National Rifle Association head Wayne LaPierre doubled down on his defiant stance in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre yesterday by defending his proposal for a federal program to put armed guards at schools around the nation on the Sunday talk shows. On “Meet the Press,” he said, “If it’s crazy to call for armed officers in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy.” He’s right to the extent that there is nothing foolish about a discussion about strengthening security in schools. But NRA members who have lashed out at anyone who had the temerity to criticize LaPierre for his tone deaf response to Newtown after a week of silence, as I did both here at Contentions and in the New York Post, should realize something else. LaPierre’s idea may not be crazy, but it also isn’t conservative.
If there is anything at the heart of the modern conservative moment it’s the impulse to push back at the liberal drive to increase the power and the reach of the federal government at the expense of the states and local communities. Nothing is a greater threat to our individual liberty than giving federal bureaucrats the ability to impose their fiats on the nation through unfunded mandates and regulations. Yet that is exactly what LaPierre’s hare-brained scheme to make school security a federal program would do. After decades of furiously and rightly resisting attempts by liberals to bypass local resistance to gun control laws via federal legislation, the NRA is now playing the same card. If the group wants to know why most congressional Republicans have given the idea a chilly reception, it’s not only due to the public relations disaster that resulted from the group’s Friday presser; it’s because nationalizing school security is a liberal concept, not a conservative one.
As the New York Times reported, approximately one-third of all schools in the nation already have armed personnel on campus. Though most of these have been in urban areas where gangs and crime are at the root of the concern, others are starting to talk about increasing security, including having guards with firearms. But these decisions are the result of choices being made by local officials and communities, not a dictat issued from Washington. If federal programs such as “No Child Left Behind” have proved to be mistakes because they don’t give school districts the flexibility to make their own judgments, how much more misguided is the NRA’s attempt to make guns in schools a matter of federal purview.
It’s not exactly a secret that LaPierre’s presentation about school security was an attempt to divert the country’s attention from its grief about Newtown and the debate about a renewed push for gun control. Most Americans still support gun rights, if not in the absolutist fashion that the NRA feels is essential to fend off any sort of restrictions that could be an opening for those who wish to make gun possession illegal. But it’s not fooling anyone with its National Model School Shield Program. It’s something that will give Washington the ability to interfere in yet another sphere of our lives and it hasn’t a chance of mustering the support it needs from either liberal Democrats that despise the NRA or conservatives who understand that is not what the country needs.
The notion that a good guy packing heat needs to be there to stop bad guys with guns is sensible. But if LaPierre really believes that Americans wish to cede control of their schools to the federal government, he really is crazy.
nice strawman argument … oh wait, I should shelve my temerity and just agree with you …
I do not consider myself a liberal of the idiotic variety, but the position of the NRA is simply upsurd . It has all the elements of a dogma. It is totally resistant to any empirical evidence that shows that its belief in the efficacy of everyone having a access to firearms in terms of providing real safety.. But since the NRA holds that the solution is to have more guns perhaps the answer is to issue every American with a firearm as they exit the birth canal.
So what about contracting out such security, get it via the market? n nDoes that help?
Who knows how it will be paid for in each and every locality. I suppose it would be just another unfunded federal mandate for local school boards to sort through. What the NRA agreed to was to offer free training programs and they are well suited to provide this type of training program. I think LaPierre's point is that hiring an armed school resource officer is the quickest way to protect the schools. To pass gun control – as the first order of business – is a non-starter because the lack political will coupled with the Supreme Court's ruling on Heller – essentially guaranteeing and individual's right to keep and bear semi-auto firearms. So, if you want quick – I'd start with evaluating if School Resource Officers would provide a level of security before the next evil person wants to make a final statement at the local school.
At least the NRA made a coherent proposal that can serve as a starting point for discussion, as here. Who is making better proposals — politicians? the media? If the NRA had remained silent, public discussion most likely would have continued to revolve around gun bans that would have done nothing to protect children but would have enraged a substantial fraction of the US population. I’d say that the NRA, imperfect though its proposal may be, has performed a valuable service.