|
|
|
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:
NH: Guns in schools: No-win situation
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It's the law, but that doesn't make it sensible:
If you have a license to carry a concealed weapon, you can legally bring it into a school.
The theory behind this law is ... what? That an armed citizen just might happen to be in a school when some idiot decides to shoot it up? And then that armed citizen, surely knowing the proper way to handle the weapon and to deal with an armed idiot, will gun down that armed idiot before he, or she, can kill an innocent person or more? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/31/2016)
|
" ...And then that armed citizen, surely knowing the proper way to handle the weapon and to deal with an armed idiot, will gun down that armed idiot before he, or she, can kill an innocent person or more?"
Surprisingly for this author, armed people HAVE indeed stopped some of those school shootings in the past, so I guess they actually DID know how to use their gun (SHOCKING!!!!) and deal with an armed idiot shooter (EVEN SHOCKIER!!!!!).
And, how about the idea that one does not give up the right to one's own self-defense simply by walking into a school? |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(1/1/2017)
|
| Proper training for school staff to carry is doable. It mainly would serve as a preventative and thus a "win - win." Theory? Deranged mass shooters only target those schools unprepared for the evil they wish to inflict. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
