Are they hearing themselves?
Do they get what they’re proposing?
Has their time in office so rattled their brains that they’ve become unable to understand the words?
As predicted, the political response to the demands of the children who survived and the parents whose children did not survive has offered more, and more vicious, B.S. More vicious B.S. or simply more pandering to the all-powerful NRA.
So, Miss Fidditch would like to parse a couple of these responses to see what they actually mean.
One of the responses is “longer waiting time and/or raising the age to buy assault weapons.”
The operative words here are not “longer waiting time” or “raising the age.” The operative words are “assault weapons.” Let’s check in with Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary for this one.
Both sources make it clear that “assault” is about a violent attack, physical or military, intended to cause bodily harm or to put a person in “immediate danger.”
Assault weapons aid in such a violent attack. So the question becomes, “Why are people so bent on defending themselves (the Second Amendment rabble rousers) buying assault weapons at all?” And why are we selling assault weapons in our country by the millions?
Assault weapons that are NOT used for defense but for attacks in domestic violence cases, school shootings, going after anything the shooter doesn’t like – employees in former work places, workers at abortion clinics, people out for a night of fun at dance parties, outdoor concert-goers in Las Vegas, you name it. Guns for defense? Hardly.
The second proposal that’s stuck in semantic hell is the idea of arming teachers. And here’s where Miss Fidditch does a head spin and says with widening eyes, “Say wha?”
We’re going to fight the gun problem with MORE guns?
What a classic response from those with the billions whose lives revolve around the ideas of More, More, More? Got a problem? More of anything should fix it.
In the case of guns, this proposal is tantamount to declaring war – real war – in our country. But, Miss Fidditch hears them say, “We’ll train the teachers to use their guns.” Like the trained police who have been taking down unarmed citizens all over America?
This is hardly reassuring to a parent or grandparent or any thoughtful citizen, hiring NRA-qualified teachers who may not know how to teach what the kids need to know but can by God take down a potential shooter in a heartbeat. “Oh, wait, that kid was just reaching for a pencil in his pocket. Damn. Sorry.”
The idea of arming teachers, even some of them, in the schools is an idea that could only happen in the minds of politicians who do NOT, do NOT want to offend the NRA and come face-to-face with the out-of-control gun-slinging situation in our country. Trump even continues to applaud the damn fine NRA leaders. The grieving parents did not join him in this.
There was a time when teachers taught. Sadly that time is changing because the politicians just CANNOT give up that support from the NRA. And it’s not just the money. It’s the card-carrying yahoo mindset that cheered Trump on from their Barcaloungers and think he’s doing a swell job as long as they can keep their assault weapons.
For Miss Fidditch’s money, arming the teachers has another, insidious sub-text: When the fire-arm trained teachers are unable to save the kids in case of attack (the true use of assault weapons) because they can’t get the gun safe open or they’re too frightened themselves to shoot or they’ve already been shot (first target of the shooter), the politicians including – oh, being led by – Mr. Politician in Chief who have to blame somebody, anybody, other than themselves will blame the teachers. And that’s a truly sad and frightening prospect.
Could we for once take a page from another country’s book instead of thinking we have all the answers?
Countries like Australia, the UK, Japan?
Miss Fidditch hates to be the one to break the news, but the NRA and U.S. politicians supported by them are not always the smartest guys in the room. Not even close.