|
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:
UT: Will armed teachers save or kill our children?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When are teachers permitted to shoot students?
That question may seem absurd to parents sending kids back to school. But America suffers from an expanding gun crisis. Shootings have become routine.
And in Utah, with local NRA proxies promoting more armed teachers and the Legislature having made our “stand your ground” law more permissive, it’s not far-fetched to imagine situations where an armed Utah teacher might feel justified shooting an “aggressive” student in her classroom. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/7/2019)
|
Logic isn't Stanley's strong suit. |
Comment by:
jac
(9/7/2019)
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, there has not been one mass shooting at any schools that have armed teachers.
Eliminating the victim disarmament zone at those schools has made them immensely safer.
The only reason to shoot a student is if he presents a lethal threat with a gun or a knife. In which case he should be shot.
Teach your children respect and to obey societal norms Stanley, and they won't get shot at school. |
|
|
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) |
|
|