The politicking is disgusting, the motive quite clear.
A few days ago, a sub-human animal killed 19 little children at a school in Texas. The reaction from our political “leaders” has been predictable. On the one side, you have the party of pragmatic solutions – solutions that have some evidence of being effective. On the other side you have the party of unrealistic “aspirational” hopes and dreams – the party of love, the party of tolerance, the party of diversity. It’s also the party of “defund the police” and the party that described the CHAZ zone in Seattle as the “summer of love”. Isn’t that nice?
Let’s see what the party of love, tolerance, and diversity has to say shall we?
I’m a little confused I must confess. Apparently now it’s not the shooter, it’s not the gun, it’s now the Republican party. Ok – got it. I assume Democrats think this approach will lead to some substantive and effective measures to stop mass shootings. Frankly, I’m a bit skeptical.
Old Joe seems to have forgotten (?) that he’s Commander in Chief of quite a few 18-year-old folks that the federal government has issued (real) “assault weapons” to. This standard left talking point ignores history. Weapons of almost all type have been used throughout history for warfare and gathering food. Most weapons advances have been driven by military needs. Almost every firearm on the market today was, at some point in history, a “weapon of war.” I can easily make the argument that a Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle is just as much a “weapon of war” as an AR-15 is (even though neither actually are). So yes Joe, assuming the word “need” is appropriate, that is precisely what they are for (among other things). The same need the police have for an adequate rifle with which to confront a school shooter. There are precisely two reasons to have a firearm (aside from pure recreation): to feed yourself and your family, and to defend yourself and your family. It’s really just that simple. Why Joe is so mystified by that is a bit concerning. Maybe he should retire to the tapioca palace and just rest a bit.
And Chuck Schumer blocks a school safety bill in the Senate.
Yes – well – sorry to disappoint you all but I find absolutely no indication that Democrats are exploiting a horrendous tragedy to try to leverage political gain. No evidence whatsoever that they are standing on the bodies of dead kids to further a political agenda. As you can see here, from the evidence I’ve presented, politics is the furthest thing from the minds of these folks. Don’t take my word for it, ask them.
If you lean left and you are upset at my painting all on the left with a broad brush based on the senseless comments of a few left-wing extremists, welcome to the club. Nice, isn’t it?
The truth is, I recognize the diversity within the group of voters that regularly vote for Democrats. There are racist union members right here in Tacoma that vote for Democrats every time – because the union tells them to. There are Democrats that belong to the NRA (I know a few personally). There are Democrats that think semi-automatic rifles should be banned but other firearms should not be. And there are Democrats that want to repeal the Second Amendment and ban all firearms – and confiscate them. However, there appear to be no leaders on the Democratic side that are interested in talking seriously about real possibilities regarding mass shootings – and in particular, school shootings.
Fact is, the Second Amendment exists, no matter what anyone may feel about it. As of now, there is zero chance of a constitutional amendment to repeal it. There is nowhere near the support among the population (House) or among the states (Senate) necessary to amend the Constitution and remove the Second Amendment. So – again – regardless of how anyone feels about it on either side, this isn’t happening.
As for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, let’s ignore the fact that we already tried that (for a decade) and that it had no impact on crime (according to the federal government) and that it simply didn’t work – let’s just ignore all that for the moment. Let’s also ignore the fact that there are already millions of them in the hands of American citizens and that to actually remove them from the equation would require confiscating them which would have its own set of constitutional, legal, and enforcement problems. Let’s just pretend that it is actually possible to remove semi-automatic rifles from the United States – no matter how ridiculous or outlandish that might be – just for now.
Repeating rifles and shotguns are capable of serious damage. A pump shotgun with a full magazine of 00 Buckshot will send about as much lead downrange as an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine in about the same amount of time. Quite honestly, were I in a situation where I needed a firearm to defend my life, I’d have a shotgun loaded with buckshot – keep your AR-15. Close range, maximum stopping power, low overpenetration, high hit probability – give me a shotgun loaded with buckshot. In short, the lethality available to the general public if semi-automatic rifles were banned would not decline. There would still be repeating rifles and shotguns, and semi-automatic handguns – and they can do the same terrible damage attributed to semi-auto rifles (and have done – a substantial number of mass shootings have been carried out with handguns – the data is already there).
If our friends on the left can get past what they perceive as a glorious opportunity to exploit dead kids for political gain long enough, they might consider what CAN be done and what CAN NOT be done. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere, therefore, lethal force in the hands of citizens isn’t going anywhere either. Conservatives, being pragmatic by nature, would welcome a conversation about what CAN be done. I’m telling you Dems, you’d have bipartisan support if you were to talk about what CAN be done (not that I have any hope you might).
There are ways to improve safety in our schools. They are available right now, they are being deployed in some places right now. They do not require new firearm laws. They do not require a constitutional amendment. Have you heard anyone in the media mention this? Have you heard a single Democrat politician mention this? I would think it would be easy to muster bipartisan support for improving the physical security of our schools, but the Democrats are having none of it.
We have armed guards around politicians, celebrities, court houses, jewelry stores, and banks. I’ve never heard the left complain about any of that. But the idea of guarding our children is a non-starter. Strange.
Instead, the left seems to think we can pass laws that will somehow miraculously compel people to obey existing laws. I’ve given up trying to wind my way through that “logic.”
No – Democrats don’t want to secure our schools. They’ve stated plainly that they want to “defund the police” and that they want the police “out of our schools.” Not much ambiguity there.
So please forgive us conservatives for not taking all the screeching from the left seriously. What happened in Texas a few days ago was truly horrific. Tragically, it seems that only about half of us take it seriously and want to do something about it. The other half wants to use it for political points. It’s simply impossible to take seriously anyone pushing an agenda that can not be done. If you’re pushing for the repeal of the Second Amendment, you aren’t serious about stopping mass shootings – you are politicking – nothing more – and it’s disgusting.
Out here in the real world, we have tools we use for root cause analysis (by “the real world” I mean the one outside Twitter and Washington D.C.). You first try to determine the root cause of the problem. The root cause of what happened in Texas is complex – it’s not a simple matter of the shooter’s choice of firearm. Failing to account for those complexities (mental health for example) will result in a faulty root cause analysis. Root cause analysis (properly understood) accounts for the eventuality that you may not be able to find the root cause – or – if you do find it, that you may not be able to do anything about it. The root cause of a building collapse may be an earthquake. We can’t do anything about an earthquake. But we may be able to design buildings that are more resistant to earthquakes. An honest assessment would lead to doing what CAN be done to mitigate the problem even if the root cause of the problem is beyond our reach.
We can’t solve mental health issues overnight – and quite possibly not ever. Repeal of the Second Amendment is not remotely likely. But we CAN harden schools and we CAN protect our children. There are (unfortunately) not only experts in the field, but there is also an entire industry devoted to this. If you ignore this in favor of your pet political agenda, you are entirely unserious about saving the lives of children – save your blather for Twitter, I don’t care to hear it.