Texas Congressman and GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul continues to champion constitutional rights. His latest endeavor is a bill that would abolish “gun-free zones,” ultimately permitting teachers to carry firearms on school grounds. Predictably, anti-gun groups are calling the legislation “extremist.”Well, that's no surprise. Ron Paul is the hero of those who hate to be told what to do and what they can't do. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, the only thing that matters is the authority demanding obedience must be resisted.
The most fascinating part of the article, biased as it is with the only reference to the opposition being that they find it "extremist," is the incredible spin job that Gottlieb does. Get a load of this history lesson.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said that despite the intentions of the School Zones Act, it ultimately created “target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building.”The pro-gun crowd are the first to cry that correlation does not equal causation, yet they'd flock around in support of their lawyer-hero Alan Gottlieb when he says nonsense like this.
"This sort of thing didn't happen before the advent of gun-free school zone laws," Gottlieb said. "You never saw such an outrage in the days when high schools typically had rifle teams, and – particularly in the West – where it was common in the fall to find both teachers and students with hunting rifles or shotguns locked in their cars.”
I suppose the idea is the REASON there were no mass shootings at schools in the good old days is BECAUSE folks had guns. Does that make sense to you? Why didn't that work in Akron Ohio the other day, or in Grand Prarie Texas last month? Those are both fairly rich gun environments.
Isn't it true that the phenomenon of mass shootings is a fairly recent one? There were examples years ago, but they were few and far between. Nowadays, thanks to the ever-increasing gun availability and lax gun regulations, they are anything but few and far between.
What's your opinion? Do you believe that basic premise that "monsters" choose gun-free target-rich environments for their massacres? Do you like the basic idea of arming more of the good guys in order to offset the increasing numbers of bad guys with guns?
Please tell us what you think? Leave a comment.
