When a gun safety and violence-prevention program is taught by a certified NRA instructor and includes a field trip to a range for a chance to fire a gun for familiarization, then I might not consider it brainwashing. But I am pretty sure that is not what the author or anyone else pushing this issue has in mind.

An education bill that would have undefined “gun safety and violence-prevention” authorization segments would never make it out of the House Education & Workforce Committee, not under the chairmanship of Mr. Kline, a former Marine and one tough pro-gun Member. Your bill is DOA, pal. And I say this as a former House staffer who worked with that Committee.

And to put further ridicule on your proposal, what would be the curriculum details as defined by the states? I know the NRA has excellent instructional materials in the safe use of firearms, so the South and West school systems would use their materials. You’d not only inculcate millions of young minds on firearms safety and usage, you’d also remind them of their American heritage.

As for what I think your mindless, naive proposal would do in other parts of the nation, areas more akin to, say, certain parts of western Europe, I’d wager you’d most likely want a curriculum of either one of two things:

a) Naive pacifism and a loathing of firearms, repeated like a bleating sheep…or b) you’d like the curriculum used by socialist East Germany.

For your education, which you desperately need because your USC degree is absolutely a waste of money and time, East German schools regularly used the Young Pioneer program to learn all about the proper usage and field maintenance for the MPiKM 7.62×39…assault rifle. That was their firearms education.

Get a clue, arseloch. And grow up, fer chrissakes. I can’t believe Reuters would waste this kind of space to publish this kind of unthinking nonsense… –PB, NoVa

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-20  /guest-post-gun-grabbers-call-re-educat ion-programs-public-schools

Max Felker-Kantor, unable to make a lucid argument, and unable to see the sheer hypocrisy inherent in his arguments (that only a liberal could possess), boils down his gun-control approach to indoctrinating school-age children into what the government wants them to believe. Sad, so sad.

The ends of achieving a perceived noble cause does not justify the means by which the government becomes corrupted. When this is even proposed it’s either done by those who clandestinely wish to subvert and ultimately destroy that government (as there is almost always a legal way to achieve the goal if it is indeed noble (such as equality amongst the races, but not disarming the populace) without subverting the Constitution) or more often by the naive who are oft promoted into ‘useful idiot’ positions.

The Federal government is able to do this largely because it is able to borrow ad infinitum from the inaccurately named institution known as the Federal Reserve Bank which quite literally is allowed to print money out of thin air. An institution that itself is unconstitutional, and one that does not act nor ever has in the best interests of the people of the United States of America.

That younger generations are increasingly lead to believe they live in a democracy rather than the Republic they actually do live in, as well as fail to bother to try and understand how the government is supposed to work, is a large part of the problem.

That a History PhD candidate who has an article published on such a large platform as Reuters believes in the solution he proposes tells me he doesn’t fundamentally understand or appreciate the history of the nation he lives in; at the very least doesn’t appreciate or understand how, why, and what freedom really is. He’d likely have been a Tory in the days of the Revolution. I’d wager he’ll graduate with great honors though as most Universities in the US have become bastions of Socialist and Communist (I’ll call it what it is) thought. Perhaps though maybe one day he’ll wake up. One can hope.

What the author proposes would be more appropriate in fascist, communist, or monarch lead state, not in the Republic of the United States of America.

I won’t even get into the 2nd amendment, which the author is totally naive to or completely ignores.

In the current case we have a 20 year old madman who was able to gain access to firearms registered in the name of his mother. Did she buy them for her son or did she buy them because she feared her son.

Why a suburban mother living in a safe uppermiddle class neighborhood would need two pistols and a military style rifle is strange. Let’s find the answer to the where and why of these firearms, to say nothing of the body armor, were in the home first. An unemployed 20 year old might have difficulty putting together the money to buy such an arsenal worth over $2000 even if it was legal for him to buy it and he passed a background check.