What police force? You're heavy on accusations, allegations, disinformation and outright lies and very light on facts.
Federally funded armed guards is an exercise of police power. Just because they are not nominally police doesn't change that. Hence, it is you who are the spin artist here.
Example: You had to add "education and training" to your qualification of a gun rights organization, even though I had already acknowledged the NRA's effectiveness in that light (also noting their failure to go to that strength with their proposed prescription). You did that to try to force me to agree that the NRA is the leader in that regard, thus holding them as an effective gun rights organization, which they are not.
That's duplicity and misrepresentation on your part. Your projections match the tactics of a Democrat in that regard.
Example: When I posted about how background checks that the NRA has supported to this day were abused with FIST, you didn't acknowledge it at all. Despite the fact that the NRA had warning of such and witnessed said abuse before the fact, they supported it anyway. Hence, they continue to support what is effectively gun registration by another name.
You just left that one alone. That's dishonest too. So you can fling crap all you like, but so far, it looks to me like you are wearing it.
Never, never, never give a government increased police powers without serious consideration along with obvious and quickly exercisable means to rescind that extension of federal power. Yet that is exactly what the NRA proposes. Never do it in the heat of the political moment. Yet that is exactly what the NRA has done. Once said "armed guards" are in place (and doing not a damned thing 95% of the time in return for their fat paychecks, health care plans, and crooked retirement funds foisted upon States teetering upon bankruptcy), there is every reason to expect both failure to act and abuse of power. So the net effect I see with the NRA proposal is that "retired police officers" will get TWO outrageous pensions instead of one. Worse, the school district faces the prospects of crippling lawsuits should they refuse by following some other more cost effective path.
You are very heavy on personal attacks, having offered NOTHING in the way of exculpatory evidence upon behalf of the NRA.
The NRA tried to re-write history and state Myth was pro-gun; this is the truth -
Mitt Romney. When he ran for the Senate and for governor, he supported a ban on assault rifles and the Brady Bill's five-day waiting period for gun purchases. He proudly said those positions wouldn't make him "the hero of the NRA." As governor, he made Massachusetts the first state to permanently ban assault weapons. He has even flip-flopped about whether he owns any guns. In New Hampshire, he was asked his view on the Second Amendment. He responded that he had been a hunter "pretty much all my life." Later, red-faced aides of Romney had to admit that Romney had never had a hunting license, and under further questioning, Romney acknowledged that his "lifetime of hunting" was having shot at some birds during a Republican governors meeting during a fund-raising event and maybe shooting at "small varmints" when he was seventeen with his cousin.
An example of the NRA's boy talking out both sides of his mouth -
I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes. So we signed that in Massachusetts, and I’d support that at the federal level. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. We have laws in place that, if they’re implemented & enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have
They also waited until the last minute to get on board with DC v Heller and then their incompetence nearly sank the case.......from Wiki Dick Heller – a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home.[16] Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood "transformed from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven". Heller had also approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.
The NRA......if you can't fix the problem, there's money to be had by pro-longing it.