What happened on December 15, 2012 with the attack on the school by a heavily armed Adam Lanza, aged 20, was a tragedy and the logical outcome of an incomplete policy.
The federal gun free school zone was passed in 1990. A constitutional challenge prevented this law from being enforced. Many states had laws that preceded the federal attempt to expand gun free zones around schools. Connecticut was a state that adopted such a ban, but, as happened in each state that passed such a ban, failed to follow through to actually make a meaningful policy that would protect the kids from a terrorist attack. Nationwide, politicians at the federal and state level dropped the proverbial round short. The carnage that ensued from the politicians’ arrogance and negligence has failed to catalyze any correction, other than specious demands of firearms bans.
Adam Lanza was a terrorist. He had a mission. He had the weapons, and he acted without restraint. He went to Sandy Hook Elementary with the knowledge that he would be safe, that there would be no armed staff or visiting law abiding citizens who would be legally carrying concealed to present a threat. He knew that he had some time before any response by the local police in which to do the maximum damage. He took full advantage of the politicians’ negligence in crafting the ban on firearms in schools. The only prohibition was . . . words in a statute.
To take attention off of what allowed Lanza to act with impunity, to gain access and shoot young children without armed response, the liberal media and the liberal politicians are going hell bent for leather to hang . . . a rifle. They are not making any attempt to fix the law, they are seeking to ban a particular style of rifle alleging that once again, merely banning with words will serve to protect our children in unprotected elementary schools.
What could have been done under the intent of the law intended to protect children in elementary schools that now was not being done?
The average elementary school is open to the public during the day with several unlocked entrances. In some schools, there are some security cameras, but not enough to cover every entrance. There are no protocols that require locked doors with single point of entry to the school. There are no armed security or armed staff members to present a counter threat to any attempting to harm the schools’ youngsters. Visitors are not escorted to and from the office tothe classroom and back to the entrance door after the visit. For all practical purposes, the schools are unprotected.
The threat from terrorists is world-wide. From Finland to Israel, attacks on schools over the last thirty years have been increasing. Whether the terrorists are Islamic jihadists, revolutionaries, or students under the influence of anti-depressents, the threat to U.S. schools has always been considered a possibility. Why then, after 9-11, after the November 2009 massacre at Ft. Hood, after the prior school shooting incidents were elementary schools overlooked with respect to upgrading their security?
Government at every level has been silent on this issue. They have their red herring in the media’s demonizing of the AR15 sporting rifle.
No politician, including President Barrack Obama and Sen. Diane Feinstein, has to date suggested improvements to elementary school security, rather than specious attempts to ban weapons that are incredibly popular with Americans. The politicians’ misdirected cries to ban the rifle have eliminated any opportunity to have a public discussion of actual security improvements for elementary schools.
Until the politicians get serious about security, only words will be the outcome of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. We owe our children and the memory of those killed at Sandy Hook meaningful attention to creating a an environment that is reasonably secure from a terrorist attack.
Other nations have faced this problem and have addressed the reality. None more so than Israel. Israel’s children were a target of high value for terrorists since its inception. The Israeli law requires an armed security guard on duty at all Israeli schools. Some of the school staff are also armed. The Israeli model presents no opportunity for an unopposed attack on a school.
The American liberal model of no armed guards or armed staff, no single point of entry, insufficient security cameras, no protocols for escorting visitors not having children at the school, but prohibiting firearms by law, only served to make the elementary school a criminal safety zone.
Americans need to demand from their politicians that the safety and security of our children does not call for firearms bans. The safety and security of our children require real world solutions. They need to demand armed security guards, the ability for the school staff to carry concealed, the ability of law abiding parents who legally carry to be armed on school grounds, thereby magnifying the number of law abiding adults who could act to defend the children by several orders of magnitude. Protocols need to be instituted that require locked doors, single point of entry, and security cameras. That banning weapons is a red herring that will prevent nothing.
The massacre at Ft. Hood, a U.S. Army base by Major Nidal Malik Hassan on November 5, 2009 should be an indicator that even the U.S. Army is not immune from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Our schools need not suffer politically correct solutions, such as gun bans. It is time to go to work and to finish the job on making our elementary schools secure. Adam Lanza was a terrorist whose act could have been prevented by proper security. Banning the AR15 will not provide any such security. No criminal will attack an a prepared target.
