investigative Journalism also lists this number.

 The U.S. wasn’t specifically targeting these children for the most part.  The vast majority of these children were killed tragically, as accidental “collateral damage”. How many tears has President Obama shed over this tragedy?

 

Addressing the Navy Yard shooting families he said once again, “Our tears are not enough… If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work and go to school and walk our streets free from senseless violence without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we’re going to have to change.” Nothing was mentioned about mental illness, though the shooter “heard voices”, thought he was being followed, and contacted police who, in turn, advised him to steer clear of these imaginary people instead of taking him in for mental health screening.

Addressing the people of Newtown, Obama said:

We gather here in memory of 20 beautiful children…

I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts…

I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief, that our world, too, has been torn apart … we have wept with you. We’ve pulled our children tight… Newtown, you are not alone…

 Imagine if instead of “Newtown”, he had substituted it with “Pakistan”; ‘Pakistan, you are not alone’. Perhaps this line is telling from his address to the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook: Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? Maybe the qualifier is “this country”.

Like the murder of innocents at the Navy Yard, and the children at Sandy Hook Elementary, the murder of civilian adults and children in drone strikes is illegal. Washington-based human rights and international lawyer, Paul Wolf, states that there is no legal or moral argument to justify drone attacks, since the U.S. isn’t at war with Yemen or Pakistan. The children have not been declared enemy combatants. One wonders how a one-year old could be rightly declared an enemy combatant?  No, it must be concluded that  President Obama sheds tears (or pretends to; seriously, who flicks tears away from the outside of their eyes?) when it is politically expedient to, when he has an agenda (not solutions) to push, and when he doesn’t get what he wants.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 24, 2013).

Gun Sales Surge in Newtown, Shooting the Gun Control Argument That Fewer Guns Equals Less Crime In The FootGun Sales Surge in Newtown, Shooting the Gun Control Argument That Fewer Guns Equals Less Crime In The Foot

Applications for gun permits surge in Newtown, CT

Gun sales surge in Newtown, already surpassing the total for all of 2012. Gun sales are also sharply rising in the rest of Connecticut. This is common after a tragedy and runs counter to the Left’s prevailing narrative that fewer guns means less crime. Academic research also refutes the Left’s claim.

Gun Control advocates would have people believe that fewer guns are the answer, not more. However, communities victimized by tragic gun shootings usually reject that position and gun sales surge after such an event. Gun sales surged after Columbine, after the Tucson, Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, after the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and in Newtown, Connecticut. Newtown, the community that experienced the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting more closely than any other community in America has seen a surge in gun sales since the tragedy occurred in December.

The Wall Street Journal reports that through July 24 th, more than 200 Newtown residents have new local firearm permits, a requirement in Connecticut in order to purchase a firearm. There were only 171 permits issued for all of 2012. The surge in Newtown coincides with an increase statewide in Connecticut, which has seen more than 91,000 firearms sales this year – on track to surpass the 127,000 gun sales processed by Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in 2012.

Local Newtown resident, Bill Stevens said “I think people realize that you can’t call the police all the time and expect them to save you. It’s sinking in to some folks that ‘I need to take responsibility for keeping my family safe.” Newtown resident, Ryan Delp, says that fear after the Sandy Hook shooting is responsible for some of the increase, and noted a 2007 home invasion in nearby Cheshire, Connecticut that left a mother and her daughters dead also struck a chord. He says, “Obviously both situations are places where you expect to be safe.” Resident Donald Casey states “Ever since this incident, people are afraid and want to protect themselves.”

The sentiment in Newtown is common following a mass murder shooting. Background checks in Colorado spiked more than 40% immediately following the shooting in Aurora, CO, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and are up 90% in 2013. Immediately after the Tucson, AZ shooting in January 2011, that left Rep. Gabby Giffords injured and killed six, sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60% according to FBI data. One reason for the spike in gun demand is the understandable desire for safety and self-defense. Following most large shooting events, especially if it’s close to home, many people desire to have something to protect their family.

