Newtown has now joined the ranks of Columbine, Aurora, and Virginia Tech as ominous names that evoke memories of tragic violence. This one stings especially because 20 children, ages six and seven, were among the 26 murdered at the hitherto tranquil Sandy Hook Elementary School by a punk named Adam Lanza.
Celebrities and news anchors self-flagellated and slobbered as the grisly details flooded in—many of them false, as it turned out—but it goes without saying that all morally sane people were saddened and angered at hearing the news of the slaughter of 20 little children, not to mention the brave teachers who shielded their bodies.
“Now is not the time to politicize this event” was heard early on, which, like the fallacy of skepticism, was a sure indication that the opposite was already occurring. Indeed, the very language of the reporting, rooted in both fact and speculation, came locked and loaded and aimed at restricting private gun ownership. Immediately, the conscious whoops! of confusing automatic and semiautomatic weapons appeared. Writers and reporters wondered aloud about the need for any private citizen to own ammunition designed to “fragment once it enters the body.” Like the ironic preface no offense, many a statement by politicians began with that old stand-by, “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, and I support the rights of hunters and sportsmen and those who own guns for personal protection in their homes.”
“But,” they continued, “no one is safe so long as assault weapons are legal to purchase and own.”
Two days after the shooting, President Obama spoke at a prayer vigil in Newtown. Delivering his emotional speech, the President included reflections on the fact that he, too, is a parent, and that parents rely on others to keep their children safe. Of course, both statements are true. But it does not necessarily follow, then, that “in that way we come to realize that we bear responsibility for every child, . . . that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.”
You can see where this is going—or maybe not, since conservatives like “Morning Joe” Scarborough are falling prey to this ultraleft reasoning. “Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?” asks the President. “[I]f we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.”
Think about that logic for a moment. Your actions in Bastrop, Texas, and Nome, Alaska, purportedly affect the safety of children in Boston, Massachusetts, and Maui, Hawaii. If some weapon poses a potential threat to children anywhere, it poses a threat everywhere, and if that threat ever materializes, you, dear reader, bear some of the blame, since you are part of the we who has hitherto shirked your “obligation” to all children. “If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town,” said the President, “from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try.” (For some odd reason, Waco and Ruby Ridge were left off the list of places where gun violence resulted in the death of children.)
Setting aside abortion-on-demand for the sake of argument, I can still think of a lot of ways to save one more child, from mandatory bullet-proof vests to dismantling all public schools to outlawing automobiles to making premarital sex a felony. If I were more inclined toward a police state, I could propose a diversion of enough resources to place an armed guard in every elementary school in America, which is exactly what the NRA has done.
Politicians from both sides of the aisle are demanding that we do something now in response to this horrible event—arm the teachers, disarm the mentally ill, take away large-capacity clips. The President concedes that “no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.”
The do-something-now, we-can-do-better reaction is puerile. It is the product of an immature mind that must have its nightmares salved by Mommy and Daddy: There’s no such thing as monsters, Sweetheart. Nothing’s gonna hurt you. But the truth is, there are monsters among us. Take away those 30-round clips, and watch the next Eric Harris wreak havoc with buckshot from one of those as-yet protected hunting weapons. Outlaw semiautomatic rifles and watch the next Adam Lanza get creative with a fertilizer bomb, a knife, a can of gasoline—whatever is available.
Little children, like the victims of Newtown, should have their fears allayed by moms and (especially) dads who are not afraid to protect them with the largest gun available. But ours is a culture that coddles not kids but Klebolds, who are taught not to be men who protect the weak but perpetual teenagers who live for orgasms and get off on cruelty. It is utterly foolish, insane, and ridiculous to think that taking away a particular sort of gun, or all guns, would stop the rising malevolence of a generation reared in Adam Lanza’s America. Even armed to the teeth (which I heartily endorse), we’re still sitting ducks.