Let's face it, no matter what NRA said, it would be wrong.

Being many schools already have something similar,
why are they complaining?

I like a trained principal or teacher armed and no one
knowing who it is like the marshalls on airplanes.
Some schools already do that.

That's fair, I was very disappointed in Rep Walz. I guess we're all even.

truth, mav.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

A second amendment right...
Last time I read the Constitution, that wasn't defined or referenced...

The NRA suggestion is actually a real good idea. There are armed guards in many places in our society. Some examples are banks, TSA airport security security etc.. Isn't protecting elementary school children as important as those things ?? Of course it is, it is far more important. The objections to this are purely political. Saying that placing police officers or armed guards at every school is too expensive is laughable when you consider what is already being spent for staff at our public schools, and how can you and put a price on saving children's lives. I haven't heard any polticians lamenting the costs associated with additional gun control law enforcement or registration. The comment about schools becoming ".. armed campuses where children don't feel safe." is backwards; the children don't feel safe now because there is no on-site security people to protect against the evil crazies. Liberals simply do not like the NRA, or guns. They want to use this tradgedy to further their agenda against guns, and this is a higher priority for them than actually protecting the children which this prooposal would do immediately the day the guards started work. Nowadays, since many schools are "gun free" zones, an evil mass-murderer knows they won't encounter any resistance at all if they carry out their mission. The opposite should be the case, It's common sense folks.

What do you think we should do as a national response to this situation?

It looks like you might be saying:

"Nothing...man up, and accept that we're going to lose some here and there"

So you're fearful that some rights might be surrendered. Do you really want to make the argument about the choice between 30 round clips and weapons that aren't all that useful for hunting...and the safety of children?

We're just coming off a pretty big national election, and none of us believe in our heart of hearts that it was about anything but taking the national temperature, about a candidate who may be a little bit of a bumbler, but is a warm-hearted bumbler, opposed to a rather cold, lifeless "accountant".

Sabre-rattling to energize a shrinking cohort in a civil society dependant on political power is a losing plan. Cold and heartless isn't winning right now.

Why does Finland, who have the next closest number of events like this, have (even per capita) less than 1/5 the number of such events?

Finland has somewhat permissive gun ownership laws by European standards. I'm suggesting that it isn't the presence of absence of weapons, but something else. And a great slice of the American public doesn't really want to become like a third-world muslim nation with constant gunfire.

Your side isn't acknowledging political reality. When you demand we accept constant violence and gunfire, we'll lose even more than a few banana clips and requirements to keep weapons secure when not in use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU5fAGOVvEM

I'll put in the form of a question:

why is violence the preferred lifestyle (a shrinking number of us)?

As we become more and more "civilized" we tend to view violence with more and more disgust, fear, and anger. Your POV is that we're always going to have violent people, people incapable of controlling themselves. The only response is more violence.

Some of us question if that is the only mindset possible, and even question of there is something wrong with people that choose violence first...whether proactively or as a response.

We're lumping you together as "violence lovers"...and your political power is waning. Will you go out in a blaze of glory?

Because maybe we are mentally ill as a nation. It's a thought that deserves attention in my book.

Why are we more violent than most other people? Why do we focus on how violent the Muslim world is? Do we instinctively "understand" them...is that why we are fearful of them?

Respond or not, as you choose. I'm leaving for a little while.

If our schools were surrounded with barricades, fences, barbed wire and armed guards that still wouldn't keep our children safe from someone trying to create "their moment in time."

Our country can't protect our foreign ambassadors from rag tag zealots or free our inner city neighborhoods from illegally armed thugs and yet the talking heads solutions is to either arm our schools or ban our right to defend our self from our aggressors. I think, in this case, the dog is barking up the wrong tree.

BTW, any of the fact checkers have the body count in Chicago alone this week? Get my point???

Wait for waynes answer to the question " Why didnt the armed trained police/guards @ the Red Lake MN HS ,& Columbine CO school shootings fail to stop the gunmen that killed so many , and since almost 1/3 of US schools already have on site armed police protection , Wayne would you like to rethink your great idea ? "

Waynes gun lobby that supports the "Industry" said similar LIES shortly after VA Tech shooting , golly gee whiz guess how many FULL time ARMED policemen patrol that college campus ?

Note to you Dodge City Kansas residents , when you drag a weapon out and point it any direction , when the real actual trained law enforcement " Good Guys" show up , its hard for them to determine if your a "bad guy" or just a do gooder in the line of friendly fire....

"pot smoking freeloading hippie freeks", you mean you and your buds from "Aitken" ?? Go back to your crumbling porch, you know, the one with the three hounds underneath. The rest of us need only fail safe birth control laws to protect us from you and your kin.