National DeVos leaving it to states whether to use federal money to buy guns for schools

[Joe Link]

DeVos leaving it to states whether to use federal money to buy guns for schools

Read More

 

[targetshooter]

Safe way out. By not taking a position one way or the other, she eliminates the possibility by some hooha states to file lawsuits.

But theyre gonna pee and moan anyway, watch.

 

[nvshooter]

Good idea. I think it a better idea to provide for fifty different laboratories to solve a problem than for one to issue a mandate that history has shown is usually a disaster. The federal government has a "one size fits all" mentality. But America is comprised of many different ideas. DeVos' approach is indicative of a free-market capitalism mindset, which is always better than the command-and-control ideology of a monolithic government.

 

[badbob85037]

The Dick Act singed into law in 1913 requires every male to have an up to date military weapon in his home. So why does government have to buy anything. The act also makes all gun laws illegal. The answer to mass killings in gun free zones is more gun free zones. Give me a break. sTATES LIKE CALIFORNIA NEED INVADED. It leaders jailed ant throw away the key. Or maybe some public executions to keep the ones taking their place honest.

 

[nvshooter]

The Dick Act, signed into law in 1913, requires every male to have an up-to-date military weapon in his home.

I have never heard of the Dick Act. Apparently Sick Willy Klantoon, Carter, LBJ and Kenyabama have never heard of it either. Raegan let us down in 1986 when he allowed the Hughes Amendment to get into the finalized FOPA law, but he did get protections for manufacturers being held liable for what illegal possessors of firearms did with their illegally-possessed firearms. We who would have wanted to buy a new, $1000 M-16 lost that Liberty, but we did get protection against wacko liberals suing Bushmaster for what some crazy criminal batsard did with a stolen AR-15. A new law is a series of compromises. You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime you just might find, you get what you need.

 

[targetshooter]

I have never heard of the Dick Act. Apparently Sick Willy Klantoon, Carter, LBJ and Kenyabama have never heard of it either. Raegan let us down in 1986 when he allowed the Hughes Amendment to get into the finalized FOPA law, but he did get protections for manufacturers being held liable for what illegal possessors of firearms did with their illegally-possessed firearms. We who would have wanted to buy a new, $1000 M-16 lost that Liberty, but we did get protection against wacko liberals suing Bushmaster for what some crazy criminal batsard did with a stolen AR-15. A new law is a series of compromises. You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime you just might find, you get what you need.

There are sufficient arguments and points to dispute the interpretations of the Dick Act and its several modifications and amendments. The primary purpose of the Act was to have a THEN MODERN ORGANIZATION of what would become the National Guard. Many of the other assertions are not well interpreted here.

I'm not getting into a point for point verbal vomit about my opinion vs anyone, I'd suggest that people read up on the history of the act and not be so quick as to use someone's interpretation as a false shield of protection of the 2nd Amendment