I have no problem with a teacher that own guns to carry one with her/him while teaching school.
50 years ago kids use to go hunting before school and had the gun in their auto and some teacher had them in their auto.
Then the Govt took over and the bad guy knows there are no guns in school. So he is free to do what ever knowing there are no guns in school. It like shooting fish in a water tank.
Felons and un-stable are not allow to own guns.
No, the NRA won't be happy with EVERY man, woman, and child being forced to carry a gun, just with those who want to and can legally qualify, no felons, no druggies, no mentally disturbed, able to carry. As it stands now, in many places, a man who works late at night, usually carries a large amount of cash on him when he leaves work, and works in an area known for trouble is NOT allowed to even own a gun, let alone carry one. He can hire an armed guard to escort him from his business to his car, or possibly to drive him from his business to his bank, but he himself is not allowed to be armed. In some of these areas, the only way to have an armed guard is to call the police station an hour or so before you are ready to leave, then HOPE they have someone free to escort you to your car. NO protection as you either drive home or to the night depository, and no guards at the bank, either. Yet two thirds of the crooks in this same town have guns and feel no compunction when it comes to using them.
For a website that claims to report on 'spin and disinformation" I found this article to be quite biased and containing a fair amount of spin and disinformation.
This author fails to understand that the USA is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic based on the rule of law and equal representation.
Going to a national popular vote will not bring about fairness or justice because a majority of people in one locale could dominate the majority of a population in another locale with a different view. For example, coastal peoples out voting people centrally located. They face different circumstances and may have different needs. This is why we have a house of representatives by district as legislators, as opposed to a statewide group of reps. In addition, a senate who were originally voted in by state legislators as a check against too much federal power.
I think changing the allocation of electoral college votes by district instead of a state's winner take all is a good idea, both fair and just. Look at the results of this election, the urban areas with higher populations dominated, particularly in the swing states. Look at the u.s presidential results map by district and you will see this. True representation with checks and balances is better implemented under a district allocation system.
It is those with progressive communistic goals who are benefiting from the current system. Just persuade the urban people to vote democratic. It has been easy to persuade the voters in large cities of swing states to get excited enough to put a con-man into the white house.
Pages