It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NJ Town agress with NRA, Places Armed Guards at Schools

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:10 PM
More Nanny State Police Tactics from Big Government.
It is not my responsibility nor is it the government's responsibility.

Pull your kids out of school and home school them if you do not like what is going on.

Employ some Personal Responsibility

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Mrgone

But I'm still able to protect myself in an emergency. Try to think of guns like life insurance.

But I do realize there is no room in that metaphor for someone using life insurance in a theater so. Hmm.

Metaphors are useful to explain things in a different perspective that might aid others in understanding the many points of view.

For instance: if your life insurance (a gun) comes at a price, like having a metaphorical target on your T-shirt and being extra vulnerable to the focus of crazies, is it really worth it?

Sure, you may be in a position to stop another shooter, but if the shooter has intentions you don't share, who is the vulnerable one and who may become just another statistic?

Seriously, I had the opportunity to buy a rifle from a friend, but afret consideration, I didn't want to give anyone an excuse to shoot me. Real simple.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by nerbot

Seriously, I had the opportunity to buy a rifle from a friend, but afret consideration, I didn't want to give anyone an excuse to shoot me. Real simple.

Why would someone shoot you for owning a thing? You're going to have to expand on this concern of yours.

I've been around double, even triple, digit firearms my whole life and not once has anyone tried to shoot at me because of them.

Some ghetto trash idiot shot at me for wearing the wrong color shirt as I rode a bike through his neighborhood once. But not ever because I owned a rifle.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Wow never thought New Jersey would be one of the first to enact this, totally surprised by that. But I agree good decision and hope many to follow in their footsteps.

Well it is not NJ it is a town. The title like most at ATS is misleading at best. The State and Gov. Christie do not like the idea turning schools into armed camps. NJ also says it does not have the 10 billion dollars a year it would cost to do it. I suppose if the NRA believes in it NJ could ask them for the money?
edit on 22-12-2012 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:19 PM
Your title is extremely misleading. One district does not make a whole state

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:19 PM
Finally some common sense. Nothing will ever be full proof but this will at least give our children a fighting chance. Here in Florida they are voting to do the same thing. Many schools have been doing this for decades already.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by DarkKnight76

reply to post by MrSpad


posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:27 PM
In the end it will be the tsa at the schools.
I'm thinking that their uniforms will have a target on them.
Having a staff that has ccw and training is one thing but having uniformed officers in every school is counter productive in the long run will make things worse.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by jacobe001
More Nanny State Police Tactics from Big Government.
It is not my responsibility nor is it the government's responsibility.

Pull your kids out of school and home school them if you do not like what is going on.

Employ some Personal Responsibility

The killer was a home schooler. There will always be the mentally ill. They will kill you in your home-school "classroom" too.

If we care enough about our money in banks and Walmart products to have armed guards in banks and stores, why don't we value our very children enough to also protect them? Back in the late 1960's in western MA my H.S. vice-principle was "the enforcer" he made it intentionally obvious he was concealed carrying. No one was scarred for life. However, we did proceed through classes and focused on learning knowing there was the VP to cover us.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by deadeyedick

That's what compromise gets you.

Rather than simply life the "gun free" nonsense and permit people who are already permitted to carry they have to make a big spectacle of it and bring in more government.

There was a guy from the Atlantic on the radio this morning going on about ridiculous "gun free" zones were and how permitted concealed carriers on average are more law abiding than even police officers and suggested that just letting people who carry carry will do far more than any gun ban or armed security ever could.

I'll see if I can find the article or transcript.

Here;s the audio of it: npr player

And here's the article
edit on 22-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by caladonea

I think that the Mayor of Marlboro Township in NJ is doing the right thing; and I think that every school in the U.S. should follow his example and do the same.

The American children are very afraid and I believe they do need the added protection.

Completely agree, i dropped my Kindergartner off at school a few times last week (wife usually does) and there was a Sheriff there opening car doors for kids being dropped off. This happened after Sandy Hook. I cannot think of a wiser use of my tax dollars than protecting the children at schools.

Were I live there is very very little crime. NC is pretty nice place to live in that way. Instead of Sheriffs sitting around doing nothing we can put them to meaningful work. I assumed high crime areas like big cities already have armed guards/police so i am not sure its a big deal for them either.

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Thurisaz
well it is a positive step in two ways...

protects and reassures the kids

and, creates employment.

Not exactly on either front.
1) People in a position of authority have a record of abusing their power; this is no different in schools. Really doesn't accomplish much, just scares kids if anything. Putting an armed guard at a school alludes to the idea that somebody wants to shoot up the school; it does anything but make kids feel safe. When do people need armed escorts or bodyguards? When there are people out there who may want to do them harm.

2) If the school has to pay for it, that means taking a cut out of the money that goes towards teachers' salaries and supplies, such as text books and technology, for students. The money to employ a security guard full time doesn't just appear out of thin air; someone has to pay them. In this case, that someone is the school. Expect more teachers to lose their jobs and a further diminished quality of education to keep these useless rent-a-cops employed.

We need to realize and accept that freak accidents aren't preventable; if somebody wants to shoot up a public place, he or she will find a way to do it. To sacrifice our personal sovereignty in a futile attempt to prevent something so rare is insanity; it would be like taking extreme measures to prevent a disease that affects less than 1 in 1,000,000 people, never venturing outside during thunderstorms out of fear that one will get struck by lighting, or never setting foot into the ocean out of the fear that one will get eaten by a shark; it's absolutely irrational and positively insane.

