NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre: We Need to Add “Armed Security” to Schools

After a rousing anti-bloody flag waving warm-up by the new primary public face of the NRA — Dana Loesch — NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre broke his employer’s radio silence on the spree killing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School . . .

‘Mr. LaPierre also slated politicians and the mainstream media for their attacks on the NRA and, by extension, the Second Amendment. “Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and . . . eradicate all individual freedoms.”

Mr. LaPierre then turned his attention to “practical solutions” to school shooting.

The NRA jefe called for hardening schools, including “armed security.” To those who oppose the idea, he sarcastically suggested that they remove armed security from politicians and Hollywood’s elite. And . . . that’s about it, what-we-should-do-school shooting-wise.

Wayne LaPierre at CPAC 2018

Mr. LaPierre also advised that concerned schools contact the NRA to get advice from its [ignored] School Shield Program. And moved his focus from arming schools to attacking the Democratic Party for rejecting capitalism and embracing “European style socialists” (a list of which earned expected boos and catcalls).

After praising law enforcement in general, Mr. LaPierre lambasted the FBI’s “rogue leadership” — without again referring to its failure to intercept spree killer Nikolas Cruz after receiving two specific tips on his intentions.

Mr. LaPierre claimed his organization “initiated” the national instant check system.

“It wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the NRA,” he pronounced and reaffirmed the NRA’s support for “fixing” NICS (and presumably the bill of the same name). Without expanding it. (Go figure.)

At the same time, Mr. LaPierre warned that “we don’t want [NICs] to become a runaway train.” “That’s the challenge we as a free society face,” LaPierre cautioned, offering a vision of a government database used to restrict personal liberty. A database like . .  NICS.

Mr. LaPierre defended the NRA’s decision to step outside of its Second Amendment remit, including lobbying efforts on behalf of the Republican Party.

“We will speak out louder and we will speak out stronger than we ever have before,” he promised. But no guns! “We are not talking about an armed resistance” to the socialist takeover of the U.S. political system, LaPierre assured, uh, someone.

Bottom line: Mr. LaPierre didn’t provide “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun” sound byte for the national media to feast upon. Although he did repeat it as his parting shot (so to speak). “To stop a bad guy with a gun it takes a good guy with a gun.”


  1. avatar Jon says:

    why not just allow teacher the option to carry if they have a permit to carry? It would not cost taxpayers a dime and I cant think of a more motivated individual than one who’s life is on the line. We need to ditch this whole idea that one needs “specialized training” to carry a gun, I work at the local sheriffs office and there are plenty of holes in the clearing barrel to prove how stupidity doesn’t care how much training you have had. We also need to accept that nothing will “fix” the problem of shootings except removal of guns and even then, people will still kill each other. So the people in this country need to make a choice free from all the non-sense in the media (if that even possible anymore). Do you want to be disarmed and rely on the police for protection knowing full well that gun bans do not affect the overall murder rate in any country that has imposed them. Or choose to remain armed and deal with the fact that your safety starts and ends with you.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      I think it would be good for the teachers that are going to carry to train with first responders, mainly so they know each other and so a teacher isn’t mistaken for an active shooter during an incident. They could maybe get some combat pistol training if they aren’t already veterans.

      It could be considered “regulating the militia”; because, effectively, that’s what the teachers would be (militia members).

      Also, the training should include combat first aid and IFAKs. It takes about 3 minutes to bleed out. Prompt application of tourniquets or combat gauze and Israeli bandages can save lives after the shooting.

      Even if things don’t change in terms of “Gun Free School Zones”, school employees should be sent to combat first aid training and be provided with IFAKs.

      1. avatar Parnell says:

        Makes sense. I think training willing teachers to carry makes more sense than the idea of retired military/police. Many cops have shown limited abilities with firearms and just being a vet doesn’t mean you’re any gun expert. Teachers willing to undergo the training/physiological testing; etc. that would be involved would be a great deterrent when combined with restricted entry and metal detectors. If it’s good enough for Federal buildings, it should be good enough for our kids.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “so a [concealed carrier] isn’t mistaken for an active shooter during an incident.” – That’s a black swan event.

