Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Rent-A-Cops in the Schools Now?

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in , ,

Photo credit: Mother Jones

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

The Halifax County School Board is planning to hire a private firm to provide security at all county schools, in addition to school resource officers (SRO).

That is the world brought to us by a gun-crazy society with its no-compromise embrace of the Second Amendment, aided by a compliant Supreme Court.

As reported by the News and Record (South Boston), the proposal calls for four school security officers (SSO) to patrol the high school, along with the school resource officers (SROs) from the sheriff and town police departments, as well as the stationing of a guard at each elementary school for the first time.

The estimated cost would be $420,000 annually. The head of the company, a county resident, claims that the company would be losing money, but, “We’re doing this because we’re in the community. We will lose roughly $10,000 a year on this contract. But it’s our county. We’re here. We live here.”

The school board has not taken final action, although there seems to be a strong sentiment to go ahead. One issue is money. The superintendent explained that they had not “figured out a plan” for allocating the money in the district’s budget.

The other fly in the ointment is whether the SSOs will be armed. The superintendent said, “We truly want them to be armed. Our board feels if we are going to have security officers, we want them to be able to fully protect our schools.”

Under state law, school security officers can be armed. However, such school security officers must be school employees and trained under standards set out by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. One idea that was floated at the board meeting was for the officers employed by the security company to also be part-time employees of the school system. There seem to be some wrinkles that still need to be worked out.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

86 responses to “Rent-A-Cops in the Schools Now?”

  1. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    A company prepared to lose $10 K? Armed SROs? Vetting and qualifications of SROs? Armed = “fully protect our schools?”

  2. Deborah Hommer Avatar
    Deborah Hommer

    First, are you suggesting that the Supreme Court not follow the Constitution? We are supposed to be rule of law, not rule of man. You’re aware of the processes that could be taken to amend the Constitution, right?

    I remember living in TX my last year in high school, and all the good ole boys had their guns on the back window. This appears to be a mental health issue.

    Crime Prevention Research Center claims “between 1950 and 2018 97.8 percent of all mass public shootings occurred in gun-free zones.” I am aware there are others that dispute this percentage. https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/
    Having stated that, there has been enough shootings at schools to cause alarm. Criticizing a community for wanting to protect children …. I don’t get it. To me it makes sense that criminals who do not obey gun laws would go into gun-free zones where others are disarmed. That’s what I see anyway.

    This doesn’t bode well for the “defund the police” and “gun-free cities” policies:
    https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2022/01/democrat-cities-break-homicide-records/

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Of course, I am not suggesting that the Supreme Court “not follow the Constitution.” But, what does “follow the Constitution” mean, really. I suggest there are other interpretations of the language in the Second Amendment that are more legitimate than the one used by Justice Scalia. https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/scalia-was-wrong-on-gun-history-but-thats-not-the-point/

      https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

      1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
        Deborah Hommer

        First of all, the journalist Pippenger that wrote that article should go back to school – or maybe that’s the problem – the school system itself.

        Here’s a website that cites numerous examples of the founding fathers and their thoughts about “the right to keep and bear arms” – demonstrating that Pippenger should have double-checked Dennis Baron’s misapplied quote: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

        Remember it’s the Founding Framers who drafted the Constitution that the people of the various states who ratified it through a republican form convention. So if the founding framers thought the people should be armed, and then enshrine it in the Constitution stating “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” I do think that is pretty clear what they meant. Not some person who has thoughts in their head not based on facts. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

        There are numerous ways to figure out what the Constitution meant: Read what the Founding Framers and Fathers stated in the Federalist Papers, Founding Documents, the 1787 Constitutional Convention Notes.

        I think it’s safe to say if you had familiarity with these documents, you would not have written at least some parts of this article.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I have read the Federalist Papers and am in the middle of going through Max Farrand’s edition of the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. By the way, the Second Amendment came along after the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The genesis of the 2nd Amendment started long before 1791 when it was passed with the other additional original 10 Amendments.

            Its origin goes back to the State Constitutions that were established staring in 1776. The initial solicitation for the bill of rights was in 1789 with the following original text of the 2nd.

            “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”

            It was reworded by the committee in July of 1789.

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            But discussions about the rights of the people did not come along after the convention.

