Senator Dianne Feinstein, whose office was infiltrated by a Chinese spy for 20 years, pledged Thursday to fight the Trump administration’s policies that seek to uphold the rights of teachers in the public indoctrination centers that we call public schools by arming them so they could defend their lives, as well as the lives of their students should there be an imminent threat.

Senator Feinstein is not only going to oppose the Trump administration’s policies, which let’s be honest, it shouldn’t have a policy except to say that every American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms anywhere and everywhere they go per the Second Amendment, but Feinstein is attacking the very Constitution of which that Amendment is a part.

Here’s part of what was going on in the administration courtesy of The New York Times:

The Education Department is considering whether to allow states to use federal funding to purchase guns for educators, according to multiple people with knowledge of the plan.

Such a move appears to be unprecedented, reversing a longstanding position taken by the federal government that it should not pay to outfit schools with weapons. And it would also undermine efforts by Congress to restrict the use of federal funding on guns. As recently as March, Congress passed a school safety bill that allocated $50 million a year to local school districts, but expressly prohibited the use of the money for firearms.

But the department is eyeing a program in federal education law, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, that makes no mention of prohibiting weapons purchases. That omission would allow the education secretary, Betsy DeVos, to use her discretion to approve any state or district plans to use grant funding for firearms and firearm training, unless Congress clarifies the law or bans such funding through legislative action.

“The department is constantly considering and evaluating policy issues, particularly issues related to school safety,” said Liz Hill, a spokeswoman for the Education Department. “The secretary nor the department issues opinions on hypothetical scenarios.”

The $1 billion student support program, part of the Every Student Succeeds Act, is intended for academic and enrichment opportunities in the country’s poorest schools and calls for school districts to use the money toward three goals: providing a well-rounded education, improving school conditions for learning and improving the use of technology for digital literacy.

Department officials acknowledged that should the Education Department carry out the proposal, it would appear to be the first time that a federal agency has authorized the purchase of weapons without a congressional mandate, according to people familiar with the discussions. And while no such restrictions exist in the federal education law, it could undermine the grant program’s adoption of “drug and violence prevention,” which defines a safe school environment as free of weapons.

OK, several things should be addressed here.  First, the Department of Education is completely unconstitutional. The best way to arm teachers and educate the next generation would be to get the federal and state governments out of education and leave the responsibility to parents in local communities.  Then, we’re done with all the bureaucracy that constantly is infringing on our rights.

Second, the federal government doesn’t need to be purchasing weapons for teachers.  Again, there is no authority for doing so in our Constitution.  If teachers already have weapons and want to carry them, they simply should be allowed to carry them.

Third, the gun-free zones designation of public schools is completely unconstitutional as every federal law, and every state or local law for that matter, is unconstitutional and an infringement upon the God-given rights of the people, according to our founders.

With that said, I’m all for teachers being armed, just not with tax dollars.

However, Feinstein opposes armed teachers.  She wants more soft targets for criminals and more defenseless teachers and students that will be easy prey to the murderers who will hunt them down in schools.

According to Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Feinstein claims that “arming elementary school teachers is a dangerous policy that should never see the light of day. I will do everything in my power to block this policy—including through the appropriations process.”

Feinstein on Trump admin proposal to arm teachers: Arming elementary school teachers is a dangerous policy that should never see the light of day. I will do everything in my power to block this policy—including through the appropriations process

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) August 23, 2018

Thing is, Feinstein’s “power” is usurped power.  She has no constitutional authority to do anything when it comes to infringing on law-abiding citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms.

Following the shooting in Parkland, Florida in February, President Trump said that armed teachers could respond “immediately,” whereas first responders might be “5 to 8 minutes away.”

Just a day before, Trump called for the arming of teachers.

Trump said, “Gun-free zone to a maniac—because they’re all cowards—a gun-free zone is ‘let’s go in and let’s attack because bullets aren’t coming back at us.’” He said adopting a policy where “20 percent” of teachers were armed would reduce or eliminate the perception of weakness, making schools a riskier target to strike.

“If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly,” he added.

I agree with him, but let them arm themselves, just get out of their way.

Why?  Because Trump didn’t stop there.  If he had, it would have been just fine.

No, Trump went on to advocate for raising “the minimum age for purchasing a firearm” and pushed for mental health, both of which are not only foolish, but the federal government has been given no authority in our Constitution to do either of those things, and who would want them to do such?  Look at how they’ve screwed up basic health care with socialized medicine.  Do you really want them determining who is mentally fit to possess a gun?  Furthermore, our Constitution has protections in the Fifth Amendment to protect such individuals from government tyranny and taking their guns unless they are indicted and convicted of a crime.

Trump changed a long stance on gun confiscation support when he ran for president and promised to be a friend of the Second Amendment.  He also promised, “I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools.”

Let’s see if he keeps that promise.  There’s already legislation written if he would just get behind it, but I question it given the fact he is open to attacking the Second Amendment when given the opportunity and in the case of mental health, he is more than willing to violate the Fifth Amendment and steal people’s property first, then go through due process.

We’ll see what comes of this.

Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost