An Open Letter to Gun-Control advocates: You are responsible for this Nightmare!

| December 14 2012
Greg Conterio

In typical and totally unsurprising fashion, the Friends of Bob Costas, otherwise known as left-leaning gun control advocates have wasted no time transforming the horrible tragedy at Sandy Hook into a political issue.  Twitter featured a familiar parade of twits:

Michael Moore: “Too soon to speak out about a gun-crazy nation? No, too late. At least THIRTY-ONE school shootings since Columbine.”

Piers Morgan: “This is now President Obama’s biggest test — will he have the courage to stand up to the American gun lobby?”

Actress Rashida Jones: “Gun control is our only road to freedom. Freedom from the fear of senselessly losing children. I’m so saddened. WE NEED LAWS NOW.”

Well I have a message for all you anti-gun zealots: This is your fault.  That’s right.  Contrary to your twisted, self-serving sense of cause and effect, you share a large portion of responsibility for the innocent deaths Friday morning at Sandy Hook.  The blood is on YOUR hands.

Here is a little news-flash for all you shrieking about the moral imperative for more gun-control laws: We already HAVE laws forbidding possession of firearms on school grounds, including the state of Connecticut.  Making more of them will not stop evil, deranged people from doing violence.  But deliberately disarming good, law-abiding people, particularly in a place like a school, effectively rolls-out a red-carpet for the evil and the deranged, and guarantees a dramatically elevated body-count.

Let me put this in simple terms you should be able to understand.  The insane and the evil walk among us every day.  They don’t care about laws any more than they care about the innocent.  No amount of gun control is going to stop them when they get it into their heads to do violence.  The problem is not keeping guns out of schools, the problem is keeping crazed, evil people out of schools.  And here is the kicker: if some of the staff at Sandy Hook had actually been carrying this morning, if just a few had happened to have concealed-carry permits, and not been prohibited from having their weapons with them at work, we would not have 27 bodies to bury this evening.

It is time for an end to this idiocy.  We have listened to you anti-gun zealots and your paranoid, irrational ranting for long enough.  You have had things your way, and it has not only been a spectacular failure, it has cost innocent lives.  We need a change in the law alright.  We need to put an end to the senseless restrictions against legal, licensed, responsible people carrying their weapons on school grounds.  Sandy Hook needs to be a wake-up call for the total and abject failure of these stupid, ill-conceived and ultimately deadly laws.  School grounds should be no different than any other public venue, and in fact we need to start ENCOURAGING legal, licensed concealed permit holders to bring their weapons to school.  Having guns present in school is not a danger, having crazy evil people present is.  Knowing there are good, armed people present on school grounds will deter lots of those who would do violence, and prevent those who would try anyway from turning it into a massacre.

8 comments
MarkDudley
MarkDudley

 

It is high time we amend the US Constitution. What is it that makes people want to carry guns so badly? Law enforcement and Armed Forces aside (and I am in the Army), if you want to protect yourselves, why does it have to be with a gun? Is it because others have guns? Is it because it makes you feel powerful? If you do not want to touch the second amendment, then why not do things exactly like the founding fathers. Those that want to carry guns can have one-shot, flintlock muskets or pistols; the ones the founding fathers were referring to when they wrote that amendment. Most pro-gun advocates are ignorant, uneducated, or simply misguided. How could someone be so ignorant to think that my child's life is worth you keeping your gun? Right.. I agree our gun control laws are terrible. They need to look more like those in Europe, esp . the UK, where gun violence has dramatically decreased since the ban on hand guns was enacted. Let everyone keep his or her rifles and shotguns, but membership in a licensed and sanctioned hunting or shooting club should be mandatory. We as a nation really need to look at the second amendment and ask ourselves if the same motivation, reasons, and circumstances exist today, that did when the founding fathers wrote it.