          3. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Fascinating materials. Reading the Convention Notes and other documents reveals that the first Congress approved 12 Amendments – later changed to 10 due to Virginia only approving 10.

            I am currently reading The Road
            From Runnymede; Magna Carta and Constitutionalism in America. The author Dick Howard is a great storyteller! He tells the story of Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Bill of Rights (drawn from Mason’s Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, and state constitutions are all part (and others) the inspiration of our founding documents.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Have you ever wondered why that interpretation of the amendment did not arise until 2008? So simple, so clear.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The ‘individual right’ interpretation of the2nd Amendment has been around since before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

            If you were referring to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, then the primary reason they had never ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right is that they had never before been directly asked the question.

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Have you ever wondered why that interpretation of the amendment did not arise until 2008?

            The ‘individual right’ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been around since well before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

            If you were referring to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, then the primary reason they had never ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right is that they had never before been directly asked the question.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            US v Miller (1939) SCOTUS held no Constitutional right to own firearm “unless some reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia.” Up to Heller, that was the prevailing view of the Second Amendment.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Wow, you’re smarter than Scalia? Okay….I will never forget sitting in the newsroom the day Scalia was nominated, the phone rang, and it was our local liberal legal eagle John Edwards wanting to go on the record with praise for the jurist. John called me!

        If a school division farmed out its food services, or used a private transportation firm for buses, will we get a similar lecture on Constitutional principles? Commerce Clause maybe (if they use an out of state firm…)?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          As you would realize upon rereading, DHS made no claim to be smarter than Scalia. Assuming you might have read the Heller decision, you would discover that its historical references were tailored to the conclusion Scalia sought. Those references are not evidence of Framer intent nor of the meaning of the people’s right to bear arms without condition. Other interpretations of historical references support the right applied to militias, not individuals. Food and transportation matters in schools are simply not relative or pertinent to safety in this context.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Nope, but I am suggesting that people a lot smarter than me have questioned Scalia’s opinion.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Odds on? Yeah, Dick probably is smarter than Scalia was. Hell, in his prime, he was probably smarter than the Trump appointees combined.

          Spatulas are not a Constitutional right.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            And he is unquestionably far more cognizant than Biden is today. But, we’re both setting low bars. Dick may not find either of us particularly flattering.

            Spatulas are not a Constitutional right, and guns are. Once again demonstrating the wisdom of our founders. An army may travel on its belly and need spatulas, but revolution comes out of the barrel of a gun. The 14th of April in ’75 was not won by spatulas.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            May 4th, 1970 proved books were no match.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            No they were not. That certainly was no “well regulated militia”:(

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I dunno, they were able to follow 3 simple commands, “ready, fire, aim”. Oh, and lest the Republican forget, the FBI sat on an audio tape from the day with the very clear command to “fire”. Justice delayed is…

          5. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Dunno about that sequence. Their aim was good enough to kill 4 and wound 9.

            That divided the country into two groups. One OMG we’re shooting our kids. The other, the little b*stards deserved it, shoulda shot more of ’em.

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Some of whom were in the crowd and some not, at least 2 killed were just going to class. Those shot in the back were carrying books going to class and up the hill away from the protest. They killed Republicans.

          7. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            I’d make another comment on aim, but it would be a cheap shot so I won’t.

            My wife was in school in Ohio back then and her jaws still get tight every May 4th.

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Cheap shot, har! I get it.

            Good for her!

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yeah, Dick mightn’t appreciate praise from the peanut gallery. Well, at least the peanuts we throw are predigested.

          10. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            peanut poop? I’ve been called worse:)

      3. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        You might care to remember that it tales a majority to form an opinion of the Supreme Court. It was not just Scalia in Heller or a single justice in any of the subsequent 2nd Amendment rulings that have all confirmed and expanded Heller.

        Belittling the Court’s rulings using ad hominem disparagement of a justice who authored a majority opinion is cheap.

      4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Dick, the constitution requires what the Supreme Court says it requires. You were fine with that all of your life until the court got a conservative majority.

        So was I. I have accepted Supreme Court rulings all of my life whether I agreed with them or not – Because political stability demands it.

