Blog Roll
Who's My Legislator?

Virginia Blogs
All Things Education
Augusta Free Press
Crew of 42
Dixie Pig
Greater Greater Washington
Loudoun Progress
Ox Road South Blog
Pilot on Politics" blog
Power for the People
Richmond Sunlight
RVA Politics
Shad Plank
Vivian Paige

Find more about Weather in Arlington, VA
Click for weather forecast

Advanced Search

Preposterous Proposals Proliferate

by: Dan Sullivan

Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 13:36:19 PM EST

We're living a cartoon. One character puts up his dukes and the adversary pulls out brass knuckles, then escalation each in turn through a knife, pistol, rifle, machinegun, cannon, tank... It goes where arming and armoring schools goes: no constructive advantage. Cost without benefit other than political cover.

Governor McDonnell legitimizing the concept of arming more personnel inside schools demonstrates his narrow experience and linear, attritionist approach to the issues raised by the violence at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. This is understandable. As an army intelligence officer raised and trained in the era of a set piece battlespace, he is comfortable with templates and minor tactics against local threats. His cohort, Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13th), lacks even that experience with conceptual threats. Marshall's hobbies, weight lifting, gardening, and photography, might give him time to contemplate but do nothing to qualify him to defend our children or us. But both of these fellows do demonstrate the ability to push hot buttons even if they are unconcerned about the consequences they initiate.

Nattering nabobs such as them attract attention. Some of that from Democrats who either think they must say something or are afraid of saying nothing even if they have nothing to add. At least the Republicans are expressing a core value, no matter how wrongheaded it is. The Democrats on board with this idea sound as hollow as their self-serving position. Disappointing.

Reducing the security of children to talking points about arming teachers and adding resource officers limits the debate, ignores the broader issues, and potentially places children in substantially greater danger. Look, I have the greatest respect for teachers but they are not public safety employees and many are unsuited for this responsibility. Adding a resource officer to the soup definitely secures the few square feet occupied at any given moment, but has McDonnell, Marshall, or any of them actually been inside a school lately? Those resource officers are there for and deal with a lot of student issues not related to invasion; issues that do not occur in elementary schools. Unless we go back to one room schoolhouses, these ideas are just lipstick on a pig.  

Dan Sullivan :: Preposterous Proposals Proliferate
Suggesting the discussion about school security begin with a conclusion already framed is either intellectual deficiency or blatant dishonesty. The discussion should begin with a threat analysis. Guns constitute only one aspect of that discussion. One thing that we have learned about hardening targets is that perpetrators are not so linear that they will cooperate by attacking whatever strength we put in place. So, while security is important, we can't secure against every inevitability.

Beyond being able to defend against a threat, we must identify and disable it. As shameful as it is, we have to admit that our greatest threat is not some organized and politically motivated adversary. You remember shame: it's that thing that many conservatives say our society lacks. So they should be happy to embrace the concept of introspection. It is our own citizens who have perpetrated the domestic violence that is our immediate concern. So how do we counter that without violating the values we hold so dear?

Well, to begin, we must recognize there are limits on the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.  For another, we understand that those freedoms carry obligations; even those guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Though defenders of gun rights want to believe Charlton Heston brought this one down from the mountain, there is a historical context for it they conveniently misread. There are practical aspects of the defense against a tyrannical government they simply ignore. And indeed, arming only those whose duty is to specifically protect against that tyranny provides even greater security.

See, the problem is that the time preceding the sainted framers drawing up the Constitution, there were insurgents who had armed themselves in rebellion. Ever wonder why an arms clause wasn't originally present? There being no federal army or standing state militias or willingness to pay for them, private militias were raised by those whose interest was to protect their own property. Private armies and vigilante bands are not so different. Indeed one private army seized a state armory without authority. So which is legitimate? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, or so we have been told. And in this regard, the use of the term "militia" in the amendment informs at a minimum that the framers were not enthusiastic about a free for all and were concerned with legitimacy.

When one freedom begins to infringe upon the freedoms of others, and the current application of the Second Amendment does, it is time for reasonable restrictions. And one of those is a restriction against gun ownership by the irresponsible and the incompetent.

Guaranteeing the availability and proliferation of arms is not the same as guaranteeing freedom. Arming everyone does nothing to disarm those who threaten a civil society.

And right now the march that should have fueled reform is threatened by those practiced at obfuscation and distraction.  

