"Are the president's kids more important than yours?"

[LMT42]

[QUOTE=Clint;1522047]This would allow the option of volunteer school security at no cost to the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]

Who will vet these volunteers and using what criteria? Who will be responsible if a volunteer has an ND and shoots a child? The responsibility ultimately lies with the school and they'll be sued in the event of an accident. The payout will consist of taxpayer dollars.

I'm all for qualified armed guards, but my concern is that they won't be qualified. There better be a stringent vetting/qualification process. And let's pass new tort laws to limit taxpayers from lawsuits in the event of an ND.

What I have said before is I think schools should be funded by people who send their kids there....but at the same time I think the Federal government should not be involved in education.

So education should be handled at the state, and lower level.

I have twins in public school, and I do not agree with public funding for their school. However for this to happen I would want an ENTIRE shift in how taxes are handled.

I appreciate your sentiments, but we all pay in Texas whether we have children or not. Looks like we may be voting on the issue soon.

http://baylorlariat.com/2013/01/23/t...ds-in-schools/

I think this is a poor allocation of resources for an event that happens with the frequency of winning the lottery. I also have doubts about cops as deterrents. Most of these shooters are prepared to die and are criminally insane.

Let's also remember that Texas ranks at the bottom of the barrel in public education. Seems like extra funds would be put to better use hiring more qualified teachers.

[Belmont31R]

I am talking about my district funding local LEO which we have an abundance of. I don't care if other districts don't want to, and that funding can come from local sources. Would not effect you at all. At the least these are officers who would be doing nothing but driving around with nothing to do anyways. We have a huge department here for the size of the city.

Our district does well in testing. I don't really care how the rest of the state does. There are HUGE districts around the big cities which drag the numbers down. Don't care about them as my kids don't go there. I am very happy with my kids school.

[Alaskapopo]

The real answer as most here know to saving lives in these mass shootings is more armed and trained good guys. Since more than half of the population will not arm themselves even if the law allows we should make schools hard targets with armed guards and not just for the presidents kids. Personally I would like to see positions created for armed guards with hiring preference given to returning vets. These guys need jobs and they are trained.
Pat

[glocktogo]

[QUOTE=LMT42;1522106]

This would allow the option of volunteer school security at no cost to the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]

Who will vet these volunteers and using what criteria? Who will be responsible if a volunteer has an ND and shoots a child? The responsibility ultimately lies with the school and they'll be sued in the event of an accident. The payout will consist of taxpayer dollars.

I'm all for qualified armed guards, but my concern is that they won't be qualified. There better be a stringent vetting/qualification process. And let's pass new tort laws to limit taxpayers from lawsuits in the event of an ND.



I appreciate your sentiments, but we all pay in Texas whether we have children or not. Looks like we may be voting on the issue soon.

http://baylorlariat.com/2013/01/23/t...ds-in-schools/

I think this is a poor allocation of resources for an event that happens with the frequency of winning the lottery. I also have doubts about cops as deterrents. Most of these shooters are prepared to die and are criminally insane.

Let's also remember that Texas ranks at the bottom of the barrel in public education. Seems like extra funds would be put to better use hiring more qualified teachers.

I can tell you that the first LE agency I worked at was a poor rural county. A full 20+% of all shifts were covered by unpaid volunteer reserve deputies. As in the only on duty LEO's for the entire county were volunteers. The last full quarter before OSHA PPE requirements were implemented for meth lab processing, it was the #4 county in the nation for meth busts.

If a community wants to implement security protocols for it's schools, only it is qualified to say what requirements are necessary, acceptable to the community and economically viable. I have zero issues with Obama's kid's private school having 11 full time paid security agents on staff. I have a HUGE issue with Obama's administration telling any other school or community what is or isn't the answer. Until Obama's kids go to that school, he shouldn't have a damned thing to say about what they want to do!

[Caeser25]

Any serving president's children require advanced protection because they are overt potential targets. The NRA produced a poor example to further our cause by taking this simplistic route.

You thinking too deeply on this one. We all know the presidents children require SS protection.

[Safetyhit]

You thinking too deeply on this one. We all know the presidents children require SS protection.

If they wanted to make a point about the need for all of our children to be protected to a reasonable extent they should have done so via a more effective comparison, this because if malicious hostiles knew they had free access to any presidents children they would likely be attacked almost instantly.

The same can't be said of yours or mine, although obviously that doesn't mean ours aren't just as valuable. The threat level simply isn't at all comparible and that's the very relevant difference.

[WillBrink]

You thinking too deeply on this one. We all know the presidents children require SS protection.

As i said, a list of those who have come out against armed guards in schools who have children protected by armed guards - which are quite a few i believe - would have been far more effective than zoning in on POTUS kids. Wealthy businessmen, movie stars, various politicians (Bloomberg now doubt), etc with kids in expensive schools with guards.

Simply call it:

"People opposing armed guards in schools who send their kids to schools with armed guards"

That list might actually piss people off.

[Bulletdog]

I knew when I first saw this ad that some would see it as a low blow. Doesn't mean its not true. I can agree than any presidents kids need more protection that the average American, but things get more and more hypocritical from his level down.

Did ya hear the one about Feinstein's CCW permit?