Shortly after the shooting on Feb. 14, at a high school in Parkland, Fla., where 17 innocent people, 14 of them students, were gunned down by crazed, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz (a former student at the school), I saw a graphic by the artist Branco that seemed to sum up both sides of the gun debate.
A gunman, wearing a shirt that said Next School Shooter, was holding an assault rifle and standing at a crossroads.
To his left was School A and to his right was School B. The only difference was that the sign to the left said “Armed Staff on Duty” and the sign to the right said “Gun Free Zone.”
We all know that if a hundred or a thousand or 10,000 liberal parents were asked which school they hoped their child or children attended, it would be the school with armed security.
Why? Because armed security would give their child the best chance of survival.
But even though they would secretly choose that option, they would say something quite different in public.
Or they would send their children out to lobby against guns, as we witnessed in the so-called spontaneous March for Life – although isn’t it strange that permits for that march were submitted a full month before it took place?
Or they would appoint––or anoint – a spokesman like the uniquely alienating and foul-mouthed David Hogg to plead their none-too-convincing case that it was a gun and not the criminal negligence of Parkland’s sheriff (who told his men to stand down), the FBI and police (which ignored numerous threats by Cruz), and school officials who had received dozens of complaints about Cruz’s menacing warnings to carry out a school shooting.
All of them did – wait for it – nothing!
Even Roxanne Deschamps, the woman who volunteered to care for the young man after his mother died, pleaded with authorities to stop his violence…but nada.
Interestingly, a week later, a 17-year-old who shot and injured two students in Great Mills High School in Maryland was shot dead by a security officer, but most people never heard about that siege because the leftist media is fixated on gun confiscation and not on the power of guns to stop crime.
The Parkland shooting reminds me of another shooting a couple of years ago in which liberals came out in great numbers to, again, lobby for “gun control.”
But when a reporter handed them a “No Gun Zone” sign and asked if they would put the sign on the lawns in front of their own homes, they all said no.
Why? Because they didn’t want to alert a crook that they had no defense against a home invasion, robbery, rape, assault, or murder.
Bottom line, liberals, leftists, progressives – whatever they’re calling themselves these days – want to confiscate every gun in America, the better to actualize their dream, indeed their mission, to cede absolute power to Big Government, the nanny state they so fervently believe in.
That is because in order to actualize the one-world government – ruled by themselves, of course – they desire, they have to rid the system of national sovereignty, individual freedom, and ownership of personal property, including the guns with which to fight against such tyranny.
They don’t admit this, of course. They couch their “concern” by asking for better mental health screening, a higher age to buy a gun, etc. But like the salami tactics they use for every other issue, they will never settle for anything less than a gun-free America.
I won’t go into the very same “philosophy” that Hitler both advocated and succeeded in achieving…to such a degree that the 6 million Jews he led to their grisly deaths had no defenses.
Thankfully, most Americans are not liberals. They have learned from history and will never allow the Rodney King “can’t we all get along” Party to prevail.
Joan Swirsky
Great Neck
