Democrats and Republicans think US closer to arming Syrian rebels, after Israeli strikes

• 

Congressional Democrats and Republicans said Sunday that Israel’s recent airstrikes on Syria show President Assad's air defense system is not impenetrable, with one lawmaker suggesting the United States establish a no-fly zone over the Middle East country.

Israel on Sunday launched its second airstrike in three days in the Syrian capital of Damascus, targeting a shipment of guided Iranian-made missiles intended for the militant group Hezbollah, said an intelligence official in the Middle East.

A senior Israeli official told the Associated Press both airstrikes targeted shipments of Fateh-110 missiles bound for Hezbollah. The Iranian-made guided missiles can fly deep into Israel and deliver powerful half-ton bombs with pinpoint accuracy. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a covert military operation.

The attacks mark a sharp escalation of Israel's involvement in Syria's bloody civil war, which has claimed roughly 70,000 people. Assad has been accused of using SCUD missiles and chemical weapons against civilians in the uprising.

The White House declined for a second day to comment directly on the strikes, but said Obama believes Israel, as a sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself against threats from Hezbollah.

President Obama has said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a red line, but has not taken action beyond giving humanitarian aid and money to rebel forces for defensive military equipment. However, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said last week the administration is reconsidering its opposition to arming the rebel forces.

“The red line that the president of the United States [has] was apparently written in disappearing ink,” Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We need a game-changing action.”

McCain suggested the U.S. establish a “safe zone” and give weapons to “the right people” but repeated that American soldiers should not enter the country.

He also said the Israeli strikes “will probably put more pressure on this administration” to act.

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also suggested that Syria’s Russian-made air-defense system was not as solid as thought and suggested the U.S. is getting closer to arming rebel forces.

“The idea of getting weapons in, if we know the right people to get them, my guess is we will give them to them,” he said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton told NBC the U.S. should have started arming pro-Western rebel forces “months ago” and suggest the U.S. consider blocking Syrian air space.

“We have to arm the opposition,” he said. “I think we also need to move toward imposing a no-fly zone.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Democrats and Republicans think US closer to arming Syrian rebels, after Israeli strikes

• 

Congressional Democrats and Republicans said Sunday that Israel’s recent airstrikes on Syria show President Bashar Assad's air defense system is not impenetrable, with one lawmaker suggesting the United States establish a no-fly zone over the Middle East country.

Israel on Sunday launched its second airstrike in three days in the Syrian capital of Damascus, targeting a shipment of guided Iranian-made missiles intended for a militant group, said an intelligence official in the Middle East.

The attacks mark a sharp escalation of Israel's involvement in Syria's bloody civil war, which has claimed roughly 70,000 people. Assad has been accused of using SCUD missiles and chemical weapons against civilians in the uprising.

President Obama has said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.

He has not taken action beyond giving humanitarian aid and money to rebel forces for defensive military equipment. However, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said last week the administration is reconsidering its opposition to arming the rebel forces.

“The red line that the president of the United States [has] was apparently written in disappearing ink,” Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We need a game-changing action.”

McCain suggested the U.S. establish a “safe zone” and give weapons to “the right people” but repeated that American soldiers should not enter the country.

He also said the Israeli strikes “will probably put more pressure on this administration” to act.

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also suggested that Syria’s Russian-made air-defense system was not as solid as thought and suggested the U.S. is getting closer to arming rebel forces.

“The idea of getting weapons in, if we know the right people to get them, my guess is we will give them to them,” he said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton told NBC the U.S. should have started arming pro-Western rebel forces “months ago” and suggest the U.S. consider blocking Syrian air space.

“We have to arm the opposition,” he said. “I think we also need to move toward imposing a no-fly zone.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Arming untrained teachers puts our kids at greater risk

• 

• • 

    Inside Arizona's elite Gunsite Academy

  • 

    Next round of gun control fight coming to Capitol Hill

In April, the U.S. Senate struck down gun control legislation that would have required universal background checks for gun purchases and imposed limits on gun magazine capacity, among other measures. 

Standing with family members of victims of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy, President Obama declared that this is only “round one” of the ongoing gun control debate, which has been at the center of the national discourse since the Dec. 14 attacks. 

