We don't need to force teachers to take up arms, we simply need ever-present, trained, armed security in schools. [More]The old Wayne LaPierre trick and he fell for it.
Nobody from "our side" (phony ones excluded) is talking about forcing anyone to do anything. We're saying stop forcing disarmament on people who would claim their rights.
Yes, of course we can have liberty and security. But you can't cede responsibilities for the latter without giving up pieces of the former.
2 comments:
(shaking head and clicking tongue) David, David, David. Of course nobody from "our side" (the phony ones don't count) advocates forcing teachers or anyone else to take up arms. That would make that jackass' argument legitimate. Of course his argument is a strawman. Aren't you aware that a strawman is a whole lot easier to vanquish than a living, breathing opponent? That's why folks of his intellectual caliber rely upon them. They take advantage of the average reader's lack of facility at critical thinking to make it seem like they're knocking over a real opponent's argument.
Compared to other ways to piss away taxpayers' money, having armed security at schools would be downright sensible.
"On the other hand, when defenders of Second Amendment rights offer no practical solutions, they leave open the implication that liberty requires us to tolerate the occasional (or not-so-occasional) mass shooting. Not only is that a losing argument with the public in the long run, it's also not true. Americans are entitled to both liberty and safety."
Americans are NOT entitled to safety.
There's no right to Public Safety.
Post a Comment