        Additionally, it is not sound policy to spend gobs of money on training for extremely unlikely events when people without that training have responded quickly and ably.

        First aid is a great idea that should be taught in school among other basic life skills. Injury generally is likely to happen.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          The level of training I was think of was equivalent to the NRA basic pistol class along with combat first aid.

          I would hope that any teacher/school staff thst will be carrying would practice marksmanship regularly. They need to hit their target and not innocent bystanders.

          I go to the range every Saturday and shoot 50 rounds through my carry gun so I’m pretty sure I’ll hit what I aim at and could beat most (so I hear) New York cops in a marksmanship competition.

    2. avatar Rick says:

      I’m not for the teacher’s carrying bar being a CCDW. In KY the testing is a farce, its the NRA course. So if the teachers get appropriate first responder training, I’d be OK with it. My uncle was a principle in a rural district, and he spent a summer getting his reserve sheriff certificate, that seemed reasonable.

    3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      The only teachers who should be carrying concealed guns are those who train MORE THAN YOUR AVERAGE POLICEMAN.

      Wayne was so correct back in 2012. But people just laughed at him. Retired cops or military retired armed guards? All they did was laugh.

      The FASTER Program is the best way to go. Because they teach disaster medical first aid, as well as marksmanship.

  2. avatar Hank says:

    Watching the speech, I thought it was pretty good. I hope this means the NRA is getting back on track. He hit democrats pretty hard most of the speech.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee there were armed security at my son’s HS several years ago south of Chicago.And there sure as he!! weren’t 3000 kids as in Floriduh. And now that both are in college there’s obnoxious armed dude rent-a-cops floating around the school. Why is this even up for debate?!?

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Ya Think , Israeli style , it’s not theory it’s proven to work.

  5. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Eliminate all GFZs completely and absolutely. Remove all security from politicians and non-military government property. Make them carry their own water. It’s simple enough and very effective.

    That should solve most problems with infringement in the near future.

  6. avatar cisco kid says:

    Fact. The money is not there to either hire enough guards, professional guards or even adequate security alarm systems. One system that was very adequate and was used with bullet proof doors, automatic locks, direct hook up to the sheriff, smoke pipes filling up halls, and multitudes of cameras cost the rich district school over 1/2 million dollars. Meanwhile many other poor schools cannot even afford to heat their buildings in the winter so the idea of security measures and armed guards are not possible unless it would be funded by the Federal Government, something the skin flint Republicans would never ever pass because they would make less blood money off of the Military Industrial Complex and their needless and endless wars of rape, pillage and conquest so children’s lives are just expendable and I am in no way am being factitious.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Huh. I honestly thought you were taken into custody last week in Florida. Color me surprised.

    2. avatar ProfessorManque says:

      Once again for the learning impaired. Money is not an obstruction. You let community volunteers gun up and protect their kids schools.

      They need to limit your computer time at the institute. Or monitor it better.

  7. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    How about… Buy your own armor plate for kid’s backpack? Makes the pack heavier but you can do it now, no bills needed, be responsible for yourself and family. I have one in my pack for work, which is also weapon free. We are supposed to run, hide, or fight. Harden yourself. Sure in the old days whatever, but I can’t expect evil people to not try to attack or kill me. Best to be prepared. If you don’t want to spend the cash fine.

  8. avatar rt66paul says:

    In my city, elementry and middle public schools have a fence and gates that are locked during school. The only way to enter is to go through a choke point(office) and get a pass after signing in and having an appointment to be there.
    High schools might have to go to this, but it could make it a big problem for those with classes off campus and the like.
    How long before this starts to happen in community colleges? Tech colleges? Universities? This will happen as long as the shooters think they can make a name for themselves and their manifestos are published. Take the notority away by not releasing info on the terrorist shooters until final sentencing and/or giving anyone taking the shooter out amnesty from legal and civil actions.

