I think there’s more to “gun-free school zones” than meets the eye.
This idiocy was actually enacted during the Clinton years, and I think the whole purpose behind it was a hope that there would be massacres.
Leftists could say, “Look, we did what we could. We made school zones gun-free, but it obviously just wasn’t enough.We need to ban/register/confiscate all guns.” But in reality “gun-free school zones” would logically and inevitably result in massacres, and I think they hoped for that and counted on that, to advance their anti-gun agenda while crying crocodile tears.
Just think how frustrated they probably were that there weren’t more school shootings than there were. But when Sandy Hook happened, they pulled out all the stops.
I think a lot of people have seen through them, especially since none of what they’re proposing would actually address the school shooting problem. The only way to fix that problem is with armed guards in the schools. Period. But they resist that, because armed guards would reduce/eliminate the carnage, and they want that carnage so they can eventually try to justify gun confiscation.
That’s the only thing that makes any sense at all in explaining their resistance to armed guards at schools.
And lest we forget, Mao declared that power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and most of the left in positions of power nowadays used to carry around Mao’s Little Red Book. Hence their great desire to confiscate guns from the hands of the bourgeoisie.
So the choices we have are that they’re that stupid, that they couldn’t see that “gun-free school zones” would inevitably lead to school massacres, or that they’re that depraved, that they designed “gun-free school zones” to inevitably lead to school massacres. Take your choice.