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

It worked at Colimbine. (0.00 / 0)

I'd add that it's hard to imagine Bill Howell or the GOP Virginia (0.00 / 0)
House "leadership," using the word VERY loosely, contributing anything positive whatsoever on this issue. Basically, those guys - and they're almost all guys - are no better than Wayne LaPierre. Pretty much, anything that they and their allies in the NRA, ALEC, etc. are for, I'm strongly against.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

Chris Christie nails it (0.00 / 0)
Armed guards won't make schools safer
"In general I don't think that the solution to safety in schools is putting an armed guard because for it to be really effective in my view, from a law enforcement perspective, you have to have an armed guard at every classroom," he said during an event in Newark Friday morning. "Because if you just have an armed guard at the front door then what if this guy had gone around to the side door? There's many doors in and out of schools."

And he said he doesn't like the idea of having multiple armed guards inside schools. "I don't necessarily think having an armed guard outside every classroom is conducive to a positive learning environment," he said.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

No ban, no security (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure every parent who was living in the DC Metro area at the time remembers the DC Snipers.  Extra-curricular athletics were shut down for weeks because of them, because those activities couldn't be secured.  That event gave everyone an acute appreciation of how vulnerable most school activities are.  

Even if the classrooms could be secured, what about the school buses, as just one example?  What about dances, concerts, sporting events, field trips?

It would be good to continue having resource officers at schools.  But there is no way to manage the risk without a ban on semi-automatic weapons.  

[ Parent ]
True, There Are Always a Soft Targets (0.00 / 0)
And those might replace the school house.

However, focusing on one weapon set is not sufficient. There is always a workaround. All weapons are "assault weapons" if used with that intent. "Semi-automatic" is too broad a term to be of much use. Revolvers can be as deadly. And President Kennedy was killed by a guy firing three shots in about 8 seconds from a $19.95 bolt action rifle.

Yes, fewer guns is a start. But that means all types of guns and who holds them.

[ Parent ]
2d amendment limitations (0.00 / 0)
I agree, but there is a limit to what can be done under the current interpretation of the 2d amendment.

The more I learn about Australia's gun laws, the more I am impressed by them.  I would support an American adaptation of the Australian gun laws.

Assuming such a comprehensive law could be enacted in a State, would it pass constitutional muster?  I think under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted, self defense would have to be an acceptable reason for a permit to acquire a gun. That's not an acceptable reason in Australia.  Thus, they can restrict handgun ownership to bona fide competitive target shooting, i.e., those that compete in a minimum number of matches every year. The current majority of the U.S. Supreme Court believes that possession of commonly used guns for personal and home defense is protected by the Second Amendment, and that includes handguns.  They didn't reach the issue of whether that constitution right extends to the possession of semi-automatic handguns. On the other hand, the Court clearly would uphold a ban on rifles like the M-16.

[ Parent ]
How much would it cost to put an armed guard at every school in VA? (0.00 / 0)
I was just listening to Marketplace on NPR, they estimated $80,000 per year for each armed guard at a school. Let's just assume 1 guard per school, which is probably too low, for the moment. According to these statistics, there are 2,093 public schools in Virginia. Multiply that by $80,000 per year for 1 guard at each school, and you get $160 MILLION per year. Say 2 guards at each school, and it's $320 MILLION per year. To put that in perspective, that's about what Virginia spent in FY 2012 for Agriculture and Forestry ($86 million), Technology ($54 million), Legislative Agencies ($73 million), and the Executive Department ($46 million). Is that worth it? Would it be helpful, neutral, or harmful to put armed guards at every school? (I'd argue at BEST neutral, but more likely harmful) In short, this just doesn't add up.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

Let's See How This Affects Bob's Budget Amendments (0.00 / 0)
I am betting that he is not sincere enough about this little ploy to amend his recently proposed budget amendments. If he has to plan for sequestration, it follows that he has to account for this.

[ Parent ]
He Pushes It on Administrators (4.00 / 1)
McDonnell threw out the idea of arming administrators. Thus, no cost to the state...just one more expectation of school personnel: teach my child, act as a psychologist to kids with lousy home lives, be a part-time nurse because the state has cut funding for non-classroom positions, and now, protect the school from attack by a raving maniac armed with an assault rifle, high-capacity clips and armor-piercing bullets. All of this is to be done by one or two administrators with either a concealed handgun or with the time to grab a handy-dandy rifle from some closet in the office?? I don't think so.  

[ Parent ]
Cost of the Guardian Corps (0.00 / 0)
Yes, and don't forget about the cost of putting these extra officers through a police academy, and also that to maintain any targeted level of staffing, there would need to be extra officers -- given that at any time, there will be some unavailable for duty.  Some will be in transit or on leave, some in training, some will be patients, some will be pending disciplinary action.

[ Parent ]

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?



Donate to Blue Virginia

The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever), and "troll ratings abuse" (e.g., "troll" rating someone simply because you disagree with their argument) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!

P.S. You can contact us at and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.

P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.

RSS Feed

Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page

Powered by: SoapBlox