The Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer is their go-to for guns and the Second Amendment.
She’s spoken before Congress and she’s spoken on Twitter, now X. Granted, that last isn’t so impressive since I’ve done that too and I’m anything but impressive.
Yet she often speaks on Second Amendment issues and does so very well.
Much of that is at The Heritage Foundation and their news site, The Daily Signal.
As we currently deal with the aftermath of Jacksonville, Swearer is taking issue with what was termed “bumper sticker solutions” to things like mass shootings.
Another gunman targeted innocent victims in another mass public shooting this week, this time in Jacksonville, Florida. The resulting political outcry from gun control activists is as predictable as it is pointless.
They’ll demand red flag laws, waiting periods, and a minimum purchase age for firearms.
Never mind that Florida has had these laws on the books for years—they’ll demand them anyway.
They’ll insist this is why we need so-called universal background checks, either not understanding or not caring that the problem with mass public shooters isn’t that they evade existing background check laws, but that they (with very few exceptions) can and do pass background checks despite clear warning signs. They don’t care, of course, if they further burden common, low-risk gun transfers without in any way addressing the real problem. They just have to “do something.”
They’ll blame the so-called “Charleston Loophole,” the greatly maligned three-day limit on the government’s power to delay a gun transfer while it conducts a background check. It won’t matter in the slightest that Florida “closed” that alleged loophole.
They’ll allege that the shooting is the fault of Florida’s supposedly lax public carry laws. Of course, they’ll forget to mention that mass public shooters don’t care about laws prohibiting murder, much less laws telling them not to carry guns in public. They’ll gloss right over the fact that many shooters even target “no gun zones” precisely because they know law-abiding victims won’t be armed. And they’ll conveniently ignore that the Jacksonville gunman appeared to have the same idea, initially targeting a college campus, where the carrying of firearms is prohibited.
Swearer also points out that mass shooters aren’t going to be inhibited by magazine capacity limits as they bring extra magazines or weapons.
She also notes that the Jacksonville gunman turned away from his first target due to an armed security guard approaching him.
What we know about mass shootings is that those who wish to carry out such an attack will do so. You’re not likely to deter such an attack with new laws. Mass shooters can do horrific things within the framework of any gun control scheme.
That’s why we have, in fact, seen them all over the world despite people thinking of them as uniquely American. They’re not.
If that’s the case, though, then we should be looking elsewhere for solutions to the issue of mass shootings. Unfortunately, we can’t.
We can’t because the media and politicians are so focused on restricting our rights for things we had no hand in doing that they can’t even begin to look beyond gun control. Not that they want to, mind you, but that’s where we’re going to find the solution to ending mass shootings.
Unless, of course, mass shootings are just a pretext for pushing for all the gun control they wanted in the first place, which is pretty damn likely in my book.
If that’s the case, nothing will change, people will be killed, and absolutely nothing will be accomplished because ending the stated problem isn’t the actual goal.
But I’ve become pretty cynical of late, so don’t mind me.