‘Stoneman Shooting’ Points to Need for One Gun Law that Could Have Made a Difference

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Another school shooting” has rocked America, once more bringing out how divided the country is on guns. As we’ve seen before, angry words are being hurled by raging zealots manifesting their hatred of those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and accusing NRA of having “blood on its hands.” As usual, we see opportunistic and strident “progressive” politicians, cheerleading “journalists” and foaming-at-the-mouth “celebrities” egging that on, and posturing loudly for new “gun laws.”

“Debate” with fanatics vested in citizen disarmament is a wasted effort. At best, those attempting to inject reality into the public discourse may help enlighten those who may not have given the matter close scrutiny and retain open minds. As for those whose minds are on lockdown, ask what laws would have made a difference in the atrocity at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. You’ll get the same tired old platitudes.

Background checks? How have those worked at “stopping the violence” in places like Chicago? Besides, the suspect reportedly passed one.

Banning so-called “assault weapons”? Those represent only a small fraction of homicides committed with firearms, so anyone seriously proposing that needs to also demand a ban on handguns.

Nancy Pelosi finally admitted the “slippery slope” gun-grabbers used to ridicule as “paranoid,” but which the founders of the modern disarmament movement freely admitted to. And lest you think banning  all guns hasn’t been a long-term goal, check out what I found from the Jan. 1968 issue of GUNS Magazine while doing some research:

So much for the lie that “No one is talking about taking your guns.” Of course, they are. That’s the endgame, or at least the beginning of the endgame. And that’s why some of us will resist giving another inch.

OK, so if guns are at a stalemate, what about identifying common factors to stop killers before they can strike? Really? A Department of Precrime…?

There are plenty of conflicting reports about the suspect’s mental state, temperament, politics, and ideology, the latter being brought out by some simply to play “Gotcha!” And people are naturally curious about such aberrations in their midst, so some information gets put out that later turns out to be inaccurate. We’re still finding out much about him, not that the finger-pointing matters in terms of resolving anything. And our finding out is being hampered anyway now that the suspect’s social media presence is being taken down, forcing the public to rely on major media passing along what civil authority wants them to know.

The only relevant ideology is that he is twisted and evil. No one in his right mind advocates killing innocents.

Speaking of “right mind,” how about the “fact” that “everybody knew” the suspect was a likely school shooter?  Even the FBI had been informed and they didn’t follow up properly!

While we don’t know what they legally could have done, it’s tempting to believe they could have taken the suspect out of the general populace and saved lives.

On what grounds? We can’t throw away due process. Recall that despite “three interactions,” cops from a few years back say they didn’t have enough evidence to remove the Isla Vista killer from circulation (which, among other things, was a spectacular admission of how California gun registration has proven useless at preventing anything.)

So I’m saying that’s just the way it is? Nothing can be done?

Not at all. There is one “gun law” that at least had the potential to make a difference, but it was being infringed by “gun free school zone” edicts.  Broward County Public Schools, of which Stoneman Douglas is part, explains on its website:

But don’t look for the Second Amendment to be recognized any time soon by our representatives or the courts as “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Instead, look for renewed demands to enact even more citizen disarmament edicts.

We’ll see if this puts the kibosh on Republican stomach for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity with the midterms coming up. And don’t be surprised if some “gun rights leaders” — prone to endorsing “compromises” on things like “bump stocks” or “Fix NICS”  — decide it’s time to offer another olive branch to those who want nothing less than everything.

The proper response of course, fromr those who would “guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” is to respond to gun ban demands with one word:

“No.” You can add “Your move” for effect.

For those who still insist on the disarmament we see so many calling for, I have one question:

How many men who resist are you willing to see killed in order to make that happen?

Don’t be surprised if some of the more emotion-driven and restraint-challenged reply “All of you.”

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.