Of Course the NRA Backs Arming Teachers

Following the recent tragedy in Parkland, Florida, the National Rifle Association and President Trump have tried to shift away from the wonderful job high schoolers have done if advocating for gun control onto arming teachers. While some of Trump's proposals (raising age limits on assault weapons, banning bump stocks) are reasonable, even if they don't go far enough to address our national gun violence problem, his idea of arming twenty percent of teachers is ridiculous.

Never mind that they don't want to do it, but that would require training and arming more than one million private and public school teachers around the country. That is a number larger than our armed infantry in the Army.

Of course, it's the one proposal the NRA backs. And why wouldn't they? That's over one million additional guns to be sold by their gun company sponsors, as well as whatever money would be made from gun ranges since teachers would likely have to maintain their training.

Raising the minimum age for assault rifle sales and banning bump stocks will hit the pockets of gun companies and the NRA. Meanwhile, they'll hit payday gold if one million guns are sold to teachers.

So it only makes sense that they'd back this ridiculous proposal that puts more guns into our schools and feet away from our students. Why? The NRA will get rich from it!

It's all about the money.

Nicky Won't Be Going to College in Texas

Nicholas is two-years-old. We're currently working towards getting him into a Fairfax County Public Schools preschool program this fall. So college should be the furthest thing from our minds.

At least, until today.

Moments ago, I read an article on POLITICO that reported that the state of Texas has passed a law giving students and teachers in Texas colleges, who are 21 or older and licensed, the right to carry guns on campus. I, personally, am appalled by this maneuver. The NRA would have you believe that this law will make their college campuses safer because people will think twice about opening fire on campus of there's the chance that they will be shot themselves.

I find this argument flawed. If you look at the history of shootings in colleges, high schools and (sad to say) elementary schools, most of the gunmen involved have taken their own lives. Death is something which these people are already prepared to face. So why would the possibility of being shot by someone else dissuade them from this act when they already intend to take their own life?

It's sad that not even three years after the shooting at Sandy Hook we're talking about the easing of gun laws as opposed to their restricting.

Gun rights activists are so caugh up in their right to own whatever gun they wish that they don't stop think about how times have changed since the Bill of Rights was first written. I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers had laws such as these in mind when they drafted the Second Ammendment. In fact, I'm sure they would have endorsed gun restrictions following the murder of two dozen five-year-olds in their own classroom at school.

When the Second Ammendment was written, many people lived on farms and plantations. Their closest neighbors were miles away. Local law enforcement was scarce and not a 911-phone call away. So many people who lived outside of the cities were isolated and on their own, without the security of relying on help from anyone but themselves. Thus, the Second Ammendment was written to guarantee that these people and their families who lived miles from civilization could defen themselves. After all, relations between Colonial Americans an Native Americans weren't exactly rosy, in addition to the threat of outlaws. These people had to be allowed to defend themselves.

So I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers would look at today's law enforcement officials and believe that the average American needed an AK-47 to defend themselves. Gun rights activists love to tout that they should be armed to defend themselves from our own government, but I think that argument is an insult to the men and women of our Armed Services. After all, I really doubt that any uniformed soldier would obey an order to attack their fellow Americans on American soil. They'd sooner accept dishonorable discharge, which wouldn't be so dishonorable if they're standing up for what's right.

I find the arguments of the far right to be deeply flawed and based in irrational fear. These new development in Texas colleges is quite alarming and I wouldn't be surprised if these schools see both fewer students and teachers. I guess time will tell. As far as I'm concerned, if this law remains in Texas when we're looking at colleges with our kids in fourteen to sixteen years, Texas colleges and any other state that passes similar laws in the future will not be on our list for consideration.

It'll be their loss.