Let’s say you’re someone who carries a firearm on a regular basis. For the sake of argument, let’s say you’re someone who legitimately has reason to believe you may be targeted for a crime due to something other than chance. Maybe you carry a lot of money around, making you a potential target for robbery. Maybe you’re someone who has gotten a number of death threats. Perhaps you’re a single mother who has a stalker you’re concerned about.
Now, imagine you’re any of these people and after you leave the house in the morning, you have to take your kids to school.
In theory, it shouldn’t be a big deal. You’ve got a permit, for crying out loud. You shouldn’t need one, but the law says you do and you’re complying with the law. You shouldn’t have an issue dropping your kid off at school with your weapon on your person.
Yet in many states, that actually is a problem.
What’s worse, in Iowa, some people are upset by a bill that seeks to change that.
Several groups and some teenagers from Des Moines spoke out against the proposal. They point to gun violence hitting close to home, with four teenagers dying in the first five weeks of this year.
Members of the ‘We Can End Gun Violence Coalition’ argue it would lead to fewer restrictions on guns.
“We’re not saying people don’t have gun rights,” said Rep. Jennifer Frost (D-Windsor Heights). “We’re all hunters or know hunters, but we’re trying to make sure common-sense gun safety gas a place in Iowa.”
Of course, hunting has absolutely nothing to do with this and Frost either knows this or is literally too stupid to muster enough brainpower to breathe without a constant reminder.
This is about people being able to exercise their constitutional right to protect themselves.
At the top of this post, I mentioned people who have a higher probability of being the victim of a crime than most folks, but that was to make a point. Overall, anyone can be the victim of a crime on any given day. In fact, on any given day, someone will be the victim of a violent crime. Allowing parents who drop their kids off while armed doesn’t really change that fact. It doesn’t increase the odds of someone being a victim, either.
What it does do, though, is making it so law-abiding citizens don’t have to fool with trying to disarm for that one given errand and then try to re-arm themselves after they’re clear.
God knows the criminals aren’t. They’re ignoring those laws and carrying a gun anywhere they please, up to and including inside the schools themselves.
So why do people like Frost oppose this measure? The answer is simple. They want any wedge they can get on gun control. At some point, when they try to expand gun control, they’ll use things like this to justify the next law, which will then be used to justify the next law. On and on it will go until Iowa looks like Illinois.
All gun control has the same endgame, which is total disarmament. Let’s not forget that. They’re just content to take what they can get now, all so they can take more tomorrow.