        The difference, as I read you and your use of the word “legitimate “ is that you may no longer do so. If not, and that is a question, which of us stayed true to principle?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Questioning a SCOTUS ruling is neither disloyal nor unprincipled. Disagreeing to the extent of questioning a decision’s legitimacy falls within that parameter, even on a blog, in public.

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Question them all you want. I certainly have over the years. Just don’t, as progressives are won’t to do, call their decisions illegitimate. A stable republic demands those decisions, and the Court, be honored.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Slick sliding another’s words do not a criticism make. DHS used the phrase “more legitimate” not illegitimate and “compliant” SCOTUS. Nothing dishonorable about that characterization. Deflecting to “progressives” does not bolster or save your misplaced interpretation as such only fortifies your opinion.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “You’re aware of the processes that could be taken to amend the Constitution, right?”

      Of course he knows. He also knows that there is no chance in hell of finding enough Americans to pass such an amendment.

      1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
        Deborah Hommer

        Exactly. That’s why they promote this “living constitution” bs. It’s their way of changing the Constitution without the Article V amendment process. It’s indefensible. You can’t change somebody’s contract because it no longer fits your liking.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Of course the people can change the original contract and have done so with multiple amendments. Nothing dead or static about a growing society. Times change, people change, society changes, and change is inevitable. Y’all don’t have to accept it.

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Of course, the Constitution was amended. Above I state the Article V Amendment process. The Founding Founders/Framers knew times would change and the people may want to amend the Constitution, and they provided a way to do just that. The point is that the Amendment Process is difficult on purpose, so that the people wouldn’t change the Constitution with fleeting passions. It is still indefensible to change the Constitution without going through Article V. That’s where we are.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            SCOTUS as in Griswold changed the interpretation of Constitutional amendments by finding a right to privacy. Marbury found “judicial review” without any language in the document to support that decision. Congress creates legislation that defines and redefines Constitutional rights and privileges. These processes indicate the document has a life beyond its words and language. Not at all odd, that there are differences of opinion and views on Constitutional matters, including the current reading of the Second Amendment.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Since you are such a strong believer in the absolute terms of the “contract” of the Second Amendment, I wonder if you would also apply that approach to the First Amendment’s prohibition of any law “abridging the freedom of
          speech, or of the press”?

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            wait, what? Where did I say that I am a strong believer in the absolute terms of the “contract” of the Second Amendment. What makes me not an absolutist is that I believe that if someone has certain mental capacities that makes them a danger to themselves or others, they surely should be restricted.

            Now, am I an absolutist on the First Amendment? Hmmmm, like what? Should you be able to say what you want? Yes. Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr., was the one who stated that you can’t yell “fire in a crowded theatre.” What most people don’t realize is that case was overturned in the 1969 Supreme Court decision Brandenburg v. Ohio. So, yes, inflammatory speech is protected by the First Amendment. Just because people can use their language for ill-advised purposes doesn’t mean they should.

            Again, I am back to teaching our children wisdom, not simply knowledge. So many knowledgeable people who are so not wise. A wise person would presumably know when to keep their mouth shut.
            Let’s get back to the classics – and the Bible.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Read Brandenberg again. It only modified Holmes’s dictum.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Not so fast or loose.Brandenburg did not overrule Holmes’s dictum. It modified speech restrictions to require a finding that the speech must pose an imminent lawless threat. Thus, individual free speech is not unlimited.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Repeal the 2nd!!

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Fine. Then do it. That was the original intent of the Constitution – that it be amended. Until then, stop trying to amend the Constitution with bizarre interpretations.

      Jefferson’s thoughts on the permanence of our Constitution were clear …

      https://www.governing.com/context/americas-constitution-in-2021-what-would-thomas-jefferson-do

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        If one group of Justices can interpret an amendment one way, another can find a different view. The right found in Heller was centuries in the making. Clearly not a permanent view.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Really just a question of how many more innocent lives must be lost…

    2. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Go ahead. I’ll wait.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        It is not out of the question. May have to wait on Gen-Z though…

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Okay. Like I said, I’ll wait.

          And in the interim, I will continue to behave exactly as I have always behaved regarding my right to self-defense.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Those of you who think violence magically disappears in private schools just don’t understand the financial incentives of underreporting.

