If liberals really care about protecting our kids,
Why do they refuse to arm even those teachers who want to be armed and who already know how to use a gun?
Why do they want to take guns from people who had nothing to do with the Parkland school shooting or with any other school shooting?
Why do they refuse to require states to give school kids the same kind of protection that we give to court houses, federal and state law enforcement offices, Congressional offices and facilities, etc., etc.? For example, my county has nearly 700 police officers and 85 schools. Assigning two police officers per school for 7 hours per day would not prevent the police from performing their essential functions (although it might mean there would be a lot fewer speed traps).
Why do they refuse to give students bullet-proof shields, even though shields would pose a threat to no one? (Did you notice that several students at the White House meeting and at the CNN townhall suggested giving students bullet-proof/kevlar shields? I recall that the wingnut liberals here at USMB mocked that idea a few days ago.)
Why are they spending so much time focusing on the inanimate object that Cruz used instead of Cruz himself? Are cars any less available than guns? What if Cruz had used a car and had run over and killed 17 kids in the school parking lot right after school? Would liberals be demonizing anyone who believes in private car ownership?
Why do they ignore the fact that every single school shooter has a very similar profile, and that that profile includes godlessness, immorality, aberrant social media postings, etc., etc.?
Why are liberals not screaming for a full-blown investigation into the inexcusable failures of the FBI and the local sheriff's office to follow up on the numerous and clear red flags that they received or had on Cruz?
Why are liberals ignoring the numerous instances where armed citizens have thwarted mass shootings or shot the would-be mass shooter just after he began to fire?
Why do they refuse to arm even those teachers who want to be armed and who already know how to use a gun?
Why do they want to take guns from people who had nothing to do with the Parkland school shooting or with any other school shooting?
Why do they refuse to require states to give school kids the same kind of protection that we give to court houses, federal and state law enforcement offices, Congressional offices and facilities, etc., etc.? For example, my county has nearly 700 police officers and 85 schools. Assigning two police officers per school for 7 hours per day would not prevent the police from performing their essential functions (although it might mean there would be a lot fewer speed traps).
Why do they refuse to give students bullet-proof shields, even though shields would pose a threat to no one? (Did you notice that several students at the White House meeting and at the CNN townhall suggested giving students bullet-proof/kevlar shields? I recall that the wingnut liberals here at USMB mocked that idea a few days ago.)
Why are they spending so much time focusing on the inanimate object that Cruz used instead of Cruz himself? Are cars any less available than guns? What if Cruz had used a car and had run over and killed 17 kids in the school parking lot right after school? Would liberals be demonizing anyone who believes in private car ownership?
Why do they ignore the fact that every single school shooter has a very similar profile, and that that profile includes godlessness, immorality, aberrant social media postings, etc., etc.?
Why are liberals not screaming for a full-blown investigation into the inexcusable failures of the FBI and the local sheriff's office to follow up on the numerous and clear red flags that they received or had on Cruz?
Why are liberals ignoring the numerous instances where armed citizens have thwarted mass shootings or shot the would-be mass shooter just after he began to fire?