 

Mark Dudley

CPT, US Army

Imnaha
Imnaha

My 26 students arrive daily at 8:00 am.   I spend every minute of my day teaching, listening, helping, coaching, motivating and monitoring my 26 kids.  On good days I have about 15 minutes to eat and maybe a chance to jet down to the restroom before my kids finally hop on the bus to go home at 2:35.  If yo u think I (or any teacher) have the time or skill to pack a gun so we can shoot armed intruders, you are insane.  The problem is that our countrymen and women (you and I) haven't put our senses together to try and fix this problem.  It is a problem we must fix if we care about our country.  A gun won't fix it.    Screaming about the "evil others" who will kill anyway won't fix it.  We, as a country, need to ask what we want to stand for and then start making the changes that will help us create that.

DonnaStover
DonnaStover

as i already stated before. It is unlawful to place a gun ban . According to our US constitution,we have a right to bear arms. Every citizen should file suit against the gun free zone "law".  And our govt wants to kill the republic. So they are too happy to use evil situations like this to disarm us. Then just think what they would do to good citizens if we gave up our guns.

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

 @MarkDudley 

Captain, regarding your last sentence, my understanding is that *one* of the principal Founding-Father motivations for the 2nd Amendment is this:  

 

By conferring even the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution to a federal government, some of the Founders were worried that an over-reaching central government with a possibly dictatorial president could end up violating the very liberties that that government was established to secure.  2nd-Amendment-protected arms were to be both a warning to, and a last line of defense against, such an over-reaching government .

 

Over 200 years later, such concerns are just plain silly, right?  Our federal government would *never* threaten our liberties -- correct?   Today's politicians, and all those who will follow, only want what's best for us, no?  

 

So when it comes to addressing original versus current-day motivations for the 2nd Amendment, can we at least ignore this old outdated fear of a federal government that becomes too big, too powerful, and even outright dictatorial?  It could never happen here, right?  

 

What do you think?

Econ101
Econ101

@Imnaha

I respect your position regarding carrying a firearm yourself.  You shouldn't have to.  But others could and should.  

Israeli schools are prime targets for Sandy-Hook-style atrocities, and from what I read, they have at least two armed personnel on site at all times who are trained and ready to respond to a terror attack.  I'm sure they have lots of focus groups studying the root causes of Arab-Israeli hatred, but for now they have armed good guys on campus to protect their children.  

Ostensibly, we have two armed marshals aboard every domestic airline flight. Why not the same protection for our children? Because it costs too much? Because we don't like the idea of a "police-state atmosphere"? That's what I call "insanity."

Two or more teachers, administrators, or paid professionals with the right tools and training should be "standard issue" in all our schools as the last line of defense against these murderers. Local school boards can choose the means and methods, but this protection is no longer "optional". Israelis are just one group that can help show us how.

Sure, we can work on determining "what we stand for" over a somewhat longer term, but there is an immediate need for good guys with guns to protect our children from bad guys with guns.   Even rabid anti-gun advocates like Rosie O'Donnell travel with bodyguards, and they are armed.

GregoryConterio
GregoryConterio moderator

 @Imnaha With all due respect Imnaha, collecting our children, the most important thing in our lives, all together in one place and DEMANDING they be left vulnerable and undefended, THAT is insane.

There are many, many teachers who would be more than willing to bring their firearms with them to work if not for this idiotic prohibition against it.  I come from a family full of teachers, and have a number of friends who teach, and none of them would feel at all "burdened" by carrying their firearms with them to work.

And you are wrong, our countrymen (exemplified by you, not me!) Have tried to fix this problem.  Their (and your) solution is has bought us this tragedy in Newtown.  It was a stupid "solution" with easily predictable results.  We've done it your way, and it has cost innocent lives.  Time for a change.  Having responsible, trained people armed in school unquestionably makes it safer. 

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

 @Imnaha A fine statement.  High-minded.  Sensible.  Noble.  But why did you stop writing?  You were so close.  Please finish your statement.  What do *you* think we want to stand for as a country and what *are* the changes that will "help us" create that?  Come on.  At least leave a couple hints or clues!

GregoryConterio
GregoryConterio moderator

 @DonnaStover It may be unlawful, but it hasn't stopped them from doing it, Donna.  The absurd, irrational fear of guns on the part of some can no longer control policy.  It has repeatedly shown to have deadly consequences, and cost the innocent their lives.