Had the politicians carried through with the necessary steps to secure the elementary schools beyond the words of the firearms prohibition laws, no one may have ever heard of an Adam Lanza and Newtown, CT may have continued to be the quiet backwater that it was so proud of.
Firearms bans and restrictive gun laws are meaningless, feel good, ineffective legislation and a waste of time.
Showing posts with label President Barak Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Barak Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, December 22, 2012
CT received $668.85M in DHS grants
The gun control advocates are going full bore to eliminate U.S. made rifles that are complimentary to our military models. These civilian rifles use the same type of magazines and the same caliber of ammo, making a readily available supply of spare magazines and ammuntion outside of military stores. Such is necessary to maintaining a strong, indigenous firearms manufacturing base for national defense. The Second Amendment and Alaska Statutes require that we as citizens maintain a firearm for use during a call up of the unorganized militia (AS 26.05.010, AS 26.05.110).
The fact that owning this type of rifle is a good investment and shooting them is just plain fun is an affront to the civility and righteous indignation of the liberal gun control advocate.
The howl for gun control and the banning of "high capacity" magazines are red herrings designed to obscure our politicians’ and state and local leaders’ negligence and outright ignoring of the very real danger to our schools. A danger that was promised by fatwa before and after September 11, 2001. Bin Laden had signed a fatwa in February, 1998 "to kill the Americans, civilian and military" that was inclusive of killing American children.
Another danger had been building since the 80s that was the result of the overuse of anti-depressants on young male children. A result that was unforeseen in the mad rush to ‘calm’ little boys into being quiet and to "behave" without instilling discipline or a sense of right and wrong. A result forced by liberals who believed that little boys should act other than as normal male adolescents. In the liberal view of man, males were too aggressive.
What was a noticeable change between those children who were in school since the early 80s, and those generations before? What could their parents and even schools do that was not legal prior to the 1980s?
The drugging of male children. At times, without the parents’ consent. That is why the shooters in school shootings are all male. Every shooter in the schools who was a student had been on prozac, luvox, ritalin or some other anti-depressant. They had taken themselves off of their prescribed medication and had gone ‘cold turkey’. The result was to create a paranoid, violent, psychotics. There was never any long term clinical study on the use of these drugs on male children, before they began to be prescribed for young children. Yet, these drugs have been used on male children as young as 3 years old. Behavioral modification by drugs, a liberal dream come true. In the 1990s, ritalin presecriptions rose to 2 million and then doubled every two years. (Merrow Report, PBS, 1995).
These dangers coalesced into the threat of armed attacks upon our schools, with the goal of killing children, creating terror, and gaining notoriety for the organization or the attackers themselves. Armed attacks were anticipated and mitigation for such was provided for under the Department of Homeland Security’s homeland security grant program to the States.
Adam Lanza was a terrorist. He did what terrorists do: he killed to create terror, for whatever his reasoning, he assaulted the school--he had to break in, and he attacked staff and students to gain noteriety and to send a message to his dead mother. He killed 27 people. It has been reported, that given his mental issues, he too may have been on anti-depressants.
Studies have been done at the federal level on how to protect our schools from an armed attack. Our military and our civil security know that the threat exists to the schools, but little or nothing has been done to create security protocols and to place armed security at elementary schools that would certainly reduce the potential for carnage, if not outright eliminate the potential for such.
In Israel, school security includes armed guards and armed staff. This model has been effective in preventing armed attacks on Israeli schools by terrorists.
At Sandy Hook Elementary a single point of entry through a locked door with a security camera was in place. That was a good first step. Evidently, the windows were not shatterproof, as that is how Lanza gained entrance after the door would not open. The principal put Lanza’s yelling and shooting on the loudspeaker system to notify the teachers to lock their rooms. The implication is that they lacked a common code word that would have notified staff to immediately go into lockdown. No armed guards or armed staff.
Did CT have the money to mitigate the armed threat that Adam Lanza demonstrated?
The State of Connecticut each year receives homeland security grants:
2011: $23M
2010: $142M
2009: $192M
2008: $37.5M
2007: $98M
2006: $22.6M
2005: $34.2M
2004: $60.6M
2003: $47.15M
2002: 11.85M
Total 2002-2011: $668.85 million in homeland security grants.
The DHS homeland security grant monies are designated by the applicant (State, county, city, school district) for planning, threat evaluation, disaster mitigation, hardening of vulnerable targets--including schools, training for emergency management, first responders, and impacted personnel--school staff for example; equipment for WMD and emergency response, communications, and emergency management.
