|
|
|
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:
FL: Senate panel Oks proposal to arm teachers
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In the aftermath of the massacre at a Parkland high school that took the lives of 17 students and teachers one year ago, a state Senate panel advanced a plan on Tuesday that would arm teachers at public schools in Florida.
The proposal (SPB 7030) was approved with a 5-3 vote along party lines.
The school guardian program (under the bill) came into formation in March of 2018, a month after one of the most deadly mass shootings in Florida’s history, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. With 17 dead, and 17 severely injured, the shooting caused a national uproar, as it was also the most deadly shooting at a high school in the United States. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/21/2019)
|
The opponents' argument fails on its face. A suicidal shooter will not be stopped by entrance screening; he will merely begin by shooting the guards at the entrance, then advance into the school unimpeded.
The real reason for these fallacious arguments is a deep-seated fear of and hatred for guns and gun owners, and a willingness to sacrifice everyone's liberty to assuage that fear. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
