In response to:

My Plan for Eliminating School Shootings

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 26, 2012 12:19 PM
Police provide extra security for citizens facing demonstrated credible threat. Anyone affluent enough to afford it is free to hire whatever private security they wish. It's routine for public funds to be spent for public official's security. But a gun free zones is legislation to insure that our children must be undefended no matter what. I don't believe legislation dictating armed guards is any more logical than legislated defenseless zones. Local control should permit communities that wish to see their children protected may do so or not at their discretion.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Dec 26, 2012 6:54 PM
Right.

When the Second Amendment is taken seriously and examined in the light of the vocabulary of the time it was written it becomes plain that there is no possible reading except that no mentally-competent, adult, non-felon citizen may legally be impeded from going armed in any place where he is legally entitled to be.
Tacitus X Wrote: Dec 26, 2012 2:58 PM
Local ordinances do not trump the Constitution. Adults (including teachers) who qualify for concealed carry should decide for themselves whether to carry arms or not. Parents who don't like it are free to home-school or send their kids to a private school that unwisely advertises itself as a "gun-free zone."

As a candidate for president of the United States, it is incumbent on me to make a statement regarding the Sandy Hook massacre and to explain how my policies would help prevent other such massacres should I become president. As I discuss this sensitive topic, it is also incumbent on me to sound more rational and articulate than the incumbent. That will not be difficult.
 
As president, I plan to attack the issue in two ways. First, I will use the bully pulpit to influence voters and state lawmakers. Second, I will take direct action to influence...