Skip to main content

Missouri Republican state Senator Dan Brown faces backlash over 1st grade gun education legislation

Upon first reading that Missouri Republican state Senator Dan Brown proposed legislation that would require 1st  graders to take a gun education class, which was designed by the National Rifle Association, to say I was shocked beyond all belief would have been like to say Siberia is cold in the winter. I have to imagine a large majority of people were thinking and feeling the thing upon seeing the headline.

After reading the article in its entirety though, while I'm definitely not going to fully endorse Brown's legislation, I'm also not going to be highly critical of it either. I'll have to wait until more detailed information is released on the proposed bill.

You see, as I'm sure most people thought the same thing upon seeing a headline which included the words "1st graders," "gun class," and "NRA," I thought Mr. Brown was proposing the insane idea of teaching 1st grade kids how to shoot guns. How could I think such a thing? Have you heard some of the things these far-right politicians have been saying following the Sandy Hook tragedy? I rest my case. However, that doesn't appear to be what the bill is about. The legislation appears to not include actual guns in any manner with regard to the 1st grade students. What it appears to propose is to make it mandatory for these students to take a class which centers around what to do if they see a gun - to stay away from it, not to touch it, to tell an authority about it, etc.

Is this a good idea? That's an entirely different matter. I think where Dan Brown got himself into trouble is through not sugar-coating the legislation. In grade school drug programs, we typically don't call them such. We sweeten the name and image by calling them D.A.R.E. or G.R.E.A.T. Perhaps Brown would be better served to find an acronym that would better serve his cause, than to just call it a gun education program. S.A.F.E. could be one such example, which would stand for Stay Away From Evil, or something like that. In closing, though, I do have to say I find it highly ironic that while sex education isn't mandatory for students in the state of Missouri, gun education may wind up being mandatory. Even though sex is much more prevalent among teenagers than guns, let's not require they become better educated about sex, which will leave them more prone to engaging in unprotected sex with the consequences being unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STDs, all the while requiring they learn about gun safety. Yeah, that makes sense...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/missouri-gun-education_n_2585217.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"