Written by: Trey Tasker
They Do NOT Care About Our Children
The politicians and media talking heads do NOT care about our children, and we must stop debating with these dishonest cretins, because we add legitimacy to their point of view when we have discussions with idiots. When a no-name actress gets a leading role opposite Ben Affleck, whose reputation is magnified? When a no-name boxer gets a title shot, whose reputation is magnified? Why would a no-name candidate want to be on The O'Reilly Factor? Why do the Arab sheiks want their pictures taken with US Presidents? In every case, the lesser known or illegitimate participant is made more legitimate by their presence next to a more popular or more legitimate (though not always) person.
There should be a minimum standard for entering a discussion with an idiot: Their solution should have some proof of viability based on facts. If it has no such viability, then a discussion with them makes their idiocy seem more reasonable to the ill-formed masses. In the two decades from 1970 to 1989, there were 30 people killed in US school shootings. Then, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In the two decades from 1991 to 2010, there were 180 people killed in US school shootings. There is no indication that gun-free zones have saved lives. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite, that we have allowed our liberal politics to place a target on the backs of our children. So, why are we having discussions with idiots?
Do these people really care about our children? What are they willing to do to stop this senseless killing? What are they willing to give up? Who must sacrifice to save our children? The answers are very revealing.
Just for a moment, let's consider the discussions that we are NOT having in the public forums, and see what becomes obvious. We are not discussing the following:
(1) Have you heard anyone propose that more stringent sentences or penalties would help reduce school massacres? No, of course not. It is well established that the killers do not care about the laws and the punishment. The very definition of "killer" or "criminal" makes this clear, without further debate. However, this reality is ignored when the discussion turns to gun control, as if such laws would truly have an impact on the criminals. Idiocy.
(2) Have you heard any public servants suggesting that our schools should be repositioned next to military bases, police stations, and/or firehouses? After all, when was the last time that you heard of a crazed gunman entering a military base, police station, or firehouse? Fort Hood might be one example, except that Hasan entered a gun-free zone, where he knew that he could kill unarmed soldiers. Idiocy, even in the military.
(3) Have you heard any public servants suggesting that our school children are more important than our legislators, and therefore the armed body guards that protect the Representatives and Senators should certainly be redirected to protect our schools? There is not any more clear contrast in society: Congress vs. Children. The winner: Children. Thus, the body guards and the money should immediately be redirected to protect our children. It will never happen.
(4) Perhaps you have heard a few people suggesting that we make our schools more like prisons, where the windows have bars and where the doors are secured in a manner that prevents opening by a use of a gun, as was the case in Newtown, CT. Of course, this will never happen because the liberal mindset of an inviting and creative school environment would be undermined. In addition, imagine the massacres that would occur when gunmen can enter the school and then lock it down from the inside to keep the police out of the fortress.
(5) Have you heard anyone in the media suggesting a moratorium on the public disclosure of the name of the shooters? Why would this matter? Answer: because many of these shooters are "no-bodies" who seek notoriety, even if in infamy. If we remove the incentive created by open discussion of their name, then it might reduce the likelihood that the shooter would seek violence as the path to their notoriety. Of course, the media would never go for this. They would claim that this idea would impinge on their free speech, even though the media regularly chooses to suppress information, when it serves their own purposes.
These discussions that are NOT happening suggest that the liberals are NOT willing to give up their pet causes, like (i) defiling the military, (ii) their own personal security, (iii) their utopian education concepts, nor (iv) their control of the information we receive. These absent discussions also show that liberals know innately that criminals will not disarm; if laws mattered to the criminals, then we would simply strengthen the murder laws, right?! Instead of modifying their own behavior, instead of sacrificing their own pet causes, and instead of admitting that gun control laws do not impact the criminals.... These numb-skulls want THE PEOPLE to sacrifice; they want THE PEOPLE to give up our guns; and they want THE PEOPLE to trust them, despite their prolific failure as demonstrated by the deaths in the last two decades. We must stop this insanity.
Instead, the public discourse is leaning toward more gun control, which is the source of the problem. When facts and logic are introduced, the liberals yell at their opposition with accusations that the opposition is selfish and uncaring. If liberals really cared, then they would care enough to examine the facts. Gun-free zones have not reduced shootings in our schools. Instead these shootings have increased. The only known means to stop an armed bad guy is an armed good guy, and of course the public discourse does not include this well known solution. Any public discourse that excludes well known, viable, and low cost solutions is a dishonest public discourse.
