Armed Protection For Democrats, But Not For Schoolchildren

After Jared Loughner killed six people and injured fourteen others with a gun in Arizona at the beginning of 2011, liberals demanded to know why Sarah Palin, on whose shoulders they placed the blame for the massacre, would not weigh in on the issue. Her silence was outrageous.

Then something like a week later Palin did voice her opinion on the matter, and those very same outraged Democrats became outraged again. “Why is she sticking her nose in the matter,” they demanded.

Now, in the aftermath of this recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, liberals summoned their outrage that the National Rifle Association was cowering in silence rather than joining liberals in their fantasy world in which sentient guns have malice in their hearts and murder on their agenda.

Yesterday the Trinity Episcopal Church of Newtown tolled its bell 26 times, one for each victim of Adam Lanza’s dementia.

A little over an hour later, the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, gave a press conference in which he suggested having armed police officers at every school. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said.

The NRA has even offered to train school security officers and develop and develop security plans–for free.

But liberals, never content to let their outrage be mollified, went from being outraged over the NRA’s silence to being outraged over the NRA’s “poorly timed” statement. The NRA has been Palin’d.

There is also criticism over the NRA’s proposal, of course, and substantial criticisms are fair. But they go something like this: “Put cops in every school? Are you insane?”

Well, what is more insane: to ask gun owners to turn in their guns to the government, as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee did, and expect not only that good people will comply, but that people intent on killing will comply (“Aw, gee, I really wanted to shoot up that mall today, but the government’s asking me to turn in my gun, so nevermind”); to expect the government to outright confiscate guns, as MSNBC’s Ed Schultz suggested; or to have trained professionals at the entrances of schools?

Better question: Why do Democratic politicians, who receive the taxpayer-funded protection of armed security, want to keep women and children from being protected by armed security?