The pushback against Trump 2.0 comes as no surprise. His attempt to “bring efficiency” to the FedGov while ending at least some of the corruption and theft is naturally going to be opposed by those who have grown fat with stolen money doled out by government agencies. To say nothing of the millions of government employees. Or the millions of people who have benefited from government welfare: whether “official” welfare recipients or beltway bandits and all the contractors. If they were not screaming so loudly (and calling in the tabs of their corrupt judges), we might worry that is was just another example of playacting.

So far The Donald has not done much to threaten the gun-control machine. Nor a hundred other unconstitutional and immoral operations. And in some cases, efforts have been rolled back. Hopefully temporarily.

Much of this has to do with the fact that generations of Americans have been coddled and cozened into believing that government can save us. Not just that government is essential and can follow different rules from us mere humans. Or the hundred other lies perpetrated by the true beneficiaries of government. And especially those running the agencies and the “private” firms grown wealthy from government largess.

Here is a thought experiment: Go down a street and ask a couple of dozen people “is government responsible for the safety of your children?” Don’t be surprised if most will tell you “yes.” (Don’t argue with them. It’s common to believe this.)

A few months ago, an article by the Associated Press promoted efforts nationwide by parents to see “meaningful” gun control laws passed to prevent tragedies like those in Nashville and Uvalde. The article decries “mixed results.” Using our TPOL (unpatented, uncopyrighted) Regressive Language Interpreter (RLI), this means “gun bans” and “failure to outlaw guns for all but cops and celebrities’ security guards.”

But the article raises some questions in our minds.

Let us talk about one: is government responsible for the safety of your children? Who says or said so? Why? How? And will the government actually do it? (To beat on a dead horse, where is that found in the US or any of the State Constitutions?)

These parents discussed in the article – and the Moms Against Guns and all the Everytown and other hoplophobes and hoploclasts – give us the impression that it is government that is supposed to protect their children from all dangers.

(There are especially dangers in schools, which, of course, are pushed because most schools in the Fifty States are owned and operated by governments and paid for by taxes collected by governments. And education is compulsory—that is, mandated.

Indeed, despite child abuse by parents and other family members (or at least hangers-on) and despite the overblown fear of child kidnapping and slavery, where in the Fifty States is a child between the ages of 4 or 5 and 17 or 18 in greatest danger of being abused, injured, wounded, or even killed? No, except maybe for Chicago, it is NOT on the streets courtesy of drive-by shooters. It is in the public schools.)

And while the constant drumbeat of predatory teachers and staff may only be one in a thousand school employees? If it were just one in a thousand gun owners who went out to murder someone can you imagine the pressure there would be to disarm everyone? Yet we continue to push more and more money into schools and refuse to hold parents responsible – indeed, we find many schools that not just lie to parents, but take action to prevent parents from “interfering” with their oh so benevolent care of their children by the schools.

(Again, not ALL schools, or ALL teachers or all parents who dump their children in government-run tax-funded schools. We are painting a broad brush.

Why have schools been saddled with the things that they are? Why has government become (in practice) the primary caregiver and even the de facto parent? Because parents have shirked their responsibilities. Starting with the fact that they can’t keep their pants zipped or their panties on. And are more concerned about careers and fun than about the well-being and future of their children.

This is not a problem that government can solve. It starts in the heart of men and women.