As seen in Thunder Roads LA-MS April 2018 Vol. 14 – Issue 4.
Unfortunately, violence has again struck in a school within the United States of America. The news is full of fast-paced, maddening and alienating headlines even after these last few weeks. Quite literally, you can watch nearly every existing faction fight each other while whole new factions split off and join the fray. Politicians have submitted new Federal legislation to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, raise ages for purchasing of specific classes of firearms, and continue to seek a ban on accessories.
The firearms community is highly divided due there being two interpretations of the 2nd Amendment: either all current restrictions should be rolled back or that “reasonable restrictions” should be had. One side wants to arm students (at the college level) and teachers and roll back decades old infringements on certain classes of firearms. The other side wants to continue to allow the Democrats to receive any demand they can come up with at a moments notice: such as banning bump stocks (“rate-increasing devices”), “assault weapons” (latest ban) and “improving” background checks (see: “NICS Fix Act”).
And, of course, there’s arming people in the schools. Presently, the talk is focused on faculty at grade schools, but it would also include armaments by students at the college level. There has been backlash to calls by President Trump, again, to implement the arming of teachers in schools around the nation. Rep. Mark Sanford mentioned something about the teachers “not wanting to shoot a student”, but I don’t see the relevance when an assailant is gunning down your other students. I’m not sure what his point is.
An understanding needs to be had on schools. Colleges and grade schools are two totally different animals to plan a defensive strategy around. For instance, if the average grade school has one to two Resource Officers (usually from the sheriff’s office), you may merely double your stock of armed personnel by allowing firearms in the hands of the faculty. The problem is that your additional personnel are likely static. The teachers, at least in my day, used one classroom the entire school day. The students may have moved around, but you could time that movement down to the second due to the routines. Unfortunately, it allows for any potentially armed faculty members to be specifically targeted or planned around.
In a college, there are a handful of Resource Officers (think four to ten for most universities). Again, I assume that you will possibly double that number by adding an allowance for faculty to carry. Most, if not all, campus carry that has passed has allowed students with concealed handgun licenses to also carry. The difference is a larger uptick in who can carry and how fluid the campus is. The number of carriers fluctuates over the day, classes are skipped and / or cancelled, and the carriers are harder to pinpoint for elimination.
Sean Davis summed up the short-hand / TL;DR of what happened easily. And, these new goalposts have been moved from “the government and law enforcement are evil, and shouldn’t have weapons or war” posts, no less.
President Trump asked Sen. Diane Feinstein to include her latest Assault Weapons Ban as an amendment to an up-coming bipartisan bill. I hadn’t ever seen it, but Feinstein was as happy as a 10-year old allowed to have ice cream after dinner. Reportedly, in the same meeting, he was short of supporting the ban. He rightfully mentioned the black market, in that statement. He called for the minimum age of long-gun purchases to be raised to 21. He spoke to bump-stocks “[being] gone soon”. He also called for firearms to be taken from “certain individuals deemed to be dangerous.”
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,”
Unfortunately, it means whoever the Federal government deems to be dangerous. If any such bill is passed with that kind of wording, I fully expect the multiple Three-Letter Agencies to botch a detainment when they have enough compelling evidence, like in the case of the multiple reports they were made aware of regarding the Florida shooter, and all while arresting someone who is completely innocent. I believe it to be a fact that the wording will inevitably be directed at whichever group of “dissenting” voters crosses every president after Trump if enacted.
President Trump could be playing the Democratic Party, as well as the RINOS, but it is every liberty-promoting American’s job to do their due diligence and let their politicians know that it the mere suggestion of such controls is unacceptable. Regardless of whether you voted for him or not. On what grounds am I basing this statement? The fact that he is enabling the Democratic Party, and other left-wing organizations, to continue their fight. It’s a dangerous game and it could be lost. If we let one president go through with a violation of any of the Amendments, it provokes thoughts in others (future presidents or otherwise) that it is alright to do so. Trump spoke to violating multiple Amendments, thus violating multiple aspects of your individual sovereignty.
FOX’s Tucker Carlson brought up a valid point when asking: “Imagine if Barack Obama had said that.”
Violating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not how you “Make American Great Again” and you should be messaging all your local politicians to let them know that.