CONSERVATIVES MUST DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT [More]Thank you Captain Obvious. Still, all in all it's a pretty good statement and worthy of being shared.
My main concern is the claim at the end that "enforcing existing laws as they relate to addressing troubled individuals might have prevented the Parkland tragedy, and can likely prevent others." If such individuals are known and proven to be dangers to others after being afforded full due process, allowing them to stalk freely among us is irresponsibly dangerous.
I'm always suspicious of efforts like this because too often they've turned out to be fronts for the RNC, giving the rubes the rah-rah they want to hear and then including backstabbing RINOs in divvying up the take. If that's the case here, I don't see it.
And I also see they recognize the dangers of "amnesty," unlike the Lairds of Fairfax.
Speaking of which, I notice no one from NRA signed on to this. Why the hell not?
If I had to bet, I'd say the conclusion that "teachers who want to be trained to possess firearms in the classroom should be given the support to do so" scared Wayne and Chris away.
[Via Felix B]
1 comment:
I’m surprised (but not amazed) that nobody has called for a wholesale reconsideration of the unquestioned assumption that there is something special about schools that makes it natural to need to suspend the civil liberties of the adults inside them, backed by federal ukase. They don’t do it for any other venue, other than federal buildings like Post Offices; and while schools may be run by governments (another property that makes them exceptions to many rules) they are not run by the feds or federal property.
Post a Comment