I think that's a crock of crap. Maybe he has a vested interest, I don't know. And I'm not talking Boone Co schools. I'm talking much broader scope. But those opposed like you will automatically make it political. A pro gun county, what the hell is that?

Is it just coincidence that the legislator (Schickel) who introduced the concealed-carry-in-bars bill in Frankfort represents Boone County? And now his NRA sidekick is pitching concealed carry in schools. The reason Boone County was chosen to spearhead this effort is because of its political makeup. Pure and simple.

Is it just coincidence that the legislator (Schickel) who introduced the concealed-carry-in-bars bill in Frankfort represents Boone County? And now his NRA sidekick is pitching concealed carry in schools. The reason Boone County was chosen to spearhead this effort is because of its political makeup. Pure and simple.

 

My goodness, can't you see the forest for the trees? Is it a good thing everywhere? I don't give a rip about the political angling. I care about the safety of kids. It's just another way of you changing course of a thread. You're the master at it. I hope if that's what it takes then, that the NRA sets up camp on the entire county. Maybe something would get accomplished, and it would irritate you. Win/win.

I hope if that's what it takes then, that the NRA sets up camp on the entire county.

Already have.

Is it just coincidence that the legislator (Schickel) who introduced the concealed-carry-in-bars bill in Frankfort represents Boone County? And now his NRA sidekick is pitching concealed carry in schools. The reason Boone County was chosen to spearhead this effort is because of its political makeup. Pure and simple.

 

A 20 year old whack-job that shoots his way into a school building with a bag full of stolen guns isn't going to stop to find out which kids' parents are Democrat or Republican. He simply won't care. If you're in his sights, you're a target.

 

We're not talking about possible or even probable scenarios...we're talking about reality. It's happened. On more than one occasion. Which means it's likely it can happen again. So, you tell me, what are you going to do to stop it? This is simply being offered as one, of what could be several, solutions. So, to bash it entirely as a political stunt seems a bit childish. Which is ironic, considering the entire goal is to save the children.

A 20 year old whack-job that shoots his way into a school building with a bag full of stolen guns isn't going to stop to find out which kids' parents are Democrat or Republican. He simply won't care. If you're in his sights, you're a target.

 

We're not talking about possible or even probable scenarios...we're talking about reality. It's happened. On more than one occasion. Which means it's likely it can happen again. So, you tell me, what are you going to do to stop it? This is simply being offered as one, of what could be several, solutions. So, to bash it entirely as a political stunt seems a bit childish. Which is ironic, considering the entire goal is to save the children.

This is NRA all the way. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. I'd be a lot more comfortable with this if the Boone Board of Education -- independent of Schickel, his buddy the constable, the NRA and the God-fearing law-and-order sheriffs -- had held a press conference to say it was looking into the idea of arming teachers/administrators.

 

Here's another thought: If the Boone district does arm teachers/administrators, does that mean that the sheriff's department can then drop its resource officers at the schools?

 

Lots of angles to this story other than "saving our children."

This is NRA all the way. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. I'd be a lot more comfortable with this if the Boone Board of Education -- independent of Schickel, his buddy the constable, the NRA and the God-fearing law-and-order sheriffs -- had held a press conference to say it was looking into the idea of arming teachers/administrators.

 

Here's another thought: If the Boone district does arm teachers/administrators, does that mean that the sheriff's department can then drop its resource officers at the schools?

 

Lots of angles to this story other than "saving our children."[/QUOTE]

 

Well, I'm sorry, I guess I was wrong to be looking at the idea itself, as opposed to who's idea it was. Silly me.

Well, I'm sorry, I guess I was wrong to be looking at the idea itself, as opposed to who's idea it was. Silly me.

It's been 14 months since Sandy Hook. If arming teachers/administrators is really our best option (as Wayne LaPierre said), then why aren't school districts in all 50 states following his advice?

We're not talking about possible or even probable scenarios...we're talking about reality. It's happened. On more than one occasion. Which means it's likely it can happen again. So, you tell me, what are you going to do to stop it? This is simply being offered as one, of what could be several, solutions. So, to bash it entirely as a political stunt seems a bit childish. Which is ironic, considering the entire goal is to save the children.

 

I'm perfectly content to debate and enact policies that will make people, especially children, safer. I also have no doubt that this proposal is political and I think many of its proponents on here would agree with me if the ideas behind the proposal were reversed. The proposals after the Newtown shooting to restrict firearms purchases were vilified as political opportunism while the people making the case for the proposals adamantly argued that their goal was to save children, which also seems to be the case here.

 

So, what I'm saying is that just because saving children is stated as the reason for the proposal doesn't make it a sound proposal, as many of you would and already agree. As someone who has a lot of questions that have not been unanswered (by the legislation or the politicians proposing this) I'm not convinced of its intent or effectiveness. As a generally cynical person, and considering where this proposal is coming from, I have little doubt its designs are political rather than right-minded.

 

I also don't think that just because something is a political issue means that it is wrong or isn't worthy of consideration. But, there are serious questions about this proposal, not the least of which is whether it will be more harmful than not. So I think we should have a clear account of the motivations behind it. It's not a very good idea if its best argument is that it forwards a political cause.

I also don't think that just because something is a political issue means that it is wrong or isn't worthy of consideration. But, there are serious questions about this proposal, not the least of which is whether it will be more harmful than not. So I think we should have a clear account of the motivations behind it. It's not a very good idea if its best argument is that it forwards a political cause.

