|
|
|
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:
Parkland Activist Emma González on "60 Minutes": Arming Teachers Is "Stupid"
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Emma González, a leader in the #NeverAgain movement sparked by the shooting at her school in Parkland, Florida, pointed out key flaws in President Donald Trump’s claim that arming teachers with guns could stop school shootings.
The activist called the idea of giving firearms to teachers in the classroom “stupid” during an interview with 60 Minutes that was released Friday, pointing to the financial burden of the program on an already underfunded education system and the logistical difficulties of giving teachers guns in self-defense. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/17/2018)
|
| Teachers can't afford training????? When I took my training I made a lot less than teachers make!!!! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/17/2018)
|
Hey. Emma. First off, grow your hair and at least LOOK like a girl.
Second, repeat after me: If a shooter comes into my classroom, I don't want anybody there to have a gun to stop them.
Now, say that 200 times in front of a video recorder. Then, lock yourself in a room and watch it until you grow a brain. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
