TexasCHLforum.com

chartreuse wrote:I hope that you understand that I'm not one of those bashers.

I'll accept your statement on this issue, but why then do you repeatedly claim the NRA is calling for a new federal bureaucracy? Why do you claim the NRA is throwing the 1st Amendment under the buss, when it's clear there's no basis for that claim? You even attack Asa Hutchinson because you don't like Homeland Security, yet you don't know the first thing about the man. You imply he'll be wasting federal funding, but 100% of his budget comes from the NRA.

chartreuse wrote:Mass shootings, while unimaginably tragic are also uncommon.

True, but risk analysis involves evaluating both the likelihood of an untoward event and the severity of the consequences. I dare say you will never find anyone who's willing to say that losing twenty six year old children per incident is an acceptable loss rate. The country is going to respond to this massacre either with gun control or something that works. The NRA chose the latter

chartreuse wrote:Hysteria is rarely a wise response to hysteria and the NRA's position - throwing the First Amendment under a bus, proposing a bureaucratic "program" (led by a man from Homeland Security, the dictionary definition of waste and excess, for goodness sake) seems like a hysterical over-reaction.

The NRA did no such thing and no rational argument can be made that we did. The NRA also did not call for a "bureaucratic program." The National School Shield is a private program fully funded by the NRA and headed by Congressman Asa Hutchinson. The final work product of this private program (think tank if you will) will include recommendations that will rely heavily on volunteers, just as Wayne and Asa said in the press conference. My personal opinion is that it will set up a network that will bring volunteers, school districts, and law enforcement together and the NRA will offer its extensive training capabilities. Based upon his comments set out below, apparently Asa has the same vision for this program.

Wayne LaPierre wrote:The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.

Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.

Asa Hutchinson wrote:Even though we are just starting this process, I envision this initiative will have two key elements: First, it would be based on a model security plan — a comprehensive strategy for school security based on the latest, most up-to-date technical information from the foremost experts in their fields.

. . .

Every school and community is different, but this model security plan will allow every school to choose among its various components to develop a school safety strategy that fits their own unique situation, whether it's a large urban school, a small rural school or anything in between.

. . .

The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that doesn't depend on massive funding from local authorities or the federal government. Instead, it'll make use of local volunteers serving in their own communities. In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called "Watchdog Dads," who volunteer their time at schools to patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security.

Whether they're retired police, retired military or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country, who would be happy to serve, if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certification to do so.

At this point, I realize nothing is going to change your mind. The NRA has not called for the things you have claimed, and no amount of proof is going to dissuade you from continuing in your belief.

I'll give you the final word because I'm finished.

Chas.

chartreuse wrote:In a Christian spirit, I'd like to say that I truly appreciate the efforts of Charles and those like him.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If I've said anything that offends anyone tonight, then I sincerely apologize. I'm tired, I'm frustrated, and I'm tired of fighting for people when some of them seem more inclined to put a knife in the NRA's back than engage the enemy.

That said, the above troubles me. Most of those who we disagree with are our fellow Americans, putting forth sincerely held, if misguided, beliefs. These people are our neighbours, our friends, our family. They are not enemy combatants and our mission is not to destroy them. Rather, it is to win them over and lead them towards enlightenment.

I find the jingoistic fervour around the NRA to be deeply troubling. The NRA is nothing more than a tool, employed by us to achieve our goals. Should its edge become blunt, then we would dress it. Should it break, then we would replace it. It is not and should never be, an object of veneration.

The "enemy" to which I referred is not the general public and I've never posted anything that would even suggest it. The "enemy" is made up of the anti-gun media that won't report the truth, Mayors Bloomberg, Cuomo, Emanuel and others who ignore the fact that gun control doesn't work yet call for gun bans, the Brady Campaign, and a litany of other people and organizations who want to use the Newtown massacre to further a long-held political goal rather than support a plan that will actually make our schools safer. We are not calling for a new bureaucracy, federal government intervention, or adding to the national debt. We would like to have congress divert some of the billions of dollars going to countries who hate us in the form of foreign aid so it can be used to protect our children. The $500 million Obma gave to Solyndra would go a long way to putting needed armed security in thousands of schools around the country. (Houston I.S.D. is one of the largest school districts in the country and they estimated that it would take $10 million to add enough additional campus officers to have them on every campus.) Knowing that is unlikely, we have started a program to create a workable plan that will be largely voluntary. (People are already signing up to be volunteers!)

