Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth

The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who don’t really think about the issue.

Gun free zones are just another incremental way to move toward total control. The idea is simple: make an example of a place where guns are not allowed, with no rational reason other than “we do not tolerated armed citizens *here*” . This lends legitimacy to the thought that citizens with guns are a bad thing, and the idea that more such zones should be created and encouraged. Haven't we all heard a variant of “If we do not allow guns in (school, legislature, church) then we certainly should not allow them in (school, legislature, church, parking lot, mall, store, DC.)

Gun free zones are designed to grow and spread, like small pox.

The other purpose of gun free zones is to make carrying a gun as uncomfortable, legally dangerous, and impractical as possible. Look at any map that shows the impact of the insane “Gun Free School Zone” act of 1996. In any urban area, it becomes impossible to conduct business in a normal manner while carrying a gun that is not licensed in that state, without breaking the law.

Neither of these clear purposes is discussed openly by those who detest free citizens, fear the power that they gain from carrying guns, and the independent mindset that it fosters.

Those who favor citizen disarmament base their appeal on lies, derive their power from lies, and cannot exist when their lies are exposed.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/gun-free-zones-ugly-truth.html

Perhaps I should have said "legislated" gun free zones, but I thought that was implied.

Those who have the motives that I ascribe do not commonly place those thoughts in the public discourse, and motivations are slippery things.

But to attribute the desire to ban guns from a thousand feet of a school, as somehow contributing to "school safety" seems so clearly disingenious as to lack of another explanation than that given.

I am willing to listen to other motivations that you would suggest.

I have been participating in this discussion and legislative process for about 45 years. There are people who actually believe the points that you bring up; but experience in the last 20 years or so shows that they are generally mistaken in their fears.

However, at the legislative level, those that write the laws that create such things as the "gun free school zones" clearly have an agenda that means to gradually and incrementally disarm the American populace. Sometimes it is directly admited, as by Senator Fienstein or by an intellectual such as Charles Krauthammer. It has been a staple of "progressive" thought for nearly a hundred years.

It is not so easy to document a movement that is based on the belief that it is necessary to decieve the people in order to "advance" society.

So then you must believe that the Texas State Legislature does not allow concealed weapons in public schools because they have a secret pact to take over the world through incremental totatalitarianism? Perfectly logical.

Click to expand...

We existed for hundreds of years without such a prohibition, and we had less problems than today. Then there is a huge media campagn to ban guns in schools and the Federal government passes a law prohibiting guns within a thousand feet of a school, and this is all based on no verifiable benefit. Since the law passed, the number of mass school shootings has quadrupled.

I do not doubt that there are many who actually believe that Gun Free Zones increase safety, but it appears to be because of a media campaign based on "progressive" ideology that has promoted that beleif.

There is no question that the "progressive" belief structure desires to increase government power, degrade the Constitution as old fashioned, and create some sort of "world government" . It also appears to denigrate the idea of God.

If that is your idea of

a secret pact to take over the world through incremental totatalitarianism?

Click to expand...

then, yes I believe that is correct.

There is a pretty simple answer as to what places should be "gun free". It may not be perfect, but It solves most problems.

It is this: If police are allowed to be armed there, then so should other citizens. This takes care of prisons and most courtrooms. If it is truely dangerous to have guns in a location, then the police should not be allowed to have guns there either.

Another thing to consider is the actual effect of legislation rather than its stated purpose. More often than not, legislation is given a stated purpose that has nothing to do with its intended effect, simply as an artifice to help pass it into law.

I think it is more important to look at the actual effects of legislation rather than the stated purposes. As I have already said, motivations are slippery things, and many people are very good at lying to themselves.