[rhema]

The flaming libs who frequent the Strib didn't like this reader's comment: I'm amused at some folks' negative responses to this idea. Sure, there are still some devils in the details. But after 9/11, there was overwhelming support for providing armed Air Marshalls aboard aircraft and arming pilots. Parents, have you taken your kid aboard an airline flight lately? Have you taken your kid to a sporting event or concert where there were also armed guards and police? Seriously, did you or did you *not* feel safer because of their presence? Of course you did. Why then, do you same people balk at this same idea? I'll tell you exactly why! It is because you desperately want to cling to a fuzzy-wuzzy, idyllic vision of care-free school days. Bah! No matter if you like it or not, these days, our schools have become the soft-targets of-choice for wack-o's and terrorists. So tell me now, which is your highest priority, parents? To protect your cherished, sappy-happy, idealistic dreams of a Beaver Cleaver school-days yesteryear? Or to protect your kids from today's real threats?

[AtlasStalled]

The proposal makes a lot of sense. An armed guard or cop at the school not only will deter crazed shooters from showing up but may suppress crime generally on the premises including drug dealing, assaults, etc. The cop doesn’t even have to be full-time for deterrent value to be effective but simply frequent but variable visits.

[TurboZamboni]

If guns are all evil, why do most Congresscritters have armed security at their kid’s schools?

[45semi]

Amazing how many of the brain-dead commented rebuking the idea.
One with sense said:
"If its O.K. to have armed cops at the school AFTER a shooting, whats wrong with having them there BEFORE?"

as in 'they might prevent the shooting'...
Derp!

[Baynative]

Responsible security might be a good moving. Arming teachers is out of the question; 95% of them are so liberal they would never go near a firearm for any reason.

[VeniVidiVici]

Tim Walz seems like a first class, A1 PUTZ:

Walz received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood in 2012, from the ACLU in 2011, from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2009-10, from the AFL-CIO in 2010, from the Teamsters in 2009-10, and from NOW in 2007. In recent years he has received one-digit ratings from the National Taxpayers’ Union, Citizens against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, and Freedom Works. The US Chamber of Commerce gave him a 25% rating in 2010.

Wikipedia

[Westbrook]

> If churches feel comfortable protecting children with cops,
> shouldn’t schools?

The bigger and most important question is, if the politicians can have armed protection in their office buildings, travel with armed bodyguards, if virtually every place these politicians go is protected by armed security with REAL machine guns and body armor, then why would they deny that same security for your kids? Also, if they can send their kids to private schools with armed security, why can’t they extend that kind of protection to the “public” schools?

The REAL answer is that they are cynical, lying, hypocritical, filthy, demonic TYRANTS who want to strip us of our liberties, MOST especially the right to self-defense, and protecting the public schools with armed security does not promote that goal.

We need to repeat their motto to every leftist and liberal we see.

“Armed security for me and mine,
Gun-free zones for thee and thine.”