That perspective is supported by FBI crime data and the bulk of academic research on defensive gun use. Though nationwide, gun sales have surged, gun crime in the last decade has fallen; in the last 20 years, violent crime and homicides have been cut in half. Even anti-gun researcher David Hemenway concedes that defensive gun use occurs more than 152,000 times annually. But Hemingway’s contemporaries find that Americans use guns for lawful defense more often. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends defensive gun use is between 256,000-373,000 times annually. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of defensive gun use.A study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of defensive gun use. Most recently, a July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama,states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.” Regardless of which study is the most accurate, academic research shows defensive gun use far outpaces gun crime; even Hemenway’s study demonstrates this. People inherently understand this; the science just validates it: only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with one. The surge in sales in Newtown illustrates this basic truth and shows us that despite gun control advocates sentimentality that fewer guns is better, average people – like those in Newtown – use guns more often for their own lawful defense.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication August 21, 2013).

Gun Sales Surge in Newtown, Running Counter to the ‘Fewer Guns Equals Less Crime’ Mantra

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 21, 2013 | News | 0 comments

Gun sales surge in Newtown, already surpassing the total for all of 2012. Gun sales are also sharply rising in the rest of Connecticut. This is common after a tragedy and runs counter to the prevailing liberal narrative that fewer guns means less crime. Academic research also refutes liberal’s claims.

Gun Control advocates would have people believe that fewer guns are the answer, not more. However, communities victimized by tragic gun shootings usually reject that position and gun sales surge after such an event. Gun sales surged after Columbine, after the Tucson, Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, after the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and in Newtown, Connecticut. Newtown, the community that experienced the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting more closely than any other community in America has seen a surge in gun sales since the tragedy occurred in December.

The Wall Street Journal reports that through July 24 th, more than 200 Newtown residents have new local firearm permits, a requirement in Connecticut in order to purchase a firearm. There were only 171 permits issued for all of 2012. The surge in Newtown coincides with an increase statewide in Connecticut, which has seen more than 91,000 firearms sales this year – on track to surpass the 127,000 gun sales processed by Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in 2012.

Image credit: WSJ

Local Newtown resident, Bill Stevens said “I think people realize that you can’t call the police all the time and expect them to save you. It’s sinking in to some folks that ‘I need to take responsibility for keeping my family safe.” Newtown resident, Ryan Delp, says that fear after the Sandy Hook shooting is responsible for some of the increase, and noted a 2007 home invasion in nearby Cheshire, Connecticut that left a mother and her daughters dead also struck a chord. He says, “Obviously both situations are places where you expect to be safe.” Resident Donald Casey states “Ever since this incident, people are afraid and want to protect themselves.”

The sentiment in Newtown is common following a mass murder shooting. Background checks in Colorado spiked more than 40% immediately following the shooting in Aurora, CO, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and are up 90% in 2013. Immediately after the Tucson, AZ shooting in January 2011, that left Rep. Gabby Giffords injured and killed six, sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60% according to FBI data. One reason for the spike in gun demand is the understandable desire for safety and self-defense. Following most large shooting events, especially if it’s close to home, many people desire to have something to protect their family.

That perspective is supported by FBI crime data and the bulk of academic research on defensive gun use. Though nationwide, gun sales have surged, gun crime in the last decade has fallen; in the last 20 years, violent crime and homicides have been cut in half. Even anti-gun researcher David Hemenway concedes that defensive gun use occurs more than 152,000 times annually. But Hemingway’s contemporaries find that Americans use guns for lawful defense more often. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends defensive gun use is between 256,000-373,000 times annually. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of defensive gun use.A study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of defensive gun use. Most recently, a July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama, states:

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Regardless of which study is the most accurate, academic research shows defensive gun use far outpaces gun crime; even Hemenway’s study demonstrates this. People inherently understand this; the science just validates it: only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with one. The surge in sales in Newtown illustrates this basic truth and shows us that despite gun control advocates sentimentality that fewer guns is better, average people – like those in Newtown – use guns more often for their own lawful defense.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 21, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Debate: Loopholes, Part I - There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This  article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication May 31, 2013). 

