The Real Criminal in School Shootings

February 14, 2018. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida. An event that has been a major discussion topic since the tragedy took place.

I’ve listened to both pro and con gun advocates. I’ve heard the outcries for our government to “do something” (though what, is never explicitly determined). And I’m growing deaf to the political grandstanding on both sides - each trying to score points with their “base”.

One such suggestion to “fix” this is to arm teachers. Now, as a pro-2nd Amendment person I have to say that is a DUMB idea. And here is why:

My wife is a public high school teacher. Every year, from about a month BEFORE school starts to about a month AFTER school ends, she belongs to the school and your children. If you do the math, that means I get her for about a month to two months a year. With the pressure of school testing (which, honestly, is really more a rod to punish good teachers rather than educate students), behavioral issues with children (broken, dysfunctional, and non-existent homes), and the ever increasing paperwork to comply with government mandates, what she has on her plate is more than enough for some “arm everyone” gun advocate to put yet ANOTHER thing on her plate.

I’m going to give you a fix for the school shooting problem. And it won’t cost schools a dime. That means no additional (unarmed) guards roaming the halls, no additional metal detectors, or locking the building doors while class is in session (wasn’t that what got Joe Clark in trouble? “Stand By Me” reference.). All schools have to do is remove the following sign:

That’s it. Period.

The beauty of this is that you don’t have to go about arming teachers. You will give teachers who are ALREADY armed permission to carry. And the real beauty of Concealed Carry is that no one knows WHO is armed and WHO is not. And it is THAT which will keep students (and everyone else) safe.

Every malcontent that arms himself and goes into a school is NOT insane. They are rational beings. BECAUSE they are going into gun-free zones to do their shooting proves it. And if/when these bastards have been captured, the “temporary insanity” excuse should be thrown out the window!

I blame the anti-2nd Amendment IDIOTS who created the whole “gun-free zone” bullsh*t for EVERY person who has been harmed in a shooting IN THOSE ZONES. That’s right. Your “fear” killed those people. YOU created an environment that gives PERMISSION to people to come in and start shooting.

It’s not that we need everyone to be armed. We need to allow those who desire to do so to do so. That element of the unknown will do more to protect than any law that only impedes law abiding citizens.

And before you tell me we need just one more law to protect us, consider this: it is ILLEGAL to murder. Apparently, those who will break that law really don’t give a rat’s ass about any other law you may come up with. That’s why they are called “law BREAKERS”! If a person is willing to break THAT law, do you really think an additional waiting period, or keeping guns out of the hands of supposedly mental unstable people will fix it?

Stop being an idiot.

© Emittravel 2018

Ready, Aim, Gotcha!

Dear Kansas Chamber of Commerce,

I am writing to let you know that my wife and I were planning our summer vacation, and the great state of Kansas came to mind. Not only is Kansas the home of the Tallgrass Prairie Natural Preserve, the Kansas Speedway, and the Sedgwick County Zoo, but it is also known for dining at the T-Rex Café, splashing around at the Great Wolf Water Park, and hanging out at Dorothy's house. But, unfortunately, do to safety reasons, we won't be in Kansas anymore - at least in the foreseeable future.

You see, according to a law recently signed by Governor Sam Brownback, the citizens of Kansas will no longer be required to obtain a permit to conceal carry a firearm. More distressing than that, they will also no longer be required to attend extensive training in order to obtain that permit. That frightens me.

I’m from the great state of Ohio, and here extensive training is required to obtain the required permit to conceal carry. First off, I fully believe that the 2nd Amendment IS my "permit" to carry a firearm - concealed or otherwise. But secondly, I fully embrace, and am comforted by the knowledge, that a person carrying a firearm in my state has the appropriate skills to not only discharge a firearm, but has been trained in the proper use and procedures if such a situation arises to NEED to use said firearm.

