In the video , Holder states that a school board should daily espouse an anti-violence or anti-gun mantra. “Every day, every school, at every level,” he stated. Holder himself calls this approach “brainwashing.” “We have to be repetitive about this,” Holder said. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
OK... so I have a Question: If this type of indoctrination is perceived as being so potentially effective at curbing gun violence, i.e. a behavior, why is it not being applied to Sex Ed classes? Just what are the effects on the lives of teenage moms, and their children, the aborted babies, and the costs to society? They are tremendous and self-propagating. Teenage pregnancy is crippling to the futures of both the mother and her child(ren). And the economic costs to the nation in cash outlays for food, housing, and medical care do not stop with that mother and her children; 22% of daughters of teen mothers go on to become teenage mothers themselves. And so on and so on. Just think of the change we could effect in society if teen pregnancies, and even young adult pregnancies, were eliminated?
Social, educational and financial costs of teen pregnancy (from www.teenhelp.com)
- The United State spends $7 billion each year due to the costs of teen pregnancy.
- Only one-third of teenage mothers complete high school and receive their diplomas.
- By age 30, only 1.5 percent of women who had pregnancies as a teenager have a college degree.
- 80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare
- Within the first year of becoming teen mothers, one-half of unmarried teen mothers go on welfare.
- The daughters of teen mothers are 22 percent more likely than their peers to become teen mothers.
- Sons of teenaged mothers have a 13 percent greater chance of ending up in prison as compared to their peers.
The most logical approach would be to combine gun control education with sexual control education. Brainwash those hormone-ravaged boys about the dangers of unholstering their factory-issued 'piece'... and then, as a society and as part of government policy, hold THEM accountable financially for the babies they produce. Word might get around that sex is a wee bit more expensive than even Sandra Fluke would lead us to believe.
Of course I jest. Because everyone knows that Sex Ed is not about hammering home the dangers and the unintended consequences of sex outside of a mature and committed relationship, of the inappropriate, careless use of one's 'piece'. And the powers-that-be in congress - and they are present in every congress - can't bear the thought of young men being held responsible for the life they've created... no no no, let Uncle Sam raise your child... you just run along and be more careful next time, and in the process creating a generation of 'boy-men' with no expectations placed upon them whatsoever and ill-prepared to become real men.
No, Sex Ed takes aim at teaching kids how to handle sex 'safely', so that they do not have to forego pleasure, but can be trained to minimize the risks. Yet when it comes to firearms, the same crowd in favor of teaching kids how to 'safely' engage sexually instead demonizes guns to the point of suspending students for drawing pictures of guns during class time or wearing novelty T-shirts with gun related themes. Gun illustration , T-Shirt .
So why not either train children and youth in the public education system as to the correct and safe way to handle firearms, and the responsibilities and consequences of using a gun, while we are simultaneously teaching them those very same lessons regarding their sexual behavior?
Or, conversely, if the route continues to be the demonization of firearms, then the demonization of inappropriate sexual encounters should likewise be taught.
For the life of me, I cannot see the difference. Well, except for that pesky little part about the Second Amendment.