  5. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Here’s a question nobody seems to be asking: Why did the Halifax School Board feel moved to spend $4oo,000+ to hire more school security (regardless of whether the officers are publicly or privately employed)? What is going on in the high school?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Nothing is going on. But, as the president of the private company commented, “Hats off to Mr. Lewis [the principal] for all the wonderful things he’s done. How he’s kept that school safe is beyond me. I would say that
      anybody who doesn’t think we need a new high school is crazy. They should spend a day walking with me in security world.”

      After the events in Texas and other schools in the country, the school board is nervous. And, quite frankly, there seems to be a sales job going on here. The county has approved the building of a new high school and this private security guy (and local pastor, to boot) seems interested in getting in on the ground floor of those designs. As the story notes, “As plans develop for the new school’s design, Warfield said his company can help flesh out the security features.”

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        I see. So, maybe this isn’t about the “world brought us by a gun-crazy society with its no-compromise embrace of the Second Amendment”. Maybe it’s a sales pitch with scare tactics.

        I’ll bet the guy won’t lose $10,000 on the high-tech security systems he sells to the School Board.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          The atmosphere created by a society enamored of its guns and willing to go to any length to protect the availability of powerful weapons has created the conditions in which such sales pitches can be made and taken seriously.

        2. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          The first part of a good sales pitch is to frame the issue so that your product is the only prudent choice.

          Second, sell fear, uncertainty and doubt (aka FUD, an IBM specialty in days of yore). In these unsettled times you wouldn’t want to trust your precious chilrun to anything but the best security. Coincidentally it is available right here in the County for only 360 easy school bond payments. He’s a preacher to boot. Hang onto your wallets Halifax.

          In the event something bad happens you can take comfort in knowing that we here at Preacher’s Security have secured your child a pre approved place in Heaven. Praise the Lord and pass the money.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Fear and loathing on the education trail.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        I never thought of Halifax as much like Las Vegas, but a drug induced haze with the likes of Hunter Thompson right here in Southside Virginia has potential:)

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Does Aricept cause a drug induced haze? If so, then all of BR is in one.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            If BR is an example of “improve(d) memory, awareness, and the ability to function” then we’re in deep trouble kimosabe.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Memory hole.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          The public school system is a long chalkboard hallway filled with administrators, counselors, and SROs where young minds go to die like dogs. But there is a downside, vouchers.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      It’s not just the high school. I am preparing a series of articles about Discipline, Crime and Violence (DCV) in Virginia schools. The chaos in the middle schools and even the elementary schools will curl your toes.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Somebody ignoring the word “militia”.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      as well as not understanding what “arms” means in the Constitution.

      Not defined. Interpreted by different folks at different times …. no armed militia has anything close to arms parity with our military. What’s the intent of “arms” in the Constitution? Just whatever we decide it is or not?

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Not to worry. The armed citizens are prepared to give their lives to initiate a rebellion against the woke. You watch them charging out of their homes—- to arms, to arms firing at US military and police.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Is this South Boston only? Is it part of the Halifax county system?

    They can get full coverage of all their schools with this proposal?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      South Boston is a town now. The Halifax County School system serves the town and the county. The consolidated high school also included South Boston when it was a city, as well as the county.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        so the county has a slew of schools…

        so this proposal is only for the town schools?

        not sure I’m understanding…

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Nope, it seems to be for all the schools. There is one high school, one middle school, and seven elementary schools that serve the entire county, including the town of South Boston. The article mentions the high school and the elementary schools. I find it strange that the middle school was not included in the discussion.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            ” … calls for four school security officers (SSO) to patrol the high school, along with the school resource officers (SROs) from the sheriff and town police departments, as well as the stationing of a guard at each elementary school for the first time.” $420,000 annually.

            Hell of a deal for what? 11 SROs manning 8 schools and the officers have benefits, health care, sick leave, and training?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            ” … calls for four school security officers (SSO) to patrol the high school, along with the school resource officers (SROs) from the sheriff and town police departments, as well as the stationing of a guard at each elementary school for the first time.” $420,000 annually.

            Hell of a deal for what? 11 SROs manning 8 schools and the officers have benefits, health care, sick leave, and training?

            or do the elementary schools have something different: ” as well as the stationing of a guard at each elementary school for the first time”

            In Spotsylvania, they’re all SROs – no difference in skill, qualifications and they are assigned per daily needs.

