|
|
|
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:
Who is to Blame for School Shootings?
Submitted by:
Robert Morse
Website: 5641 Spring Lane
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I’ll cut right to the point. We can stop murderers from killing our kids in school, but it isn’t easy. The politicians, particularly the Florida politicians, are against it.
The Florida politicians will propose more prohibitions, more ink on paper. That hasn’t stopped a single murderer yet. Ink on paper doesn’t keep blood off the floor, but ink on paper fools voters time after time.
Will it work this time too? |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/16/2018)
|
You can blame the liberal politicians that have made all schools victim disarmament zones.
Obviously gun prohibitions don't work. It is time to allow concealed carry in schools so that the teachers and Administrators can protect the students.
The last few school shooters all survived and surrendered to authorities. Getting shot dead by someone with a gun was not part of their plan.
The only thing that will stop a school shooter is someone else with a gun. It is time to allow licensed concealed carry holders to carry their guns in schools. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
