You know that I criticize the Left a lot. Thinking about it, I probably should thank them for one thing. They seem to provide me with a constant stream of column material.
The recent Florida school shooting was a horrific and tragic event. Of course, the Left has been all over it, but they have not offered even one constructive idea to solve the problem of school shootings. Instead, they see it as an opportunity to take steps to disarm law-abiding citizens. They argue that banning what they refer to as “assault rifles” will fix the problem.
First, these are not really assault rifles at all. They are semiautomatic, not fully auto. Just the fact that they resemble assault rifles in appearance does not make them assault rifles. The Left cries that they are meant solely to kill people. Actually, they are widely used in target shooting and hunting.
They also place the blame on people and organizations who do not deserve it. Gun owners, the NRA and other gun rights groups are always in their crosshairs. In the case of the Florida shooting, the total ineptitude of the local law enforcement played a huge part. Of course, the primary blame falls on the shooter himself. That’s it. Period. Abrogating the rights of law-abiding citizens will not solve the problem.
As time has gone by, I have come to believe that anti-gunners really know that the measures they propose will not reduce crime. How could they not? I am convinced that the goal is simply to disarm the populace in order to subjugate them.
What should be done about school shootings? Getting rid of Gun Free Zone signs would be a good start, as they are little more than an invitation to lunatics, informing them that nobody will shoot back. Metal detectors at all points of entry, complete with alarms, would be a good deterrent. Also, despite the increased expense which would be incurred, the number of armed guards in schools must be increased.
Then, there is the idea of arming teachers. I don’t know what to think about that one. It sounds good on its surface, but the amount of time and training necessary to prepare them might be prohibitive.
I got my first gun when I was seven. Of course, I wasn’t allowed to take it out by myself, but it was mine. That means that I have been a gun owner for 63 years. In all that time, I have never even aimed a gun at another person, let alone shot one. I have often asked anti-gunners how infringement on my rights and freedom would lower the crime rate. I have never gotten an answer.
On another front, it seems that the NFL players who refuse to stand for the National Anthem are still making the news. When I see this, I am reminded of a scene I witnessed a number of years ago, during a Memorial Day service at a local cemetery. One of those in attendance was an elderly World War II veteran who was in his last days. For the National Anthem, he got people to help him up, then support him while he stood and saluted. Here was a man who had given so much to the country, standing with a lot of difficulty, while professional athletes, most of whom have only taken from the country, refuse to do so.
You know, in my opinion, the Democratic Party to which my parents belonged, just no longer exists. It has been hijacked by Socialists and the Radical Left. I know a fair number of good, intelligent people who always vote Democrat, and it puzzles me as to why. Do they feel that their taxes are too low? Do they wish to see our culture destroyed by wave after wave of illegal aliens who have no desire to assimilate, but want us to change to suit them? Are they in favor of unrestricted abortion right up until the moment of birth? Do they think that they have too much, even though they worked for it, and that they should be disarmed and have it taken from them and given to someone who refuses to work? It’s hard to imagine that the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, but what else is one to think?
[Chris Henderson has been writing articles and columns for many years. He lives in Brady’s Bend with his son, Ray and his cat, Maggie.]