While the debate rages on, most are agreed on one thing: the loss of 20 children and six teachers on that day awoke the nation to the need for heightened security, especially in our nation’s schools.

In the wake of this tragedy, there is growing support among Second Amendment advocates for arming teachers with guns. 

Nothing could be more important than making sure the people who defend our children are adequately trained to do so.

The sentiment is understandable. 

Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Newtown are all stark reminders of the havoc that can be wreaked by evil people with guns. 

However, the overly simplistic proposal to arm all teachers is a knee-jerk reaction of monumental proportions that could ultimately hurt their cause. To say that it is not well thought out would be a gross understatement.

America’s Constitution secures the right to bear arms. The right to self-defense is as American as apple pie, and gun control legislation like that proposed by the Obama administration runs directly against our character. 

Still, placing a third party in a position of defending our young people deserves vigorous debate and contemplation. 

Nothing could be more important than making sure the people who defend our children are adequately trained to do so.

Many assume that learning the skill of armed defense is simply a matter of taking a position on the firing line at the local range and shooting tight groups at a non-moving target. 

While range exercise is important to becoming proficient with a firearm, it does not adequately prepare one for real confrontation. 

Make no mistake about it: A teacher who is placed in a position of defending others will step into a foreign world of armed confrontation where unforgiving bullets fly. 

As Lt. Col. David Grossman, a world-renowned expert in the field of human aggression, has noted, interpersonal human aggression is the “universal human phobia.” 

While we talk tough at the water cooler, a firefight is certainly not Monopoly or Bingo. This is where so many overlook a compelling and frightening reality.

Armed conflict causes an adrenaline effect, which influences a person’s ability to mount a real and effective defense. When a person assumes a defensive posture, the natural physiological and mental reactions change the playing field in significant ways. These reactions include tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, heavy breathing, increased heart rate, profuse sweating, time dilation and the unexpected release of urine and defecation from the body.

Most people have not been trained to deal with these natural reactions. As a result, individuals who may be justified in using lethal force become incredibly dangerous to themselves and others. 

Only intense and consistent training can address this issue.

Let’s be clear: There is nothing inherently wrong with putting guns in the hands of teachers. However, it would be wrong to saddle untrained teachers with the responsibility of protecting our children simply by placing a lethal weapon on their hip. 

They need adequate training. 

The eight or even 40 hours of training that's typically the standard for entry-level personal defense courses is simply not enough to expect a teacher to be prepared for what an armed situation would require. 

Military personnel and police officers immerse themselves in training with firearms defense, and even they get it wrong at times.

So, how should we go about protecting our children and keeping our schools safe? We must place adequately trained armed guards, such as police officers and military men and women, in schools. Such protection would create a deterrent effect for any would-be killer. 

The NRA’s report, which outlines security needs and suggested training requirements for keeping our schools safe, is an important step in determining what we can do as a nation to protect our precious children. 

Experience demonstrates the way to stop violence is with countervailing force. However, an effective trained response takes serious time, money and resources to create. This responsibility must not be taken lightly.

Law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military allocate significant resources to train their people to defend their country, their communities, their teammates and themselves. In the heated debate over defense and gun laws in recent months, we have overlooked this important fact.

Unfortunately, sweeping gun control laws like those put forward in the Senate do not address the fundamental issues that compromise our safety. 

The problem is not guns or magazine capacities, but the evil people who manage to get their hands on guns, regardless of laws. 

Sadly, we often consider solutions without thinking beyond next week; in the process, we create a more dangerous society.

We have at our disposal common-sense solutions to the problem of gun violence in our schools. The blanket proposal to arm all teachers without intense training is not one of them. 

Let’s move to address the problem with real, viable solutions. After all, this is America, and few things are more important than allocating money to protecting our children and our future.

Related Stories

Utah lawmakers aim to resurface gun rights measures

Gunmakers aim for greener pastures as states pass new firearms laws

View the original article here

Indiana advances first-in-nation proposal to require arming school officials

Published April 04, 2013

FoxNews.com

Indiana lawmakers are pushing to make their state the first in the nation to require every school to have an armed employee on site, a proposal that aligns with recent recommendations from a National Rifle Association study. 