  9. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    Seems like a good idea to allow teachers, parents, janitors, school administrators who have concealed carry licenses to carry discretely on school property if they want. My wife (unfortunately liberal and addicted to CNN/MSNBC/HuffPo etc) thinks it means that teachers will be issued pistols and will be forced to carry them. She also said that guns ‘just go off’ all the time by themselves, or that a high school kid would just ‘grab a teachers gun’ and shoot someone. That is the propaganda being spread by the media 🙁

    On another note, it’s funny how the NRA is the organization being targeted! It’s only the ILA side of things that fulfills the political aim of protecting the 2A civil rights. I understand that they are outside of the top 20 political donors, most of their power is due to the number of members. The media portray them as some sort of evil organization with every Republican politician in their pockets. But, when you counter that shadowy despot billionaires with unclear agendas such as Bloomburg, Soros et al vastly outspend the NRA, you get crickets.

  10. avatar TommyJay says:

    Over at American Thinker, someone has estimated the cost of one or two professional armed security at every school at about $13B annually, or a bit over $1B per child life saved. He claimed his stats probably included many one-off suicides etc. so that the real cost of preventing a hostile fatality might be double the $1B/life.

    I think the infinitely better idea is to let teachers, administrators, coaches, or existing hall security people conceal carry if they want to, and pass screening. Give them a $1K salary bump and funds for basic training.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I honestly wouldn’t want to incentivize carry. Then you would get irresponsible people who do it just for the money. I’d accept paying for any required training, but I think that anything that the government requires for people to exercise a right should be paid for by the same voters who thought that would be a good idea in the first place.

    2. avatar ROMAN NAILS :) says:

      Yep. Only thing better than bullets flying around is more bullets flying around. Increasing the number of dead doesn’t seem like a solution to me. Even the best of snipers miss. Too many guns? Add more guns. Teachers would have to carry assault weapons on them at all times. Only way it works. Otherwise if surprised and have to go get or unlock gun then it’s pointless to have it in the first place. Too many problems with no real payoff

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Give your brain a chance. A mass murder incident at a school isn’t like a firefight in Iraq. The bad guy will be easily identifiable. He will be the one shooting unarmed victims who are cowering in place or running away. The defenders will be staff who know each other and, probably, the murderer.

        They won’t need rifles. At short range, the only difference between a rifle and a pistol is the cartridge. A good shot with a pistol can take out a poor shot with a rifle. During the 1994 shooting at Fairchild Air Force Base, an AP cop used his Beretta 92 to put down the AK armed shooter at a range of 70 yards. At a school, even a .380 pocket pistol will be sufficient if the staff member carrying it practices enough to become proficient. If you don’t think a pocket pistol can be accurate, watch Hickok45 ring the gong at the back of his range with a Kahr P380.

        I am beyond sick of the notion that firearms are simultaneously so lethal that they confer superpowers on an untrained malcontent but are so ineffective that they cannot be used for defense by someone who gets some training and practices.

  11. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

    I will admit that I was surprised to see Wayne show up at C-Pac. All this bouncing off the walls and talk about turning our schools into medevial castle has been done. Several years ago the University of Purdue has already studied this. This lead the Buckeye Firearms to create ” Faster Saves Lives” . But even though they will discuss the program with anybody, but nobody can find them. Curious.

    1. avatar Jake says:

      With that performance, Wayne may as well have stayed home. His attack on the “corrupt” FBI is pro-Trump, not pro-gun. Wayne has forgotten that we belong to the NRA for gun rights, not to pay a Trump kiss-up.

