After the most recent school shooting to strike at the heart of the country, Democrats and the Left as a whole have made sure to go after the people who are NOT responsible for this: the NRA and gun-owners/second amendment supporters. They are very efficient in turning a national tragedy into a political game. And it’s sickening. Recently, the Crappiest Name in News held a town hall meeting that was purely used as a means to attack anyone who defends the second amendment and was not meant to be a discussion of ideas. But another event that occurred recently is the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC for short. This event hosted a lot of conservatives from the President and Vice President to the leader of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre. He’s the person I’ll be focusing on most in this article. LaPierre made the excellent point that we tend to secure a lot of things in this country, but children are not among the things we secure. “It’s a bizarre fact that in this country our jewelry stores, all over this country, are more important than our children. Our banks, our airports, our NBA games, our NFL games, our office buildings, our movie stars, our politicians, they’re all more protected than our children in school.” He continued with: “Does that make any sense to anybody? Do we really love our money and our celebrities more than we love our children?” Again, this is a very good point. Why is it that every other government building is better protected than our SCHOOLS?! Now, I know the Left’s position on this. “How dare you even suggest arming our teachers? How dare you suggest placing people with GUNS near our children? How dare you suggest we have metal detectors in our schools? That would turn schools into prison!” All of these things are easily challenged. Why arm our teachers? Because they’ll be able to protect the children faster than the police. They’ll be able to shut down the attacker faster. If there even is an attacker in the first place. When was the last time someone attacked a police station? Or a prison? Sickos like Nikolas Cruz, who hardly seems to even get any of the hatred from the Left, would be more hesitant to attack any place that likely has armed security. The reason shooters target theaters, churches and schools is because they tend not to be too heavily guarded by weapons, if at all. If we trust teachers to teach our children, why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them as well? Why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them with their own weapons? But even then, we don’t have to arm the teachers. We could just have armed security as well who are payed by the school district to protect the people there, just as armed security in any other government building is tasked with protecting the people there. But the Left has a problem with this solution, one: because it’s an actual solution and the last thing the Left needs is a solution to shootings. So long as there are shootings, they are able to shove their agenda down people’s throats. And two: because their issue is not the children’s lives, their issue is guns. They can’t begin to comprehend the concept of a good guy with a gun. To them, anyone who has a gun is a bad guy or potential bad guy. When it comes to metal detectors, I’m admittedly more conflicted on this one. I don’t think it would be necessary to have metal detectors. Having armed security should ideally be enough. Considering most shootings happen with rifles, they’d be pretty difficult to conceal when walking into a school. Any posted security guard at any entrance would be able to see someone coming with a gun when they shouldn’t. So metal detectors, I don’t think are necessary, but I’d still like to contend with the Left on this. I try to view things from multiple perspectives, so I’ll try to do that with this proposition as well. Metal detectors would be an added security feature, for sure. What the Left says about it is that it would make schools look and feel like prisons. Aside from the fact that schools are already pretty similar to prisons in many ways (authoritarian structure, dress code, emphasis on silence and order, loss of individual autonomy, set times enforced for walking, eating, etc.), why would the way a school looks and feels take precedent over the safety of the children? With this argument, is the Left signifying that they care more about how things look and feel than they care about the safety and lives of children? I wish it didn't have to come to these sort of proposals. I wish no one would dare attack a school. But we must face reality. These things happen, but we can take measures against them. We should act accordingly with things that will actually work, not gun control measures that won't help a single person. Returning to LaPierre, he also points out that the Democrats “hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment. They hate individual freedom.” “For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms. Their solution is to make you, all of you, less free. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of family, the failure of America’s mental health system and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI.” All good points which are all correct. The Left doesn’t want a solution to this problem unless it comes as part of a nationwide guns confiscation and Second Amendment repeal, which, if you’ve read my article telling you about such a goal, would not be effective whatsoever. They push for gun control as often as they possibly can, pointing to places like the U.K. and Australia which have implemented it and gun crime is not very high. I would like to counter that by pointing out places like Chicago, Jamaica and Honduras. All places with very strict gun control laws and all places with very high murder rates and gun crime rates. My point is that gun control hasn’t affected the crime rates in any of the countries in any positive way. That is another piece of evidence that should convince people (though it likely won’t) that what counts is the culture in a nation, not the gun laws. Not to mention that the U.S. has the most guns per 100 residents out of any country. And it’s not even close. According to the Small Arms Survey, the amount of guns owned per 100 residents is 88.8. Serbia comes at #2 with 58.21 and Yemen at #3 with 54.8. Yet, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. murder rate sits at just 4.88%. There are over 90 other countries with worse rates and less guns (as we can see from the previous stat). Not to mention that there are severe population differences between the U.S., the U.K. and Australia (and the other countries). We have the most guns out of all of these countries, the most people out of these countries, but are still among the safest in the world, particularly when accounting for our massive population. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: if guns were the issue, everyone would know it. But guns aren’t the issue. Not that the Left would ever admit that. They hate guns and hate the fact that people can own them. Wayne LaPierre has it exactly right when he says they hate individual freedom. Guns provide the people with freedom from the government. A concept that sounds like blasphemy in the ears of the Left. As a side note, I find it rich that the very people that have called Trump “Hitler” are also the ones demanding he take away people’s guns. 1 Peter 5:8 “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsWe bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free... Archives
May 2022
Categories
All
|