We have perennial NRA bashers here on the forum and their tactics are so transparent. They spin, twist, quote out of context, or flat out lie about the NRA. I see this starting with the new, critically important National School Shield effort. I'm a very experienced civil trial attorney with a very good win/loss record and I know how easy it is to spin the truth by quoting something out of context, or leaving out critical statements, when one is not subject to grueling cross-examination. One of my favorite trial tactics is to catch someone doing that, then show the jury the entire document. It destroys the credibility of those who would deceive with half-truths and they rarely recover in the jury's eyes. The NRA doesn't want to merely avoid further gun laws, though that is obviously a goal. We also want to do something that truly will make schools safer so no parent has to go through the unimaginable grief and despair the Sandy Hook parents are suffering now.

How many times have we blasted the leaders of the anti-gun crowd for deliberately misquoting a Second Amendment supporter or organization, or taking their statements or actions out of context so they could launch an unwarranted attack? Well, the anti-gun crowd aren't the only people who adopt such intellectually dishonest tactics. I never said nor even hinted that the general public is the "enemy." Indeed, if you will search my posts you will see that I have always called for us to win over the vast majority of Americans who are neither NRA Members, nor members of the anti-gun movement. I've let it be known that I don't like the term "sheeple" because it's insulting and demeaning to millions of Americans we need to bring to our side of the table by showing them the truth, as opposed to the lies told about guns, gun owners and the NRA. You don't win people to your side of an issue when you start with "Now listen to me you coward" and calling someone "sheeple" is doing just that. I know full well who the enemies of the Second Amendment are and they are not honest citizens who have been lied to and mislead by the media and dishonest politicians seeking only their own reelection.

The NRA doesn't attack the general public either. We're not fools; we don't attack and insult the very people we are asking to join the organization and fight for the Second Amendment. We tell the truth about those who lie about crime, gun control and the NRA.


Chas.

I've got to get off of here before I say something I regret.

The NRA has an excellent plan and it's already ringing true with rank and file Americans. We are not advocating expanding the federal government. We are not advocating any new agency. As Mojo84 stated, we would like to see some of the billions of dollars currently spent by the feds on domestic security guards/personnel and in foreign aid be redirected to be given to the states to fund additional security personnel in the schools. We want to see that money given to the states with no strings. We called upon congress and the President to do the right thing, but we're not naive. We also know that with the current administration, this isn't going to happen. That's why the NRA's "The National School Shield Program" is based primarily on volunteers.

In closing for the night, let me point out that gun owners are facing the biggest threat we've seen in decades. We cannot be divided, we cannot be distracted, we cannot spend time fighting amongst ourselves, if we are to win this battle.

If I've said anything that offends anyone tonight, then I sincerely apologize. I'm tired, I'm frustrated, and I'm tired of fighting for people when some of them seem more inclined to put a knife in the NRA's back than engage the enemy.

Good night all,
Chas.

sjfcontrol wrote:

NRA Position wrote:By Wayne LaPierre:

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

Far be it for me to disagree with Mr. LaPierre, maybe we just put our money in different banks. But in all my 61 years, I don't think I've ever been in a bank with an armed guard. In fact, when that was mentioned I immediately flashed on the "armed guard" in the Bank of Mayberry. He was about 75 years old and was always asleep in a chair. When Barney woke him up, he'd get up with a start and pull his revolver, which would fall into pieces on the floor. If we get armed guards for our schools, lets not base it on bank guards from the 1930's.

He's talking about federal reserve banks (extensive security) and those that are run by federal receivers. There may be others, but I'm not sure which ones.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:I haven't read the transcript yet but I did listen to the speech when he gave it. I took what he said to mean that we find ways to afford to protect other things we value, why not our kids? I also took it that he proposed we redirect some funds from other less valuable things and use it to help school districts provide protection for our kids.

I don't favor more federal funds being spent on schools as I see education as a state and local responsibility but I would sure rather redirect the money we are sending to countries that hate us and want to do us and our allies harm and use it for the protection of our kids. Plus, our local districts can't afford more unfunded mandates.

This is exactly what Wayne is advocating and it's clear in the transcript.

Chas.

chartreuse wrote:I found many of the statements made this morning to be troubling, to say the least. It would appear that the NRA is proposing another TSA, despite the fact that we, in Texas, have proven that there is no need for yet another bureaucratic machine, given that ordinary folks are quite capable of responding to such situations.

I'm still waiting for you to show us the TSA-like federal agency you claim the NRA is proposing. Be sure to point to it in the transcript by page number.

Chas.

chartreuse wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Also, it's clear that Wayne knows Congress won't provide the necessary funding, so it is very much a grass roots efforts. Again, read his comments.

Charles. Mr La Pierre explicitly called upon Congress to "appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school in this nation." You can't spin that out of existence.

You're a board member of the NRA. I'm just one of the poor schmucks who funds it. It's understandable that you would favour the current direction that the organisation is taking and I'm not here to argue with you about that, directly.

I'm here to tell you that, up here in the Panhandle, the sentiment among firearms enthusiasts is overwhelmingly one of disgust at this morning's performance. We are the people who pay the wages of those folks in DC. We'd like to be listened to.

Read the excepts I posted above; you're deliberately taking it out of context. He made the statement right after he pointed out the money that we spend protecting things we value. If you really can't understand why this was done, then I certainly can't help you.

From the minute the press conference was over, the NRA phones and email was swamped with people calling to praise the NRA for its plan. We are adding new Members at the rate of 8,000 per day. Don't try to tell me you know what all the Members in the Panhandle like or don't like.

I'm not spinning anything, but you'll find the guy who is by looking in the mirror.

chartreuse wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:I may need to watch the speech again, but it didn't seem to me that he was suggesting a Federal level program to secure schools.

He clearly called for "Congress to appropriate funds". That makes it Federal and the rest follows inevitably.

I fear that the NRA has become captured by Beltway Bandits and has made a tactical decision to pander to the big government mob – “Leave the guns alone and we’ll give you another bureaucratic empire – it’s what you really want anyway.”

This is complete crap! If you didn't listen to the press conference, then read the transcript. If you did listen to it, then read the transcript because you clearly missed something.

Stop taking things out of context.

Chas.

chartreuse wrote:I'm afraid that I must disagree with the general round of back slapping. This may make me unpopular, but I can live with that.

I found many of the statements made this morning to be troubling, to say the least. It would appear that the NRA is proposing another TSA, despite the fact that we, in Texas, have proven that there is no need for yet another bureaucratic machine, given that ordinary folks are quite capable of responding to such situations.

Frankly, if the only way that Mr. Pierre can think of to defend gun rights is expanding bureaucracy and putting the country further into unsustainable debt, then we need to fire him and hire somebody who is less useless.

What TSA program? Show us that in the transcript of Wayne's speech.

As for debt, please read Wayne's comments below about where we are currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars. If you are against deferring some of this money to protect our children, then I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

Also, it's clear that Wayne knows Congress won't provide the necessary funding, so it is very much a grass roots efforts. Again, read his comments.

Chas.

NRA Position wrote:By Wayne LaPierre:

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it That must change now!

. . .

With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can’t afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.

. . .

If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.

. . .

By Congressman Asa Hutchinson:

The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that doesn't depend on massive funding from local authorities or the
federal government. Instead, it'll make use of local volunteers serving in their own communities. In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called "Watchdog Dads," who volunteer their time at schools to patrol playgrounds and rovide a measure of added security.

Whether they're retired police, retired military or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country, who would be happy to serve, if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certification to do so.

XinTX wrote:Not comfortable with discussion of a national database for the 'mentally ill'. Nor the finger pointing toward movies and video games. I understand some of where he's coming from in discussion of the video games (which, apparently Lanza was playing almost full time up until he snapped). I think some of the effect of that is discussed in "The Bulletproof Mind" series. The effects of video games on the unstable is chilling. But someone has to be disconnected from reality before it has such an impact. But I don't think it the best idea to defend the 2nd amendment by pointing fingers at issues with the 1st. And the issue with a database for the mentally ill could have some abuses by government as well. Remember, there are a lot of people that think you're crazy just because you want to own a gun. So a 'national database' could be used to set up a gun ban via a 'Catch 22'.

He also called for 'Congress' to take action. Securing schools should be a local issue, rather than a top-down federal 'solution'.

The reference to mental health dealt with people who have been adjudicated by a court as being mentally incompetent, not people who are merely are under a doctor's care. These people are already prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Wayne wasn't calling for a new database, he was talking about getting all states to comply with current law and get the information in the NICS database.

Like it or not, mentally incompetent people possessing firearms is not only against the law, all but a very small minority of Americans don't want these people to have guns.

The call to congress is to fund existing programs that provide money to school districts to put officers in every school. He also called for congress to require all states to comply with current law requiring updating the NICS database with people who have been adjudged mentally incompetent. By no means was he suggesting that congress come up with a solution; that's why the NRA created The National School Shield project.

Chas.

Grossman's books discuss the inborn reluctance of people to shoot their fellow man. He talks about the increase in the percentage of troops who actually fire at the enemy when the military changed training so grunts practiced on humanoid targets, rather than bullseye targets. The willingness to kill went up dramatically when the military went to simulated combat using computers and laser-equipped weapons. Recruits were de-sensitized to violence and killing.

I have no doubt that violent games and movies have had an impact on society. It doesn't turn most people into homicidal maniacs, but the impact cannot be denied. I know we have a lot gamers on the Forum, but don't try to convince me that Grand Theft Auto that glorifies assaulting prostitutes and killing COPS, and other games that are worse, are wholesome for our kids.

Wayne gave a great speech. He pointed out the lack of funding for school security as compared to other people and institutions. I'm thrilled about our new School Shield Program. Once again, the NRA has a plan -- not just talking heads.

Chas.