            For instance, if an SRO is sick or attending training, etc, another SRO is assigned from the pool as opposed to having no SRO there in the absence of the regular-assigned.

            I’m sure when it comes to less urban, more rural counties that finances are tougher and compromises made.

            You could park a police unit outside the school and a would-be bad guy would not know if an SRO was actually onsite or not,

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Nope, it seems to be for all the schools. There is one high school, one middle school, and seven elementary schools that serve the entire county, including the town of South Boston. The article mentions the high school and the elementary schools. I find it strange that the middle school was not included in the discussion.

  8. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    Societies without a second amendment lost millions of people to political violence in the 20th century. We lost far fewer people because we had the right to bear arms.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      right, we give 18 yr olds their 2nd amendment rights and let them slaughter kids in schools…and folks in grocery stores, and the like

      our immigration problem is people fleeing from countries with gangs who rule with “arms”- even deadlier than we allow here. Anyone can own virtually any weapon in those countries and what you have is anarchy.

  9. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    I totally understand why Halifax is doing this. It only works if the rent a cops are willing to stick out their neck should the moment arise. All in vain without this.

    Fauquier is in the 4th day of school and we have already had an incident with intruders and firearms.
    https://www.fauquiernow.com/news/education/update-boy-arrested-stolen-car-and-firearm-recovered-outside-kettle-run-high-school/article_33772a4a-1992-11ed-8aec-97b1bf1112b5.html

  10. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Those commenters who are defending the Second Amendment (and I let them distract me into that rabbit hole) are ignoring the major point–armed guards patrolling the halls of our schools is the price we pay for loving our guns and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    Does that make you feel safer?

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      With all due respect, if you did not want a discussion about the 2nd Amendment then you probably should not have mentioned it in the second paragraph of your article, especially in such a partisan manner.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        DHS has engaged the criticisms, not avoided them. Also, nothing partisan about criticizing SCOTUS where there is room for disagreement.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Also, nothing partisan about criticizing SCOTUS where there is room for disagreement.

          His criticism was partisan, and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No to mention the plethora of logical fallacies DHS has employed in the comments to bolster his own article.

            It’s a similar pattern to what his resident brown noser does.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “Dick Hall-Sizemore • a minute ago
      Those commenters who are defending the Second Amendment (and I let them distract me into that rabbit hole) are ignoring the major point–armed guards patrolling the halls of our schools is the price we pay for loving our guns and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

      False and an exercise in correlation not being causation.

      PS: You attacked the 2nd Amendment as it is interpreted while chastising those who are defending it. Dishonest much?

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It’s been solved Dick.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsYMpSNm2NY

      It is the logical conclusion.

    4. Deborah Hommer Avatar
      Deborah Hommer

      And defend we should.
      “When a Population is Disarmed: A Brief History of Tyranny.” – murdered millions

      https://www.americangunnews.com/when-a-population-is-disarmed-a-brief-history-of-tyranny/

  11. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    In 2018-19, the last pre-COVID year so the last year for which full year statistics are available, Hanover county reported in its schools 28 weapons incidents, 2 bomb threats, 80 cases of assault and battery, 2 arsons, 326 fights, 35 sexual offenses, 34 cases of vandalism, 948 cases of interfering with school operations, etc.

    I could go on, Dick, but I recommend you consider and provide such context in a story like this. Sounds like a reasonable amount of money to pay to stop the chaos and carnage.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Examine the result of $420 K times every school in the state. Reasonable? Also, give some thought to the number of mishaps that will occur within that number where armed guards will patrol. Chaos stopped?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Nope. No matter how much you spend, it will not “stop” the incidents and “carnage”.

      This is like arguing if you spend enough on highway safety, there won’t be accidents or congestion.

      Or if you have enough police officers, there won’t be murders or thefts.

  12. Tom B Avatar
    Tom B

    A question for the left:

    Why would an honest, law-abiding gun owner who has a concealed carry permit, uses guns frequently for sporting purposes, carries a firearm for self-defense, and believes in the court’s interpretion of the Second Amendment be considered part of the “gun-crazy society with its no-compromise embrace of the Second Amendment”?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      They wouldn’t be. But telling one from the other is the fun part.

Leave a Reply

Read More