First the Kansas State Legislature shows utter contempt and disregard for their safety by exempting school buildings from the great new law that prevents cities from having gun-free zones without armed security officers and metal detectors at every door, and now those liberal hippies at major insurance companies are dropping coverage of school districts that allow teachers to carry concealed guns in the classroom.
I have recently been educated in the finer points of the Second Amendment after my last column where I said I didn't believe that we needed more guns at local city meetings or public libraries.
Now I know that more guns equals more safe. In fact, I learned that there has never been a mass shooting at an NRA conference. That is undeniable proof that more guns means people are more safe.
It's undeniable, people. Stop denying it.
That's why I don't understand the backwards logic of the state legislature and now these insurance companies.
Haven't most mass shootings happened at schools? Columbine, Virginia Tech and Newtown are just a few examples of how gun-free zones turn schools into high-risk areas.
If you don't know by now that teachers and principals carrying guns would have stopped these massacres by discouraging the attackers you obviously missed your copy of NRA This Week and will need to submit yourself for reindoctrination.
So far, no school districts have bucked their hippie overlords at these insurance companies who use their silly statistics and actuarial tables to make fact-based decisions. No district in the state has enacted a conceal carry policy to allow their teachers and administrators to pack a little heat in the hallways.
I don't understand. More guns equals more safe. It's Orwellian, but it almost has to be true.
Wasn't that what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment?
Some people think this intractable amendment was intended to allow men (not women of course, because they weren't even allowed to own land or vote when the amendment was passed) to carry a gun anywhere they wanted to - even public schools (which, of course, didn't exist at the time, but the framers probably knew they were coming and intended the right to extend into every arena the future would hold).
Didn't Aaron Burr kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel? What a great way to break a tie vote at city council and school board meetings.
Sure, it would be hard to get a quorum for a while afterward. But the fact that we still have duels to end public debates is proof of how we haven't changed at all in the two centuries since the Second Amendment was passed.
Page 2 of 2 - We have changed a lot in the past 200 years and we can be safe without strapping on our sidearm and mounting our trusty steed to head to the back 40 for a good day's work.
Look, I know many people don't understand why I don't want them carrying a gun to a meeting I am going to cover. I am a proponent of Second Amendment rights that allow you to own a gun for hunting or to protect your home.
I have owned guns and you will never know if I have one now unless you break into my house and find out how I defend my property.
However, I will never believe that people have a real need to carry a gun to a public forum or the children's reading hour at the public library.
That's extremism, plain and simple.
The fact that so many "responsible" gun owners spent most of their time after my last visit to this topic congratulating themselves and other conceal carry permit holders for not shooting me "yet" seemed to validate those concerns.
I really don't want to find out how much we have to disagree before someone decides they are justified in taking me out.
Second Amendment rights are important. People should have a right to hunt and defend their homes.
But nothing about the Second Amendment was intended to allow anyone to carry any kind of gun anywhere they choose. That's an abuse of the rights the framers provided.
Now, back to my copy of NRA This Week. I don't look at the pictures. I just read the articles.