|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
VA: Rural Virginia County Aims to be the First to Arm Teachers
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Nationally, teachers are overwhelmingly against the idea of carrying weapons into classrooms. Not so in the westernmost county of Virginia, where declining revenues from growing tobacco and mining coal have left the local government unable to afford more than four resource officers to protect 11 schools. Despite strong criticism from the state capitol, a six-hour drive to the east, the Lee County School Board has voted to become Virginia’s first county to arm their teachers and staff. Their next step is to ask a judge to exempt them from state law.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/23/2018)
|
“We understand that people are trying to solve the next tragedy, but why is it that arming teachers — which would actually increase the number of students in dangerous situations — is where folks want to go?” said NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia.
Because your argument is based upon a lie. The fact is that if/when an active shooter invades a school (or anyplace else, for that matter) the difference between life and death hinges on armed personnel being present to stop him. No guns? Dead kids. Good guns? Minimal loss of life and a dead perp.
It ain't rocket science. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
