Were the mass murders of innocent children, teachers and school administrators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut a wake up call for parents across America concerning child safety? According to Fox News, many parents are seriously considering sending their children to school with bullet proof back packs and various degrees of body armor to keep them safe.
Is the nation now at a point where Barbie dolls, Nintendo games, and toy soldiers are going to be replaced with pink and blue bullet proof backpacks and form fitting child size body armor under the Christmas tree?
The violent murders by Adam Lanza of 20 children has re-opened a national debate concerning just how safe are children and what measures or precautions can and should parents take to keep their precious kids safe.
Fox News reported on Wednesday, December 19th that a Utah company’s sales of bullet proof back backs and other safety clothing manufactured by the company Amendment II is literally going through the roof. With an approximate increase of 500 percent in sales since the murderous assaults in Newtown, Conn., parents and perhaps grandparents are grabbing up the, “pint-sized” protection safety lightweight armor called RynoHide.
While President Obama and his newly designated gun-control czar Vice President Joe Biden search for ways to strip gun rights from legal owners by the president’s end of January 2013 deadline, parents are left to fend for themselves.
If stricter gun control measures was the real solution, how does the president and gun control advocates account for the massacre which robbed the young children of their lives in Newton, Conn.? The state is one of five states with the strictest gun control measures in America.
What about the 270 children who were murdered in President Obama’s hometown of Chicago over the past three years. In fact Illinois leads the nation in strict gun control measures. Their gun ban law ban had deprived thousands of home owners of their right to protect themselves in their residence, from home invaders and gang violence until the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court overturned their 28-year-old handgun ban.
Just how many gun control measures will it take before liberal gun control activists and politicians wake up and address the real problem; which is the mentally unstable shooter pulling the trigger. So, whether it is a Columbine or Aurora Colorado massacre or a Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting, it is the shooter that special presidential task forces, national commissions and any other so-called violence solution panels should and must focus on.
Depriving Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights by using a drip, drip, drip method, until finally the nation’s citizens are disarmed is not an option; citizens are willing to witness or permit. This potential constitutional stripping peril was addressed in 2010, by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was insistent in the 2010 court decision which overturned the Chicago City Handgun Ban.
Justice Alito stressed:
“It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner.”
Second Amendment U.S. Constitutional rights are not open for debate nor is it optional for discussion about how a state or a citizen’s group can define the right of an American to fully exercise and embrace defense of home and family. This individual constitutional right cannot be abridged or debated out of existence by Obama or Biden.
As a matter of law, the individual right to bear arms was reinforced in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia et al. v. Heller decision.
The court held: “that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.”
In the same decision the U.S. Supreme Court also held that it is not up to the state to determine the type of weapon that a homeowner can use in the defense of life and protection of family. The court added:
“The Court, relying on historical analysis set forth previously in Heller, noted the English common law roots of the right to keep arms for self-defense12 and the importance of the right to the American colonies, the drafters of the Constitution..and the states as a bulwark against over-reaching federal authority.”
With history as a foundation, it is clear that the founders and designers of the U.S. Constitution were not merely interested in a congenial debate about the right to hunt deer, moose or bear. The U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment protection against enemies foreign or domestic should and cannot be influenced by emotional threats based upon unfortunate occurrences which are not connected to the right to protect oneself.
The nation’s children are the most precious gift that is given by God to parents. They by right will embrace everything that can be legally done to protect and preserve their child’s safety. If it includes tens of thousands of parents sending their children to school with bullet proof back packs and body armor, then, it must be done.
Take a page out of the book of the Israeli parents who have to send their children to school under the constant threat of possible violence. Consider some of the teachers at Israeli schools who have the right to carry guns, if trained and licensed and use them in case of an outbreak of a terrorist attack at the school.
Instead of dodging the reality of the dangers which confront the children in a 21st century America, spend more time on teaching your children about how to safeguard themselves against the America that has evil-hearted and sinister-minded individuals.
Before another Newtown, Connecticut tragically captures the nation’s headlines organize around defending the constitutional protection that stand between a child’s safety and unstable killers.