The proposal in Indiana advanced through a House committee Tuesday. It goes beyond a law signed last month in South Dakota that would allow -- but not require -- teachers to carry guns. 

The Indiana bill would mandate that one officer in every public and charter school have a loaded weapon during school hours. The officers could be police officers or other non-educators but also could be teachers or principals. 

The proposal is the latest precedent-setting bill being advanced in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. Some states have tightened background checks and bans on assault-style rifles in a bid to reduce the supply of weapons, while others have pushed to make guns more available for purposes of self-defense. 

Supporters of the Indiana bill say it would prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown, Conn., where 20 students and six educators died. The NRA earlier this week recommended that schools try to train and arm at least one staff member.   

"I've been approached by several teachers that would love the ability to have their natural right to self-defense recognized and would gladly do this without being paid," Indiana bill sponsor Rep. Jim Lucas, a Republican, said. 

The House Education Committee voted 9-3 to approve the bill, advancing it to the Republican-dominated House for consideration. The Senate would also have to approve the measure. 

But opponents say they're concerned the proposal was rushed and is unnecessary. 

Schools Superintendent Glenda Ritz said Wednesday she believes such decisions on school security should be made by local school districts without mandates from the Legislature. 

No states currently require armed employees in schools. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Florida lawmakers advance bill to allow arming school employees

• 

  Dec. 27, 2012: Clark Aposhian, President of Utah Shooting Sport Council, demonstrates with a plastic gun during concealed-weapons training for 200 Utah teachers.AP

Public and private school principals could designate teachers and other school employees who would carry concealed weapons on campus at all times in an effort to make schools safer, under legislation that won approval Wednesday from a Florida House committee. 

It gives principals the option to designate one or several school employees to carry concealed weapons. The designee would be required to complete the same training that bank and courthouse security guards complete in addition to the statewide firearms training. Principals could also decline the concealed weapons option altogether. 

Proponents of the bill argued that since the state can't afford to put a school resource officer on every campus, the gun legislation is a commonsense alternative. 

"I want my children safe and in our overwhelming desire to protect our children with gun free zones we have inadvertently made them the ideal sterile target for a madman and the unwillingness of people to confront that reality is unacceptable," said the bill's co-sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley. 

But several lawmakers expressed reservations about placing more guns on school campuses. 

The bill would allow no one to carry a gun on campus, except the principal's designee who has completed the proper training. That person would be required to carry the firearm on them at all times. The principal will determine whether to tell parents who that person is. Several lawmakers expressed concern that local school boards should not be kept in the dark about whether schools in their districts are armed. 

Bill sponsor Republican Rep. Greg Steube cited a 2002 Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education study that said most school shootings were stopped by someone other than law enforcement and most incidents lasted 15 minutes or less. 

Eight other states allow concealed firearms on school campuses, Steube said. 

Steube said he has received numerous phone calls and emails in support of the bill from principals in rural school districts whose schools are 30 to 45 minutes away from a law enforcement response. 

The Florida School Boards Association opposes the bill, saying its members want more funds to hire school resource officers in every school and are worried about liability issues. 

"You're going to send the wrong message to these students ... so they go back into the community and say, `Hey it's OK, coach is carrying a gun, principal is carrying a gun, teacher is carrying a gun, why can't I carry a gun, everybody's carrying a gun," said Executive Director Wayne Blanton. 

But Republican Rep. Dave Hood Jr. argued it's more of a liability not to arm school personnel and continue to put innocent children at risk for school violence. 

Several lawmakers, including Reps. Hood, Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed and Richard Stark, said the bill will have a hard time moving forward unless it has the support of the school boards. 

Joy Frank, general counsel, of the Florida Association of District School Superintendents, also spoke against the bill. 

"I really do not want (my grandkids) to be in a school where someone, no matter how well trained, is carrying a weapon," she said. 

But Rep. Ronald Renuart argued parents worried about having guns in the schools "are the same parents that take their children into banks, shopping malls where there's often somebody less trained and less screened to carry that weapon." 

Stark warned against a knee jerk reaction after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead in Newton, Connecticut last year. 

"Sometimes you have to step back a little bit before you make a decision of this magnitude," the Democrat from Weston said. "Guns are very powerful. It's not BB guns.

View the original article here