The National Rifle Association stunned Washington observers Friday when the group’s CEO announced a plan to install armed guards at every school in the country — its response to the Connecticut shooting last week that left 20 children dead.
Wayne LaPierre called the idea the National School Shield program, which would rely on local police forces. It will be led by former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.).
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said. “Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?”
More from Anna Palmer and Andrew Restuccia @ Politico
Posted by Libergirl
TheConfirmationFiles 
How is this for a start easy to be agreed upon?
The confidentiality of personal health records does not apply when it affects the public health. Cases involving gunshot wounds and certain contagious diseases MUST by law be reported to the proper authorities.
Is there any reason under the sun why this should not apply to mental health issues where the patient is a danger to the public???!!!
I do not know about this case yet, but this would definitely have headed off the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 where 32 were killed, 17 wounded and 6 more injured escaping.
Among the agencies which would be notified in this simple, common sense measure would be agencies which are checked with when checking on pending sales of weapons. A simple cross-check would be performed as well to spot applicants’ addresses where persons whose mental state could be a danger to the public might have access.
Of COURSE the NRA wants armed guards on every campus in America. This exposes their funding sources! But we citizens would rather avoid such a monstrous expense and the attendant further curtailing of our freedoms, particularly in light of the fact that this measure might not be effective.
Any idiot can see that if the first bullet went into the back of the head of the guard, the shooter would be able to proceed unhindered as before. Much better to keep the weapons out of the hands of those known to be imbalanced.
Another big item to consider is that as we know disarming the populace is not the solution to their defense!
But overall, I must say that I am a devoted and sworn upholder of the Constitution. And the reason our constitution provides that the government does not have the authority to disarm the populace is the profound fear our incredibly gifted and wise founding fathers had of powerful governments and the worldwide historic principal that the first step taken by tyrannies is to disarm the governed.
The overarching principle for interpreting the Constitution is the INTENT OF THE FRAMERS. I think few of us would be inclined to even entertain the suggestion that it was the intent of Jefferson, Washington and the others was that people that are a danger to the citizens of this country should be immune from limitation because the mentally impaired might have some kind of right to privacy that superseded the rights of our people to life, health and freedom from fear.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. And my children are far more dear to me than is my nose.
The mentally impaired and others including minors who are not capable of making normal and sound decisions and executing reasonable actions at all times simply DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS WEAPONS that are intended among other things to assist in the guarantees of our lives, our freedoms and our property.