|
|
|
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:
Over 160 Democrats Sign Letter Opposing Federal Funds to Arm Teachers for Self-Defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Over 160 Democrats signed a letter to Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos opposing plans to use federal funding to arm public school teachers for self-defense.
On August 23, 2018, Breitbart News reported that federal funds were being considered to help teachers get guns and training. The New York Times reported that the education department is considering using federal monies under the auspices of a program called Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, a program that does not bar using its funding for firearm purchases. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/31/2018)
|
| Wow. 160 people. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/31/2018)
|
160 DNC Congresscritters.
That's a pretty big majority of the available population of 194 Dem Congresscritters. But they all support the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, just ask them if you don't believe me... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