Contrast this public discourse with the community reaction to rapists. When a few women are attacked, do the talking heads run around saying that we should remove the guns from our homes, making women into better targets? Of course not! These talking heads would be talking about education, security, and self-defense. The fact that these items are not discussed with respect to our children proves the dishonesty cited above. What is so different about crimes against our children at school that we are ignoring what is so obvious to us all, when the crime is against women in their homes? The only explanation is that we have been coached (even brainwashed) to entrust our children to the government, even when they are failing to educate and to protect our children. This must stop.
The violent tendencies of the human race are well known. There will always be people who lose their bearings and seek to settle their disputes or their misery by senseless violence. Two of the worst ever school massacres were noteworthy because one was perpetrated with a bomb (1927, Bath School, Bath MI) and another was perpetrated by a man within a peace-loving no-media community (2006, Old Order Amish School, Lancaster PA). The problem is not with guns. The problem is not caused solely by the violence on television. We are flawed. We are sinners. This is reality. It is not debatable.
The question becomes: What do we do to minimize the damage? The answer is much like the answer for protecting women from rapists.
Answer: (1) We reduce the number of criminals. (2) We reduce the targets of crime. (3) We create deterrents to crime.
The first step is accomplished through better education of young men, better rehabilitation of young offenders, and better border control. We are failing in all three areas. Our urban youths are tempted constantly, and when they succumb to the pressure, they are institutionalized with no path out of crime.
The second step is accomplished through education of young women, better security, and self-defense. If targets become more aware, if the targets are more secure, and if the targets can defend themselves, then the criminals will have less opportunity. We must not create laws that impede the people from protecting themselves with means similar to the means of the criminals.
The third step is to create deterrents to crime. This includes sensible laws against crime and the aggressive enforcement of those laws. This too is failing. How many crimes are going unpunished? New Black Panthers, John Corzine, ... Create your own list.
However, please note that deterrents are THIRD on the list, not first. We should not be solely dependent upon the police for our safety. The police provide a supporting role to secure the community, when the criminals work in groups to overcome the individuals in the community.
Is there room within the solution set for encouraging responsible gun ownership? Absolutely, but that does not translate to fewer guns. It means more training, more accountability, and more public presence of gun owners.
If the liberals were dealing with reality, then we could have productive discourse about solutions. Instead the liberals want the self-sufficient members of society to be forced to rely upon the incomplete and often ineffective protection of the government. More importantly the liberals are pushing more gun control to lay the groundwork for power plays in which the people must go along with more oppression because we gave up our guns.
Clearly the liberals have no plans to sacrifice their pet causes to save our children. Instead, they are using this crisis as an excuse to take our guns.
Clearly their motives are political, and they do not care about our children.
It is time to stop talking to idiots. They are putting targets on our children's backs.
There should be a minimum standard for entering a discussion with an idiot: Their solution should have some proof of viability based on facts. If it has no such viability, then a discussion with them makes their idiocy seem more reasonable to the ill-formed masses. In the two decades from 1970 to 1989, there were 30 people killed in US school shootings. Then, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In the two decades from 1991 to 2010, there were 180 people killed in US school shootings. There is no indication that gun-free zones have saved lives. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite, that we have allowed our liberal politics to place a target on the backs of our children. So, why are we having discussions with idiots?
Do these people really care about our children? What are they willing to do to stop this senseless killing? What are they willing to give up? Who must sacrifice to save our children? The answers are very revealing.
Just for a moment, let's consider the discussions that we are NOT having in the public forums, and see what becomes obvious. We are not discussing the following:
(1) Have you heard anyone propose that more stringent sentences or penalties would help reduce school massacres? No, of course not. It is well established that the killers do not care about the laws and the punishment. The very definition of "killer" or "criminal" makes this clear, without further debate. However, this reality is ignored when the discussion turns to gun control, as if such laws would truly have an impact on the criminals. Idiocy.
(2) Have you heard any public servants suggesting that our schools should be repositioned next to military bases, police stations, and/or firehouses? After all, when was the last time that you heard of a crazed gunman entering a military base, police station, or firehouse? Fort Hood might be one example, except that Hasan entered a gun-free zone, where he knew that he could kill unarmed soldiers. Idiocy, even in the military.
(3) Have you heard any public servants suggesting that our school children are more important than our legislators, and therefore the armed body guards that protect the Representatives and Senators should certainly be redirected to protect our schools? There is not any more clear contrast in society: Congress vs. Children. The winner: Children. Thus, the body guards and the money should immediately be redirected to protect our children. It will never happen.
(4) Perhaps you have heard a few people suggesting that we make our schools more like prisons, where the windows have bars and where the doors are secured in a manner that prevents opening by a use of a gun, as was the case in Newtown, CT. Of course, this will never happen because the liberal mindset of an inviting and creative school environment would be undermined. In addition, imagine the massacres that would occur when gunmen can enter the school and then lock it down from the inside to keep the police out of the fortress.
