Taking Back America By Taking Back Our Schools
(I have inserted my snarky comments in red-just part of my personal therapy-admin.)
Posted: Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:39 am | Updated: 4:01 pm, Sat Jan 19, 2013.
Scarp: A comprehensive approach from our politial leaders, for a ch...By Mark Scarp, contributing columnis tEast Valley Tribune
An idea that has so far escaped our state’s politicians in the long and weary immigration debate has surfaced relatively early in the gun-violence debate: comprehensive reform.
Well, not completely comprehensive, but it is a laudable (laughable) start.
As the Tribune’s Michelle Reese reported last week, state Sen. Rich Crandall, R(INO)-Mesa, joining with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and the president of the National Association of Resource Officers (looking for more gubmint jobs), Kevin Quinn, announced a plan to add more school resources officers to Arizona schools while increasing the ranks of school guidance counselors and stronger emphasis on determining mental illness (great! This will also help keep an eye out for “bullying” by keeping a well armed, government funded bully on, government funded, school property at all times- well, it’s not bullying if the state does it...right? What’s next? Badges with RFID devices imbedded? OH, that’s right, many schools are already doing that. Well, this will certainly create that “safe” environment we’ve all been looking for-just like prison. And, this will certainly prepare kids for a life of being constantly surveilled by the state - kinda gets them used to it).
The proposal is estimated to cost more than $30 million, which could be drawn from sources other than the state general fund and would need voter approval (read: unfunded mandate requiring yet another proposition designed to “save the children” while bleeding the taxpayers dry so that all children will eventually be raised by the State except for the children of elitists like Crandall), Reese reported.
Here’s the not entirely comprehensive part: While touching on several areas, it doesn’t cover everything. Nothing is there about further regulating guns or ammunition, which overwhelming majorities of Americans believe is part of the solution (by all means, punish law abiding citizens as the first step to any “comprehensive” solution).
The Pew Center for the People and the Press last Monday released results of a national poll (evtnow.com/504) showing 85 percent of Americans support background checks for purchasers of guns at gun shows or from private sellers. This view is expressed by similar majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats (Of course, this measure would do absolutely nothing to make our schools safer-just makes the citizens feel more like surfs-which it the whole point). The Pew Center survey found 80 percent back legislation that would keep the mentally ill from buying guns, once again with the solid support among members of both major parties and independents (Who is defining mental illness here? The typical secular-nihilist psych doc? Don’t suppose they would include Tea Party members and veterans in that “less than totally sane” demographic). And, are these the same shrinks that gave psychotropic drugs to mass murders? I'm sure that's purely a coincidence).
Regarding a ban on assault-style weapons (notice it said assault “style” weapons because they are NOT fully automatic weapons and have no more capability than a deer rifle-they just look aweful scarwy), Americans are more evenly divided, with only 55 percent in favor, according to the poll results. The Jan. 9-13 poll of 1,502 U.S. adults and has a plus-or-minus 2.9 percent margin of error (of course most Americans are ignorant of the details because that is what the media appears to see it’s job as these days-pushing a Marxo-Fascist agenda while hiding the truth from the public. Totalitarian police state, here we come!).
As their proposal lacks any solutions about guns themselves (and of course GUNS are evil, and must be more tightly controlled like everything else in society since ANYTHING is potentially dangerous) it looks like Crandall, Babeu and Quinn are letting Congress take on these matters (more like allowing Obama’s 23 executive orders to take on these maters), which leaves them not having to take on the gun lobby here in Arizona (gun lobby? How about Police State lobby-like the goon who wrote this article?).
If we have learned anything from the immigration issue, it is that only through several solutions aimed at several contributing causes is anything going to work (when has anything been done that worked?). Political posturing about picking which one to do first before any of the others — Democrats want relaxed restrictions while Republicans want border security, while neither side actually defines either (control the border or not control the border-that is the question) — has kept the matter unresolved for several years. That lack of resolution has had profound effects on the economy and on the lives of millions of people, citizens and non-citizens (hardly anyone in DC thinks in terms of economics-or the “lives of millions of people, citizens and non-citizens”- they're a bunch of sociopaths grasping for power-DUH!).
At least, Crandall and company’s proposal involves some aspects of the gun-violence issue (you mean population control). But it is important to point out that at best they — as well as restrictions on getting guns themselves — can only minimize, not eliminate, the possibility of violent deaths of children and adults (truly an insane statement – it doesn’t even warrant a response – the lunacy is staggering) . Still, minimizing such tragedy even without eliminating it remains a worthy goal (ZERO proof of this) .
Yet it is something to keep in mind as solutions are considered. Just as banning certain kinds of weapons won’t cure the nation from the scourge of such violence — both Kennedy brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were killed by people using legally available guns, for example (THANKS FOR MAKING MY POINT!) — neither will increasing the number of cops on campus (READ: INCREASE THE CONTROL OF THE STATE OVER THE STUDENT POPULATION).
Certainly a cop at the right place at the right time could be in a position to minimize death and injury. But armed only with a service revolver, even the most earnest, heroic officer is hardly a match for a madman having much more firepower.
Again, these are not arguments against more cops or several other ideas. The more prongs of the attack on gun violence, the better (So, more control by the the state exerted over the innocent law abiding citizen will somehow limit the actions of the evil criminals? Stunning logic). But they have limits. I don’t know too many people calling for police officers on campus with assault-style weapons of their own slung over their shoulders (no, that would be scarwy), for example.
Since the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., Americans are tired of rhetoric and want real action, not watered-down feel-good action (which is exactly what the author if this datribe is calling for) that lawmakers so often end up giving them.
The absolutist arguments are wearing thin. An absolute ban on certain weapons might not eliminate every high-powered assault (or ANY high-powered assault), but should we give up on installing traffic lights because there will always be people who disregard them and endanger lives (Let’s just put up a traffic light in the classroom that says “don’t kill kids” and call it a day-it'll have as much effect)? The same could be said about anyone who favors eliminating background checks entirely as a Second Amendment argument.
Crandall, Babeu and Quinn are to be commended (condemned) for unveiling a great (misguided) start for discussion of this vital issue. It approaches the issue from several fronts, which is what the public is demanding. It will come down to how comprehensive is comprehensive (hey totalitarian is comprehensive, right?), however, and as the gun debate continues we should remember it is this consideration that has kept the nation from doing anything about immigration (totally missing the mark on this one).
(I think the sanity of this contributing columnist should be tested before anyone who wishes to buy a gun to protect themselves, their family and property)
Read Tribune contributing columnist Mark J. Scarp’s opinions here on Sundays. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org.