Why did the state and local police, civil leadership of CT and DHS not act to harden the schools, against an armed threat? In failing to do so, they were negligent in their duties and responsibilities.
Schools have been targets of terror world-wide. On September, 1, 2004, over 1,000 school staff and students were taken prisoner at School 1 in Beslan autonomous republic with disastrous results for the students. 186 children were killed in the ensuing attempt to rescue the children. 334 people total were killed. How could this happen in a country with draconian prohibitions against private gun ownership? Russia has such strong gun laws, that only three groups have weapons: the Russian government agencies, including the military, the Russian mob, and the jihadis.
Was CT's problem simply being too politically correct to accept the idea of armed security and staff in elementary schools, or was it a sitaution of recognizing the threat, but dismissing it, because of the small probability of an armed incursion actually happening?
NEA, liberal administrators and staff do not want armed security in elementary schools. Guns! are bad!
We need to adopt the Israeli policy of an armed guard and at least one trained armed staff member. Teachers should be allowed concealed carry.
Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry in a school when they come to visit their kids, to pick them up, or to attend functions. This increases the armed security protection significantly at no cost to the school district.
Had there been an armed security guard or had there been armed staff, Adam Lanza's attack would have been truncated very early on, probably at the door.
Instead, we have liberal gun control advocates howling about 'high' capacity magazines and other nonesense that has no bearing on the problem. They express anger and outrage that the NRA would even suggest armed security. Yet, the liberal gun control advocates and politicians want a meaningful dialogue.
Why do banks have armed security? To protect the customers’ valuables. Were the 20 kids killed at Sandy Hook unworthy of the protection afforded . . . money?
The liberal politicians at every level of government, including President Barrack Obama, do not want to owe up to the fact that all they did when the school firearms prohibitions were passed was to put words in a code book. Without the rest of the program--locked doors, training, security protocols, and armed staff and amred security--the words of the law only created safety zones for the Adam Lanza’s.
Who's to blame for our school massacres? Liberal politicians and anti-gun groups.
The only effective remedy to reducing crime has been arming the law abiding citizen. Criminals do not want to encounter, armed citizens. They want unarmed victims. Same for terrorists.
CT had collected over $668,850,000 from the federal DHS homeland security grant program. Why did CT’s leaders not see to it that their schools were hardened against an armed threat? Heads should roll. They ignored the threat. The children and the school staff paid the price.
Now, do we learn from that inexcusable negligence, or do we let the red herring of ineffective gun laws take away our attention from the reality of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre: CT had the money, but did not protect their children!
The fact that owning this type of rifle is a good investment and shooting them is just plain fun is an affront to the civility and righteous indignation of the liberal gun control advocate.
The howl for gun control and the banning of "high capacity" magazines are red herrings designed to obscure our politicians’ and state and local leaders’ negligence and outright ignoring of the very real danger to our schools. A danger that was promised by fatwa before and after September 11, 2001. Bin Laden had signed a fatwa in February, 1998 "to kill the Americans, civilian and military" that was inclusive of killing American children.
Another danger had been building since the 80s that was the result of the overuse of anti-depressants on young male children. A result that was unforeseen in the mad rush to ‘calm’ little boys into being quiet and to "behave" without instilling discipline or a sense of right and wrong. A result forced by liberals who believed that little boys should act other than as normal male adolescents. In the liberal view of man, males were too aggressive.
What was a noticeable change between those children who were in school since the early 80s, and those generations before? What could their parents and even schools do that was not legal prior to the 1980s?
The drugging of male children. At times, without the parents’ consent. That is why the shooters in school shootings are all male. Every shooter in the schools who was a student had been on prozac, luvox, ritalin or some other anti-depressant. They had taken themselves off of their prescribed medication and had gone ‘cold turkey’. The result was to create a paranoid, violent, psychotics. There was never any long term clinical study on the use of these drugs on male children, before they began to be prescribed for young children. Yet, these drugs have been used on male children as young as 3 years old. Behavioral modification by drugs, a liberal dream come true. In the 1990s, ritalin presecriptions rose to 2 million and then doubled every two years. (Merrow Report, PBS, 1995).
These dangers coalesced into the threat of armed attacks upon our schools, with the goal of killing children, creating terror, and gaining notoriety for the organization or the attackers themselves. Armed attacks were anticipated and mitigation for such was provided for under the Department of Homeland Security’s homeland security grant program to the States.