 

I completely agree. I think there are two different aspects that I see here. One is the idea, and the other is the implementation of it. I will say that I am behind the idea. In fact, I will go so far as to say I'd want as many guns as possible in the hands of competent people that are there to protect my son, should a madman storm the school.

 

However, I do believe there are SERIOUS questions as to HOW you go about implementing this idea. And because of that, I too, would be hesitant to rush into something without considering all ramifications.

 

But, in all honesty, I couldn't care less if it's a Democrat's idea, a Republican's idea, or the Easter Bunny's. But, for some people, that's all they get caught up in.

Here's the ironic thing about those that say they would or would have pulled their kids out of their respective schools if teachers carried. Well, how do you know that some teachers DIDN"T carry when you kids where in school, or don't carry now, and you just don't know it? And guess what? You are more than likely around people every day that are carrying...and you just aren't aware of it.

 

A system should be in place that allows teachers to carry. This of course would be greatly augmented by high level training and consistent, on going practice and yearly refresher training. Strict rules would be put in place to govern the carrying of the weapons. Whoever said above to lock the guns up in a safe...uuuuhhhhhhhhhh...I'm not even going to take the time to argue that.

This is NRA all the way. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. I'd be a lot more comfortable with this if the Boone Board of Education -- independent of Schickel, his buddy the constable, the NRA and the God-fearing law-and-order sheriffs -- had held a press conference to say it was looking into the idea of arming teachers/administrators.

Here's another thought: If the Boone district does arm teachers/administrators, does that mean that the sheriff's department can then drop its resource officers at the schools?

 

Lots of angles to this story other than "saving our children."

 

So, going by the bolded above, YOU are making this political yourself since, in essence what you are saying is that the WRONG people brought this idea up and you are against it, but if others had suggested this and those WRONG guys were out of the picture, you'd be more open to the idea. Is EVERYTHING political with you? Goodness sake.

 

Now, could those legislatures who brought this to the floor have self serving motives? That is very possible, and hopefully if there is any conflict of interest this will be addressed. But if that's the case, it still doesn't mean the idea is bad.

So, going by the bolded above, YOU are making this political yourself since, in essence what you are saying is that the WRONG people brought this idea up and you are against it, but if others had suggested this and those WRONG guys were out of the picture, you'd be more open to the idea. Is EVERYTHING political with you? Goodness sake.

 

Now, could those legislatures who brought this to the floor have self serving motives? That is very possible, and hopefully if there is any conflict of interest this will be addressed. But if that's the case, it still doesn't mean the idea is bad.

The NRA made this a political issue when Wayne LaPierre went on national TV a week after Sandy Hook and tried to extricate his head from where the sun don't shine. In this case, BigMan, source is important. I repeat, if arming teachers is the answer, then why haven't thousands of school districts across our great nation embraced this idea? The answer, of course, is that arming teachers is fraught with potential problems.

The NRA made this a political issue when Wayne LaPierre went on national TV a week after Sandy Hook and tried to extricate his head from where the sun don't shine. In this case, BigMan, source is important. I repeat, if arming teachers is the answer, then why haven't thousands of school districts across our great nation embraced this idea? The answer, of course, is that arming teachers is fraught with potential problems.

 

Well, I don't know what other school districts might be planning or talking about...I doubt you do either. This topic might currently be undergoing debate in hundreds of school districts, and we just don't know about it.

 

My point is...if it's a good idea, regardless of the idea, then it shouldn't matter who brings it to the table and political affiliation shouldn't matter. Your post seems to suggest that you could tolerate the idea if others brought this legislation to the table, but because people that you don't agree with politically did, then you aren't on board with it. Which begs the question...who's making it political now?

 

And I don't disagree that yes, there are potential problems...but nothing that can't be overcome I don't believe. As someone said above, agree with the idea...implementation could be an issue.

Well, I don't know what other school districts might be planning or talking about...I doubt you do either. This topic might currently be undergoing debate in hundreds of school districts, and we just don't know about it.

 

My point is...if it's a good idea, regardless of the idea, then it shouldn't matter who brings it to the table and political affiliation shouldn't matter. Your post seems to suggest that you could tolerate the idea if others brought this legislation to the table, but because people that you don't agree with politically did, then you aren't on board with it. Which begs the question...who's making it political now?

 

And I don't disagree that yes, there are potential problems...but nothing that can't be overcome I don't believe. As someone said above, agree with the idea...implementation could be an issue.

Again, if this were such a splendid idea, the Boone County superintendent's office ... or the Boone County Board of Education ... or the Boone County branch of the KEA ... would have proposed this. They didn't. This is the NRA's baby, and no doubt the sheriffs are signing on because this raises the possibility of not having to provide resource officers to the schools.

 

So it looks to me like the NRA is jamming this down the throat of the Boone Board of Education.

 

And if a school board member votes no, then the NRA will put his/her face on a billboard with Obama's come re-election time and say they're anti-gun.

Again, if this were such a splendid idea, the Boone County superintendent's office ... or the Boone County Board of Education ... or the Boone County branch of the KEA ... would have proposed this. They didn't. This is the NRA's baby, and no doubt the sheriffs are signing on because this raises the possibility of not having to provide resource officers to the schools.

 

So it looks to me like the NRA is jamming this down the throat of the Boone Board of Education.

 

And if a school board member votes no, then the NRA will put his/her face on a billboard with Obama's come re-election time and say they're anti-gun.

 

 

But Obama can't run again....