Over the past month I've listened to gun control advocates, as well as those who claim to be on the side of the Second Amendment, but push for big government solutions to school shootings. In both instances, the solution is viewed as coming from the State, not the people. I take issue with that. I actually believe the rhetoric that Republicans espouse every election cycle and that is the need for "government to get out of the way, because they are the problem."

Yesterday Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced her "Assault Weapons Ban" bill in the Senate. Eight gun control bills were introduced on the first day of Congress. Barack Obama set forth 23 executive orders pointed at gun control. All of these are infringements on the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

I think an understanding of what took place in history leading up to the War for Independence and knowing what the straw that broke the camel's back was is vitally important here. It was, in essence, gun control.

But consider that not one of these proposals will stop a mass shooting. Some will define who breaks the law, but will not actually stop anyone from breaking the law, while executive orders will simply give directive to those under Obama's authority to do certain things, including using tax dollars to promote and anti-gun agenda. I suspect that will be the "brain washing" that Attorney General Eric Holder believes in.

So, the question is always put forth, "What can be done to stop mass shootings?" The answer? I think it's clear. There is nothing that can be done to stop them. In fact, Regis Giles of GirlsJustWannaHaveFun.com writes an excellent article on why this is the case. She writes,

There is something that I should confess. Ideally, I wish we didn’t have to use guns and that guns did not exist. Ideally, I wish there was no violence in the world and world peace did exist. Honestly, I would like to see every human treat their neighbor as they would treat themselves. In my perfect world, I wish we could remove all the evil people and leave the good people.

Life would be great and one huge party! Who wouldn’t want that?

Realistically though, this is impossible because the line that separates the good person from the evil one goes straight through the heart of every human being. In reality, the fewer guns the good people have the more of a target they become. In the world in which we live presently, to have peace we must prepare for war.

I agree with her assessment. We do not live in a Utopia. There are men and women who are bent on evil and imposing restrictions on law abiding citizens because evil people do evil things only endangers those obeying the law. Restricting the liberty of the people because of a few that will not obey the law is tyranny, not liberty, and certainly not safety or security.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

--Thomas Jefferson

So my proposal has been a small government, Second Amendment approach to, at least, dealing with public schools. I'll tell you up front that I'm not a fan of public education. As I see it, education is the parents responsibility, not the State's. When we look to the State for education, then we should not be surprised when that system turns out statists as its citizens.

First, remove the legislation that deems certain places "Gun Free Zones." It should never have been put in place to begin with. In fact, remove such terminology from anywhere in the United States. There should be no such place in existence in the country that is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens to both "keep and bear arms." The government and public schools should have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens carrying their weapons with them into certain buildings. After all, they are law abiding.

Second, by doing this it would allow for school officials to carry their own firearms and ammunition onto school property, thus allowing them to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

How would this be superior to what the Left is offering, and I might add, to what the National Rifle Association has proposed with its SHIELD program?

I think when it comes to the Democrats proposals that issue should be pretty clear. It allows people to be free and exercise their liberty that is supposed to be protected by these public servants under the Constitution. It is what they swore and oath to support.

Additionally, imagine that every teacher, or even most teachers, and principals took seriously the proposition to purchase a firearm, become familiar with it, train with it, and be able to carry concealed at school. An people educated about firearms are not afraid of firearms. They respect them and use them properly.

As for the difference to the NRA's proposals, I actually would have liked to have seen them stand up for Second Amendment rights first and called for a complete removal of "Gun Free Zones." However, there is no doubt that calling upon Congress to put armed officers at every school will mean bigger government. That is just how things work. Also, having an armed officer at every school is not a deterrent in the least to criminals. It's simply one man somewhere on the property that might be able to stop such a person who is intent on mass killing.

However, school officials and teachers being armed would definitely hinder those who might come in because they would know guns were permitted and they wouldn't know who had them. Second, there would be literally an army of teachers and others who would be ready to take action against such people rather than be like the women at Sandy Hook, who bravely tried to use their own bodies to take down the shooter. That is the real war on women from the Left. They want disarmed women who must grovel to the government to protect them and save them, when they have the means of doing that as a protected right under the Constitution.

As an example that the school officer doesn't really work, I can just point to the most infamous school shooting in America, Columbine. Having one there did not stop Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris from doing what they did. I don't discount the fact that the officer and others who arrived probably saved lives, but imagine that all the teachers were armed. How many lives could have been saved that day? Yes, it is a what if, but as for our future, it is all hypothetical to us. I simply see one option as better, involves less government, and is more Constitutional than any of the other proposals.

Freedom is always preferable to slavery. Liberty is always demands more individual responsibility than tyranny. We must not cower in the shadows and plead with government to save us with laws that don't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and that restrict the access of law abiding citizens to the weapons of their choice to protect themselves, their loved ones, their property and yes, if necessary, defend against their own government.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.