Reality Politics vs Realpolitik

My positions on the 2nd Amendment are probably quite a bit further right than most people I know - I'm certainly not with the President on some of the arguments his administration has brought to the Supreme Court on this issue. And trying to stop violence by banning weapon hardware is foolhardy.

But the NRA is being stupid, and being stupid deliberately. Having realized that the best negotiating positions are extreme, they've set out a plan of action that doesn't make sense in the hopes of winning more concessions from whatever deal might occur. They are staking ground to be used as a bargaining chip.

I get that. It's gamesmanship. But initial positions also have to pass the muster of logic and reason in order to have a reality-based debate, and putting armed guards everywhere does neither.

• First, it places an unbearable strain on local and state government budgets by adding a $3 trillion cost for the guards (if we deployed one to each school for $50K/pp).
• Second, it will make an entire generation of American kids feel unsafe each day they have to walk by an armed guard to get to class.
• Third, it won't prevent the mass shootings at churches, playgrounds, and so many other locations where people congregate. We can't put guards everywhere - there will always be places we can't protect, and our best defense is in our population's vigilance (not vigilantism) and a responsive police force.
• But most importantly, it won't prevent school shootings. Ask Eric Gardner - the armed deputy that worked at Columbine.

There are legitimate conservative positions to take on this issue. That the 2nd Amendment defends weapons of all varieties, or that the issue here is mental health and a violent culture. Perhaps we should control ammunition more closely.

The NRA was cynical, and will only further breed the damaging climate that makes progress so difficult in Washington.