The horrific shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX and the recent grocery store shooting in Buffalo, NY, have been the pretexts for predictable calls to ban firearms. The Left has convinced itself and is attempting to convince anybody who will listen that firearms are the reason these tragedies occur. If we get rid of the guns, say they, we will get rid of the problem. After all, the United States is the only place in the world where these things happen, right? And while they screech about the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) culpability and holding gun manufacturers legally liable for violent acts committed with their products, their allies are openly calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. At the very least, we need another ban on “assault rifles” to make us feel better about doing something in wake of these mass murders.
The word pretext means “a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs.” Leftists, given their totalitarian nature, are intolerant of dissent. It is therefore their natural inclination to impose speech codes, establish disinformation boards, and outright ban, whenever possible, speech or expression that strays from their agenda. This is why they are obsessed with controlling government. If they control the government, they will have the weaponry needed to enforce their decrees. They realize that an armed populace, especially one in which millions of citizens have millions of firearms, has the means to resist and defend its rights. And since allowing dissent is out of the question, the populace must be disarmed in order to make it easier for them to force compliance to their decrees. A firearms ban has always been an essential component of the Left’s agenda, regardless the level of crime or the instances of mass shootings. But given the strong public support for the Second Amendment, the Left’s objective is impotent without the occurrence of tragedies like Uvalde to exploit for maximum effect. They cannot on their own gin up the needed outrage to ban firearms without images of bloody bodies to put on a poster. Thus, Leftists see dead children as the perfect opportunity to resuscitate their power grab.
Case in point, if Democrats were really serious about protecting children, then why aren’t they doing something NOW to defend them? How are mental health red flag enhancements and raising the minimum age of firearms purchases supposed to stop the next shooting? How will an “assault rifle” ban prevent the next shooter from using one of the millions of them that are currently in circulation? How will such a ban prevent a criminal (remember, they couldn’t care less what you ban) from using one the next time around? What’s to prevent people from using any of the wide variety of handguns available to kill the same number or more people? Have they really forgotten that the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns to murder 32 people? Have they forgotten about the 19 people who were killed in a knife attack in Japan? Did they forget that it takes two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of the States to ratify a constitutional amendment (which will obviously take a very long time)? If their tears are real and if their screaming is heartfelt; if they are really fed-up and if their “enough already” is spoken with pure motives, then conceding everything on their agenda, what are they going to do between now and when all their political goals are realized? What proposals have they offered that will protect our children RIGHT NOW??
Back in 2013, Senators Cruz and Grassley introduced a proposal for $300 million in federal grants to beef up security at schools such as bulletproof doors and windows as well as armed guards. The filibuster hating Democrats used that very method to defeat the proposal. More guns are not the answer, they argued. But these same Democrats get their panties tied in a wad over the slow police response in Uvalde. Why is it okay for “more guns” to show up after the shooting has started instead of before? Why wait until children are dead before sending “more guns” to the scene? “We don’t want to turn our schools into armed fortresses,” they complain. So, the solution is to leave them defenseless as an invitation for more shootings?? Leftists would rather have more shootings than to protect our children now?? Deflecting those inconvenient facts, they pointed to “poison pills” in the proposal that they objected to, but that’s a red herring. They could have offered the same security enhancements without the objectionable “pills,” but since having guns for self-defense is unacceptable to Leftists (because it keeps them from banning guns), they have to find other reasons to oppose commonsense legislation while their cronies in the media run interference for them.
If keeping our children safe is really not a Republican/Democrat issue, then let’s face reality. The reality is that America has always had guns, but it hasn’t always had school shootings. The reality is that there are evil persons who are looking for soft (defenseless) targets, so the only reasonable solution is to have well-trained personnel on site who can shoot back. Mandatory locked doors, bulletproof windows and doors, single points of entry, metal detectors, and well-trained armed guards will go a long way toward ensuring a safe environment for students and staff across the country. The real outrage here is that you will not get cooperation from the Democrats. If they protect soft targets, they won’t get the headlines they need to ban guns. So, keeping the most vulnerable among us defenseless sows the seeds for tomorrow’s headlines which will, in turn, give them another pretext for “protecting” our children with a gun ban.