Adam Lanza was a terrorist. He did what terrorists do: he killed to create terror, for whatever his reasoning, he assaulted the school--he had to break in, and he attacked staff and students to gain noteriety and to send a message to his dead mother. He killed 27 people. It has been reported, that given his mental issues, he too may have been on anti-depressants.
Studies have been done at the federal level on how to protect our schools from an armed attack. Our military and our civil security know that the threat exists to the schools, but little or nothing has been done to create security protocols and to place armed security at elementary schools that would certainly reduce the potential for carnage, if not outright eliminate the potential for such.
In Israel, school security includes armed guards and armed staff. This model has been effective in preventing armed attacks on Israeli schools by terrorists.
At Sandy Hook Elementary a single point of entry through a locked door with a security camera was in place. That was a good first step. Evidently, the windows were not shatterproof, as that is how Lanza gained entrance after the door would not open. The principal put Lanza’s yelling and shooting on the loudspeaker system to notify the teachers to lock their rooms. The implication is that they lacked a common code word that would have notified staff to immediately go into lockdown. No armed guards or armed staff.
Did CT have the money to mitigate the armed threat that Adam Lanza demonstrated?
The State of Connecticut each year receives homeland security grants:
2011: $23M
2010: $142M
2009: $192M
2008: $37.5M
2007: $98M
2006: $22.6M
2005: $34.2M
2004: $60.6M
2003: $47.15M
2002: 11.85M
Total 2002-2011: $668.85 million in homeland security grants.
The DHS homeland security grant monies are designated by the applicant (State, county, city, school district) for planning, threat evaluation, disaster mitigation, hardening of vulnerable targets--including schools, training for emergency management, first responders, and impacted personnel--school staff for example; equipment for WMD and emergency response, communications, and emergency management.
Why did the state and local police, civil leadership of CT and DHS not act to harden the schools, against an armed threat? In failing to do so, they were negligent in their duties and responsibilities.
Schools have been targets of terror world-wide. On September, 1, 2004, over 1,000 school staff and students were taken prisoner at School 1 in Beslan autonomous republic with disastrous results for the students. 186 children were killed in the ensuing attempt to rescue the children. 334 people total were killed. How could this happen in a country with draconian prohibitions against private gun ownership? Russia has such strong gun laws, that only three groups have weapons: the Russian government agencies, including the military, the Russian mob, and the jihadis.
Was CT's problem simply being too politically correct to accept the idea of armed security and staff in elementary schools, or was it a sitaution of recognizing the threat, but dismissing it, because of the small probability of an armed incursion actually happening?
NEA, liberal administrators and staff do not want armed security in elementary schools. Guns! are bad!
We need to adopt the Israeli policy of an armed guard and at least one trained armed staff member. Teachers should be allowed concealed carry.
Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry in a school when they come to visit their kids, to pick them up, or to attend functions. This increases the armed security protection significantly at no cost to the school district.
Had there been an armed security guard or had there been armed staff, Adam Lanza's attack would have been truncated very early on, probably at the door.
Instead, we have liberal gun control advocates howling about 'high' capacity magazines and other nonesense that has no bearing on the problem. They express anger and outrage that the NRA would even suggest armed security. Yet, the liberal gun control advocates and politicians want a meaningful dialogue.
Why do banks have armed security? To protect the customers’ valuables. Were the 20 kids killed at Sandy Hook unworthy of the protection afforded . . . money?
The liberal politicians at every level of government, including President Barrack Obama, do not want to owe up to the fact that all they did when the school firearms prohibitions were passed was to put words in a code book. Without the rest of the program--locked doors, training, security protocols, and armed staff and amred security--the words of the law only created safety zones for the Adam Lanza’s.
Who's to blame for our school massacres? Liberal politicians and anti-gun groups.
The only effective remedy to reducing crime has been arming the law abiding citizen. Criminals do not want to encounter, armed citizens. They want unarmed victims. Same for terrorists.
CT had collected over $668,850,000 from the federal DHS homeland security grant program. Why did CT’s leaders not see to it that their schools were hardened against an armed threat? Heads should roll. They ignored the threat. The children and the school staff paid the price.
Now, do we learn from that inexcusable negligence, or do we let the red herring of ineffective gun laws take away our attention from the reality of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre: CT had the money, but did not protect their children!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)