(5) Have you heard anyone in the media suggesting a moratorium on the public disclosure of the name of the shooters? Why would this matter? Answer: because many of these shooters are "no-bodies" who seek notoriety, even if in infamy. If we remove the incentive created by open discussion of their name, then it might reduce the likelihood that the shooter would seek violence as the path to their notoriety. Of course, the media would never go for this. They would claim that this idea would impinge on their free speech, even though the media regularly chooses to suppress information, when it serves their own purposes.
These discussions that are NOT happening suggest that the liberals are NOT willing to give up their pet causes, like (i) defiling the military, (ii) their own personal security, (iii) their utopian education concepts, nor (iv) their control of the information we receive. These absent discussions also show that liberals know innately that criminals will not disarm; if laws mattered to the criminals, then we would simply strengthen the murder laws, right?! Instead of modifying their own behavior, instead of sacrificing their own pet causes, and instead of admitting that gun control laws do not impact the criminals.... These numb-skulls want THE PEOPLE to sacrifice; they want THE PEOPLE to give up our guns; and they want THE PEOPLE to trust them, despite their prolific failure as demonstrated by the deaths in the last two decades. We must stop this insanity.
Instead, the public discourse is leaning toward more gun control, which is the source of the problem. When facts and logic are introduced, the liberals yell at their opposition with accusations that the opposition is selfish and uncaring. If liberals really cared, then they would care enough to examine the facts. Gun-free zones have not reduced shootings in our schools. Instead these shootings have increased. The only known means to stop an armed bad guy is an armed good guy, and of course the public discourse does not include this well known solution. Any public discourse that excludes well known, viable, and low cost solutions is a dishonest public discourse.
Contrast this public discourse with the community reaction to rapists. When a few women are attacked, do the talking heads run around saying that we should remove the guns from our homes, making women into better targets? Of course not! These talking heads would be talking about education, security, and self-defense. The fact that these items are not discussed with respect to our children proves the dishonesty cited above. What is so different about crimes against our children at school that we are ignoring what is so obvious to us all, when the crime is against women in their homes? The only explanation is that we have been coached (even brainwashed) to entrust our children to the government, even when they are failing to educate and to protect our children. This must stop.
The violent tendencies of the human race are well known. There will always be people who lose their bearings and seek to settle their disputes or their misery by senseless violence. Two of the worst ever school massacres were noteworthy because one was perpetrated with a bomb (1927, Bath School, Bath MI) and another was perpetrated by a man within a peace-loving no-media community (2006, Old Order Amish School, Lancaster PA). The problem is not with guns. The problem is not caused solely by the violence on television. We are flawed. We are sinners. This is reality. It is not debatable.
The question becomes: What do we do to minimize the damage? The answer is much like the answer for protecting women from rapists.
Answer: (1) We reduce the number of criminals. (2) We reduce the targets of crime. (3) We create deterrents to crime.
The first step is accomplished through better education of young men, better rehabilitation of young offenders, and better border control. We are failing in all three areas. Our urban youths are tempted constantly, and when they succumb to the pressure, they are institutionalized with no path out of crime.
The second step is accomplished through education of young women, better security, and self-defense. If targets become more aware, if the targets are more secure, and if the targets can defend themselves, then the criminals will have less opportunity. We must not create laws that impede the people from protecting themselves with means similar to the means of the criminals.
The third step is to create deterrents to crime. This includes sensible laws against crime and the aggressive enforcement of those laws. This too is failing. How many crimes are going unpunished? New Black Panthers, John Corzine, ... Create your own list.
However, please note that deterrents are THIRD on the list, not first. We should not be solely dependent upon the police for our safety. The police provide a supporting role to secure the community, when the criminals work in groups to overcome the individuals in the community.
Is there room within the solution set for encouraging responsible gun ownership? Absolutely, but that does not translate to fewer guns. It means more training, more accountability, and more public presence of gun owners.
If the liberals were dealing with reality, then we could have productive discourse about solutions. Instead the liberals want the self-sufficient members of society to be forced to rely upon the incomplete and often ineffective protection of the government. More importantly the liberals are pushing more gun control to lay the groundwork for power plays in which the people must go along with more oppression because we gave up our guns.
Clearly the liberals have no plans to sacrifice their pet causes to save our children. Instead, they are using this crisis as an excuse to take our guns.
Clearly their motives are political, and they do not care about our children.
It is time to stop talking to idiots. They are putting targets on our children's backs.
No comments:
Post a Comment