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:06 AM
In Taiwan there's a couple police stationed outside EVERY bank, just standing there, watching the world go by. And I can tell you, they have a LOT of banks. This is done as a deterrent to someone who might want to rob the bank.

Oh, and strangely, private ownership of firearms is prohibited in Taiwan, but they still do this anyway, I wonder why?

Maybe their criminals are smarter than our criminals and have figured out ways to commit crimes without using guns? I don't know. They are pretty smart over there. for thought, maybe?

edit on 23-12-2012 by tjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The burbs have always had a "never happen hear" attitude while the cities with gangs have been taking these measures to protect their children for decades now.

I know that when I went to New Britain High School, many ages ago, there was a police officer included with the regular security staff. Many years before then, my cousins were at the high school when there was a drive-by shooting. So with all of the gang activity, one could understand why the necessity to have extra security there.

I was in class one day when someone I knew, who most of the class knew, brought a gun to school. He would pull the slide back and release it. He did that a few times. It makes a very distinct sound, so it is hard to mistake the mechanics of a gun for anything else. Later someone had mentioned something to security and he was arrested. He returned to school the following year.

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:26 AM
whats wrong with putting armed gaurds at schools? Back in the 60's & 70's growing up in Chicago the police were stationed in the schools.They could also use ex out of work military for an immediate fix, but obama conciders them a bigger threat than the islamic psychos. Also it wouldn't fit in with this communist obamanation gun grab policy.

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:20 AM
Im having a hard time seeing all the comments advocating for these "gaurds". I can see through whats going on and cannot believe so few of you see it.
We may not fall for the two party system, but the fact remains...almost all of the 300million or so voters hold fast to their parties. The Democrats are playing a game of thrones and the blame for everything is poised to be put on the Republicans.

The fiscal cliff first...then police gaurds in school advocated by the NRA. The blame will be Democrats in reality, but the sheep will be told its the Republicans fault...blame them. In my opinion anyway.

Heres some food for thought though:

Odds of being mauled by a dog: 1 in 700,000
Odds of being killed by poisoning:1 in 86,000
Odds of dying falling out of bed:1 in 2,000,000
Odds of dying in a terrorist attack:1 in 10,408,947

Here are the most important ones....

Odds of your child being shot at school: 1 in 3,000,000

Odd of being a victim of police brutality: 1 in 54,000

The odds tell me your kids are a crap-ton more likely to get injured or die at the hands of the LEO protecting them than a crazy mass shooter of any kind.

Peeps need to take a deep breath and zoom out to the big picture here. Police in school is not good for anything besides conditioning children to accept a bit more conditioning to tyranny. This is a bad precedence to set because its a slippery slope.
In the coming months, as this is being implemented, we most assuredly will have a school shooting plot averted by some "brave LEO". Then peeps will clamour for more will solidify the tyranny much like the supposed Times Square Bomber solidified the need for DHS.

Countries are run by a gamut of lawyers. Lawyers thrive off precedence. It allows for far more draconian measures to be implemented because theres no need for a court fight when precedence has been established.

While I am on the side of the second ammendment, I must point out that Columbine had an armed gaurd. VT had tons of "gaurds" and there were guns galore in Fort Hood. How well did armed gaurds work out there? I dont know what the answer is, but its not putting guns in school, and make no mistake, eventually a cop or teacher will flip their lid on a school. Then the gaurds will be replaced by military.....then its game over.

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamour for such laws if their personal security is threatened."- Josef Stalin

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant will spring; When he first appears, he is a protector.- PLATO
edit on 23-12-2012 by MisterMaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

you and i both know a cowardly would be assassin isn't going to pick the school with the armed security, it's just not in their makeup, fear is their makeup and they don't need more of it before they off themselves and other with them.

i think it's a great idea, i just have no idea where the funds are coming from. i think maybe it's time people donate their time to help out in these guard details, i know i would volunteer some time to make sure these people are a little safer.

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by MisterMaster

i agree on some area's but i have to disagree with the thinking that security doesn't make a difference. sure people have been killed in "secure" area's, but how many more may have been killed without the security?

i do not like the idea of police being used because seriously they can not be trusted in several ways, to do the job properly. most are either under trained or just as bad as the perps and i wouldn't want them near my kids.

i think it's time Americans come together to stomp a common enemy and we do it with donated time. when people need help we shouldn't waste time bickering, we should just grab the bull by the horns and collectively, get it done. an armed militia has many potential uses and doesn't cost money.

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

well said my friend

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Aleister
I wouldn't trust some of the security guards I've known to protect the children. And all a guy has to do to get past this barrier is to off the guard, so putting them in every school will just put more fear into the children's and parent's minds. Idiots is too strong a word. Or not.

yeah or he could hold off the shooter til backup arrives, they get there pretty quick these days!

even in full body armor and a rifle.. an armed trained guard could buy everyone time to hide.. which is a lot more effective than an unarmed principal is it not?

i really don't see how this would be "preparing the kids for a police state" there would be 1 or 2 people there.. when they walk home / take a bus from school im sure they see many more cops than that sometimes even searching people outside of their cars.. i know i see it every day and a lot when i was a kid

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in