There’s a post over at Bearing Arms that deals with a slip of the tongue by a Florida politician. Speaking about the suggestion that teachers be allowed to be armed, Sen. Oscar Branynon (D-Miami Gardens) is quoted as saying, “It bothers me to think as a father of two young boys to tell them to not be aggressive to your teacher.”
Aggressive? Speaking up in class to challenge a teacher’s conclusions isn’t aggression. Aggressive behavior would involve threatening a teacher’s (or third party’s) safety. It seems that the senator is saying he wants his sons to have the right to act in threatening ways to their teachers.
And so we see a potential bug in a suggestion to improve public safety: it may limit the options of some members of the Ruling Class to act with impunity.
You see, it’s not about reducing crime. Not really.
Oh, there are some who think it will do just that, but it doesn’t take long to realize that criminals will continue to act like criminals regardless of what tools are available to them.
What the gun control movement is really about is making it so that people have no means to resist. Not only can we not resist criminals, but also a government that wants to run roughshod over the American people. After all, the politics of people who want to curtail our access to firearms are the same people who want to subvert the entire Constitution.
They want us to be like Branynon’s sons’ teachers, unarmed and unable to respond to “aggression.”
Read the whole thing.