He may be an actor, but he’s from Chicago — and speaks the unspeakable about guns . . . more

. . . arguing the obvious, that bad guys ignore no-gun signs:

Vince Vaughn Wants Guns In Schools: Tired of hearing about school shootings? Actor and former Chicagoan Vince Vaughn apparently thinks more guns would help stop the heinous acts. Politico shares part of an interview the actor did with British GQ, where he suggested that schools would be safer if guns were allowed:

“In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these f——ing schools because they know there are no guns there,” he told the magazine.

He’s clearly not been keeping up with the news in Chicago, where more than 300 people were shot, 37 fatally, in May.

Instead, we moan and groan (correctly) but refuse to recognize the Wild West situation.

The presumed quick rebuttal misses the mark, telling how many were shot. Vaughn argues the more-guns-less-crime case, which precisely aims to reduce the bloodshed.

What the heck is it to be conservative?

From today’s Sardonic Ex Curia posting:

Parents may not be consenting to their moral relation; but consenting or not, they are bound to a long train of burdensome duties towards those with whom they have never made a convention of any sort. Children are not consenting to their relation, but their relation, without their actual consent, binds them to its duties; or rather it implies their consent because the presumed consent of every rational creature is in unison with the predisposed order of things. – Edmund Burke

How about that “predisposed order of things”? A conservative bedrock.