  12. avatar rick3 says:

    I’ve looked at the website for the School Shield Program, and from what I can see it’s good, but…

    I still think the most impressive/effective training I’ve seen is in this video:

    I think the NRA/GOA/Second Amendment Foundation should all be promoting this approach to surviving a school shooting. Press for training like this in every school. Then, the antis can’t complain that we’re only concentrating on “armed security”.

  13. avatar ROMAN NAILS :) says:

    Why cant one of these crazy people shoot up an NRA conference??? Or some of their lobbyists. See how much they laugh and count their money then. They can’t be rehabilitated.

    1. avatar DogoCanario says:

      Many parents go to work in locations with security that far exceeds the level of security provided to their own flesh and blood. The children should ask their parents why they get protection but as children they do not deserve similar protection.

      Your grocer has better security for ribeyes than your school has for the meatsticks called children.

      May the ashes of the parents be cast to the wind if they fail to defend their progeny.

    2. avatar DMJ-747 says:

      Who are you, I think you need to go back to democratic underground and get the fuck off our website.

    3. avatar Casey says:

      ….because those things are full of people with guns who dedicate a fair amount of time toward using them effectively?

  14. avatar anonymous says:

    Slightly on topic:

    If Wayne LaPierre — or any other representative of the NRA — had any guts, they would appear on their usual TV talk shows in Washington DC and hold up a 30-round AR magazine while doing so.

    Yes, there is a risk of getting arrested for violating the district’s ban. But he could — and should — invoke the David Gregory defense.

    Instead, we’re told that “We need guns to fight oppressive tyrannical government . . . but we’re not going to commit any act of civil disobedience that subjects us to the possibility of being arrested”. Unlike most of us, Wayne can afford the best legal representation possible. And the Washington DC Attorney General is already on the record as stating that “a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust“.

    Should DC actually decide to pursue charges against Wayne for doing what David Gregory did five years ago, the worst that could happen is “Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06 [the magazine ban], any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000.”

    If Wayne isn’t willing to risk that in his so-called fight for freedom, to demonstrate the pointlessness of certain gun-owner control laws, what is he willing to risk? And what forms of civil disobedience should gun owners be engaging in?

  15. avatar Nanashi says:

    Oh hey, look who’s treasonous ass finally decided to show up.

  16. avatar ironicatbest says:

    I am retired, haven’t got much to do, I’d volunteer to go to a school for free and be a hall monitor. America could easily deter most of these school shootings if it wanted to

    1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:


  17. avatar John in Ohio says:

    So, many POTG are for a statist, privilege based solution rather than simply removing “gun free zones”? IMHO, people need to wise up to the basic fact that fighting for privileges is, in the scheme of things, very temporary whereas fighting for recognition of actual individual rights is much more lasting.

    Arguments that they don’t want Tom or Jane carrying without government permission is not that far off from the leftists’ position. Begging government for the exercise of a basic, inalienable individual right is completely counter to the notion of a free society.

    Focusing on a simple goal of removing GFZs makes the most sense to those who truly understand the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

  18. we do need armed security in schools. and if teachers want to be armed then we have that as well. we need armed security inside and outside the school.

  19. avatar Bob says:

    Wayne LaPierre needs to stay in his office more, and let Dana Loesch be the voice of the NRA.

    I watched both of their speeches at CPAC. His was faltering and weak. He looked like the last couple years have really started to make him old. Her speech was animated, direct, powerful, and inspiring. She pulled no punches, and clearly showed the fallacies and hypocrisies of the left.

    His speech made me think, ” Yes, I agree with that.” Her speech made me angry and inspired me to right the wrongs that have been done against us. The left hates her so much, because she can make us hate them.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Reminds me of an Adlai Stevenson quote “when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, ‘How well he spoke’ but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, they said, ‘Let us march.'”

  20. avatar Casey says:

    Of course, the armed security needs to be willing to actually do something, like go into the school.

  21. avatar Joe R. says:

    We need to protect ourselves from the NRA.

    Not “guns” wise, just from their wetshitness

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email