I have wracked my brain to come up with a good reason to eliminate the need to be trained, and I am unable to come up with even one. Does your state require a person pass a written test concerning the laws of the road prior to obtaining a temporary permit for driving a vehicle? Or do you just hand out licenses to anyone who shows up at the DMV? (Are driver licenses even a requirement in Kansas?) And you can't convince me that a car cannot be used as a weapon. There are people in prison over vehicular manslaughter that should be released if that is true!

Maybe, this is an agenda of the mainstream media and the anti-gun lobby. As far as I can tell, there are no reports of crimes being committed by those with conceal carry permits. Why? Because of the training involved. Having no training (and no permit) would make crimes committed by conceal carry persons fodder for the media. And don't you think that they would be broadcasting those stories 24/7? Anytime the anti-gun lobby pushes our legislators to make laws restricting gun use, they would be screaming the senseless killings committed by those evil conceal-carry-permit-carrying bastards. But they don't. Why? Because there aren't any they can reference.

Removing training, and even permits, as a requirement of your citizens would then allow the media to "lump" them with concealed carry folks when it comes to reporting the wackos that commit heinous crimes (at our schools, for instance). That would criminalize law-abiding citizens.

I do have a question for your governor: How would you feel about untrained security personnel surrounding you when you make your next public appearance? I’m sure the President's Secret Service folks have had at least a little training.

So, I'm sorry to say that my wife and I will be looking elsewhere to spend our hard-earned money this summer. Safety and peace of mind have a lot of weight in our vacation plans.

Sincerely,

A person from a state with more brains.

© Emittravel 2015

The Wrong Amendment

Due to the recent tragedy in an elementary school, where a psycho went on a murder spree, the conversation all over has been to implement some form of gun control. People have been either vigorously supporting or voraciously condemning the NRA, and screaming for the elimination of so-called "assault weapons". Everyone has become a constitutional scholar when it comes to interpreting the 2nd Amendment - telling us what the founding fathers did and did not mean when they wrote it.

Understand, as the 2nd Amendment stands, we have the (God-given) right to "bear arms". It doesn't say "muskets", or "rifles", or any specific type of "arms". Many of the founding fathers were men of science, so I'm pretty sure they believed in the advancement of all technologies that further scientific investigation would bring. So, ANY law that puts ANY restriction WHATSOVER on what constitutes "arms", is a direct infringement on that right, and therefore unconstitutional.

The argument to the above is often the 1st Amendment, where laws have been written that create boundaries around what constitutes speech and the freedoms that come with it. You can't slander someone (unless, of course, you are a politician - in or out of an election year) and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What constitutes "arms" in the 2nd Amendment therefore deserve the same type of boundaries. There is a major difference though: unlike the words that come out of our mouths, many of the types of weapons that are up for being abolished are ALREADY in the hands of criminals. Making them illegal only disarms law-abiding citizens. The criminals won't care - that is why they are criminals.

Let's look at this from a different perspective. Who do we really want to keep weapons from? The mentally ill. Think about it: every mass shooting that has taken place was perpetrated by someone who was mentally ill. You can't open fire on kindergartners and be in your right mind. So, mentally ill + gun = death of innocents. Maybe we are attacking this from the wrong angle. What designates someone as mentally ill? Someone with "wrong" ideas concerning reality (by reality I mean that which allows for the social framework to hold together). Where does someone get these wrong ideas? From the things they hear and the things they read.

What is needed is not the expropriation of the 2nd Amendment, but the elimination of the 1st.

Let's get rid of "free speech". Don't let people like me have a platform to share ideas that might disrupt the mainstream. Let the elite, those in our government determine what can be said, what can be printed, and what thoughts can be shared in film and games. After all, since they represent us, and we elected them, surely they would best know what would be appropriate. And once that has become entrenched into our culture, no more mental illness. No more mental illness, no more worry about "assault weapons".

There. Problem solved.

(The above was meant as sarcasm.)

© Emittravel 2013