There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 31, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion,

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date May 31, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Debate: NRA Vindicated by School Board's Decision to Put Armed Guards in Schools

Following the tragedy at Newtown Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the NRA called for an armed response; to reverse course in making schools "gun free zones," or advertised unarmed targets.





NRA executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said, "the monsters and the predators of the world" have exploited the fact that most schools are gun-free zones, noting that other important institutions — such as banks, courts, and power plants — are protected with armed security. This suggestion was met with significant criticism in the media and from politicians. Yet in practice before Newtown, and even more since then, this idea has widespread acceptance.

 




 Some school districts already allow armed staff. Harrold Independent School District in Texas allows employees to carry concealed guns on school campuses. Employees must have a Texas state concealed carry license, and have completed firearms training, and have received approval from the school board.

A 2010 report from the Department of Justice, "Assigning Police Officers to Schools," states that an estimated one-third of all sheriffs’ offices and almost half of all municipal police departments assign nearly 17,000 sworn officers to serve in schools.  Nearly half of all public schools have assigned police officers, referred to as school resource officers (SROs).  The COPS in Schools program has drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, noting that even though laws, customs, and police practices vary from country to country, "it is apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems." Officers often support advance planning for managing crises, including assisting with: developing incident response systems, developing and coordinating emergency response plans (in conjunction with other emergency responders), and rehearsing such protocols using tabletop exercises, drills, and mock evacuations and lock downs.

The COPS in Schools program isn't new: former President Clinton provided funding for it in 2000 following the tragedy at Columbine, adding to the 2,200 officers in the program at that time.  Nor is Clinton the only Democratic president to formally support armed security in schools. As I have written previously, President Obama signed 23 executive orders following the tragedy at Newtown; Order 18 is "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers." TIME magazine confirms that the president is "increase[ing] federal funding for school security." (January 28, 2013, p.30).  While perhaps not an end-all solution, armed guards have stopped shootings. The Associated Press reported that an armed school resource officer disarmed a teen with a gun during a shooting at a middle school in Atlanta this January.

Since the tragedy at Newtown, some schools are opting for increased armed security. Fontana Unified School District Police Department purchased 14 AR-15 rifles "to protect students in response to recent shootings," with support from Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks, Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones, and Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren. The AR-15 rifles will be stored on campuses in locked safes for responding police officers in the event of an attack.

Educators are also opting for training in armed response and active shooter response.  After Newtown, non-profit Buckeye Firearms Foundation announced that they would provide free firearms training to teachers and school administrative staff.  At least 600 applicants from Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia have taken them up on the offer.  The foundation stated that, "More than a third of applicants are women. Over 70% percent are teachers, but there are also administrators, office staff, and guidance counselors. Half work in high schools, but many work in kindergartens, grade schools, and middle schools. And there's a fairly even distribution of applicants from urban, suburban, and rural areas."  Applicants will have to pass the same test as law enforcement to graduate the program, which also provides advanced level active shooter response training.

Even Newtown's school board has voted for armed security, voting unanimously to request an armed guard for each of the district’s four elementary schools. In Newtown, the argument isn't over whether it's a good idea to have armed guards, but rather if schools should have more than one armed guard. Board member Richard Gaines asked "Is that enough?"

Despite the lashing the NRA has received in the press for the idea of increasing armed security at schools, it has been and is increasingly the position adopted by our presidents, the Justice Department, police and sheriffs departments, many school districts, and the very educators and administrators who work with our children on a daily basis. Armed security may not be the final solution, but in the gun control debate, where many call for "doing something," this would seem to be a start.  It's hard to argue the point when even Newtown is adopting the practice.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication February 5, 2013).