“Now, it’s easy to knee-jerk this one, believing this sort of regulation is indeed common sense. After all, no one wants children to have unsupervised access to firearms. But, upon closer examination, the issue is multi-faceted.”
The AP is reporting a story that highlights the “bubble” phenomenon, a mentality where people convince themselves that other political points of view are “extreme” while their own are simply mainstream “common sense.”
A Des Moines Register editorial on this issue published on December 20, 2017 demonstrates that newspaper’s editorial hubris as it provides a perfect view from within the leftist bubble: “Some things don’t require legislative debate. Some things should be obvious: Loaded firearms don’t belong in childcare settings.”
Do they really think childcare center staff will lean AR-15’s in corners of the room and lay out Glock 17’s on craft tables among the Crayola crayons and Play-Doh? Even if they did such a ridiculous thing, it would already qualify as a crime. At the least, reckless endangerment.
Think about it. These leftist elites don’t want to discuss the issue with anyone who might disagree with them. They’re right, and you’re wrong. What else needs to be said? Well, actually a lot.
The Iowa Department of Human Services, an administrative, not a legislative body, took it upon themselves to initiate a far-reaching proposal that would restrict certain Iowans from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
It’s like recognizing the people’s right to write a political article (freedom of speech) but then making it illegal to possess the instruments necessary to write.
Among other restrictive mandates, the proposal would have set rules requiring that guns present in child care centers be locked away, separate from their ammunition. Separate from ammunition is key here, so stay tuned. This would also apply to private home-based childcare centers. The chairman of the DHS advisory council, Mark Anderson, in a similar tone as the Register editorial, said, “the proposal seemed like common sense regulation.” I’ll accept that Mr. Anderson’s and the Register’s editorial staff’s intent to keep kids safe may be sincere, but aren’t they simply demonstrating that common sense isn’t all that common?
Now, it’s easy to knee-jerk this one, believing this sort of regulation is indeed common sense. After all, no one wants children to have unsupervised access to firearms. But, upon closer examination, the issue is multi-faceted. For example, what if a childcare center operator considers armed security, in the form of owners, staff, or hired security officers, a part of its security strategy to keep kids they’re responsible for safe? Wouldn’t this legislation prohibit them from having this choice? Is this something the DHS considered?
Would the operator of a childcare center, while on the premises, be allowed to carry a concealed firearm on his or her person? Doesn’t sound like it. As mentioned above, and is worth repeating, it appears the rules would mandate any firearms be locked away, separate from ammunition. Meaning, the gun would be unloaded, difficult to retrieve, and, once in your hand, not of much use without ammo.
I’ll accept that Mr. Anderson’s and the Register’s editorial staff’s intent to keep kids safe may be sincere, but aren’t they simply demonstrating that common sense isn’t all that common?
In the event of the unthinkable and unlikely, but all too possible, attack by an armed assailant, it is extremely doubtful in this scenario that a good guy with a gun could respond to a bad guy with a gun. Can Mr. Anderson or the Register’s editorial staff guarantee every child care center’s safety from such an attack? Of course, they can’t. So, by taking the most effective security options away from business owners, what are they supposed to do to protect themselves and the kids? These are only some of the valid issues that all sides need to discuss.
The DHS edict would also “ban loaded guns in vehicles transporting the center’s children.” Again, what if the childcare center operators and parents want firearms to be a part of their security strategy at the childcare center and on the road? Having a gun and not needing it is great; needing a gun and not having one – one of the worst feelings you can have. Having a firearm is a matter of being prepared, not paranoid.
One facet of the regulations would require center operators notify parents that there is a firearm on the premises. That seems reasonable – I suppose. But, if so, shouldn’t there also be rules to notify parents about such items as poisonous substances, hazardous chemicals, medications, lighters, a swimming pool, a fireplace, gas stove, etc. on the premises? These items, and others, can also be dangerous to children, right?
This is not to say that a discussion of how guns should be maintained in a child care situation shouldn’t happen, it should, but only by all affected parties. Not just the rules-makers who can’t seem to conceive of being wrong, or of someone they don’t agree with being right.
Once again, we have to ask government administrators and leftist newspaper editorial staff a question: do you believe people have a right to defend themselves against an attacker, especially one armed with a deadly weapon? If so, how would you have people exercise their right to self-defense? Call the police?
I’ve got news for you, folks. Most times, the cops are not going to get there in time to save you from an armed intruder. However, police will get there in plenty of time to investigate your, or someone else’s, murder.
If we have a God-given right to self-defense, how can government restrict law-abiding Americans from the most efficient method of self-defense, a gun? It’s like recognizing the people’s right to write a political article (freedom of speech) but then making it illegal to possess the instruments necessary to write. I can see it now. Government pen, pencil, and keyboard buy-back programs. Wait. With all the talk about “hate speech” (including written) becoming “hate crimes,” I shouldn’t give the left any ideas.
Fortunately, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) is tugging on the DHS’s reigns, slowing down this clear attempt at a unilateral, backdoor, administrative assault on Iowan’s gun rights. Reynolds said, “I think we want to bring all stakeholders to the table. We want to make sure we’re looking at it from all perspectives, and then decide.” Now, that’s what I call common sense.
Due to the Governor’s actions, the DHS withdrew the rules proposal. It also retracted the proposal’s legislative consideration by the Administrative Rules Review Committee. Senator Mark Chelgren (R-Iowa), who serves on the review committee, reportedly believes administrators should not make such broad policy changes. Elected legislators should.
More common sense? How refreshing.
But don’t relax. Keep eternal vigilance in mind. These leftist administrators, who act as if their communities are their own little socialistic fiefdoms, have shown us they always come back to the trough for another sip of the social justice Kool-Aid.
