The Continuing Cry for More Gun Control

Following up on last week's article about the Parkland shooting and the new call for increased gun, I thought I'd like to comment just a bit on some of what President Trump has proposed in response. As many of you will recall, President Trump was inundated by the media with demands to immediately address the shootings and what he proposes to do about(more on that later).

First, Trump has already commented on the tragedy, and he promised to look into what options are on the table, short of the most hair brained one, which is trying to strip everyone of their guns, which we'll cover shortly. Secondly, if there was an easy solution, I'm sure Obama and other presidents whose administrations were scared by these senseless shootings would have already jumped on those. The fact of the matter is that there are no simple solutions. Lastly, I think the media, which has long ago established their strong anti-Trump bias, is trying to force Trump into a corner by getting him to say or commit to something which is unpractical or that he hasn't had time to seriously think through with the help of his various advisors. I'm sure no one expected Obama to have an instant answer so why so Trump?

The idea of raising the minimum age to buy a rifle from 18 to 21 years of age isn't a bad one. You have to be 21 to (legally) drink. In many places you have to be 21 to vote. However, one recent argument, namely that you don't have to be 21 to be drafted, is a bit out in right field. First, we don't have a draft and it's doubtful we ever will (though I wouldn't completely rule it out). Nevertheless, if one needs to register for the draft at 18, then one should be able to vote, drink, or buy a gun at 18. After all, if you're old enough to potentially be pressed into military service and possibly die for a war by a government that you didn't even get a voice in, then by God you should be able to cast a vote, buy a drink, and own a gun too!

On the other hand, if that's changed to 21, then all of it needs to be changed to 21. Otherwise, you are being put into a situation where you have no rights; no say in your future. I'd even be willing to go one step further by adding that if I can't vote, buy a drink or own a gun, then I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes on any income that I earn either. Isn't that the very definition of "taxation without representation"? I'm sure someone will argue that these should be a matter of State's choice, and I agree, but that should apply across the board. No vote, no gun, no right to legally buy alcohol, then no taxes either.

Next on the agenda is making it illegal to own "assault rifles". Since I'm not aware of any actual "assault" weapons available on the open market, I have to assume that opponents actually mean semiautomatic rifles with a military type design. Of course, there are dozens (if not more) rifles which look like ordinary hunting rifles which as semiautomatic, so should those be removed too? What about single shots? In the right (or wrong) hands, those can be every bit as lethal too. Should we extend this to pistols? After all, revolver or automatic can be just as deadly at the right distance.

Anti-gun advocates, I'm sure, would answer "yes" to most of these questions. They would attempt to remove all guns---rifles, pistols, air guns, BB guns, and I would doubt even dart, cap guns and even water pistols. Somehow they believe that if guns were suddenly made illegal, all the bad guys would throw up their hands, amid a muttered "ah shucks", and turn in their guns to. Well, I hate to burst their bubbles, but just like Prohibition, it ain't gonna work quite like they planned. Criminals will always have or have access to weapons, and I imagine there will be a hellva business coming from south of the border. Let's not forget that anyone with a machine shop can make a pretty effective gun too (remember the famous Sten gun from WWII? It was made entirely from plumbing parts and took just around five hours tops to build).

Part of the discussion surrounding the control of guns has been the elimination of kits that converted semiautomatics to near full automatics (including the "bumpstock"). I can see the need to remove these conversation kits from the general market; there is really no practical need for these to hunt or for self-protection, but then the 2nd Amendment wasn't written solely for hunting or even self-protection, or even for "killing" cans and bottles. It was for protecting the citizenry from the government.

While it's hard for many us to imagine, but our Founding Fathers had just concluded a revolution against their own government a few years before. They had fought the most advanced and highly trained army in the world at the time. They understood very clearly what it meant to be unarmed and defenseless or having the ability to defend yourself against your enemies. In fact, every one of those items listed in the Bill of Rights was there for a very real and practical reason. They had been there and experienced that first hand. They understood clearly what a government, unresponsive to its citizens, was not just capable of doing, but often quite willing to do. Not only had they seen and experienced it themselves, they saw it in France, the various German kingdoms, Spain, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and Russia.

Of course, weaponry has changed a thousand times over since 1776, but at least the weapons used by our Founding Fathers were near or on par with the British, Hessian, and French troops. Gun advocates press for the same or similar parity. However, it think there's something more basic at play here too. Anti-gun advocates and those who want to greatly curtail gun ownership seem to have a different view of government than those who oppose any sort of gun control. The former seem to be more trusting of government. They believe that government tends to have more of the answers than not; even if they didn't, government is still the best tool to find and implement the best answers. In short, government is the solution.

On the other side are those who resist the government. They see government as the problem and tend to believe that society is where we'll find the best solutions to any problems that we face, be it through capitalism or general consensus. They believe that, given human nature, power consumes all who come into contact with it. Thus, what the gun control argument is ultimately all about is how we feel about government; can we trust it or not? How long can we ride the beast before it devours us?

We've already seen out Constitutional or democratic republic devolve into an Oligarchy. That's a given now. We blew it while we were busy playing on our "Smart Phones", video games, and watching so-called "reality shows". We were too busy worrying whether or not our jobs were going to be shipped overseas, or pay cuts, or loss of benefits, to pay attention. Not surprising really. We're usually distracted by the corporate media while Washington is busy doing or hiding something else. So, why would you worry about losing the ability to protect yourself? It worked out fine for the Spanish, Italians, Russians, Germans in the 1920's and 1930's...right?

Now, as the other argument---allowing teachers to be armed in classrooms. In a word, "no". Personally I find that to be a really stupid idea. There are teachers who shouldn't be allowed to carry chalk let alone guns. First, in some schools, I'd be more concerned with the students trying to steal or disarm the teachers than some armed wacko walking into a school. Secondly, I don't think most teacher have the right mentality to use a gun. Yes, they are going to be far more concerned about the wellbeing of their students than some rent-a-cop, and yes, I think most teachers would do everything possible to protect their students up to and including putting themselves between the shooter and their kids.

However, it's an entirely different mentality between protecting others and to be will to shoot another human being (let along the psychological impact it would have on the younger students witnessing their teacher kill someone--although it might have a positive impact on any future discipline problems with older students). Still, it's not the teacher's job to shoot people.

At best, teachers should have access to stun guns or tear gas...again, at best. However, we already have "gun free zones" (Parkland High School was a "gun free zone" and we saw how well that sign worked). We have metal detectors. We have locked doors and security cameras. The fact is that there is nothing that can or will stop someone from doing it again, be it a school, concerts, hotel/casino, shopping mall, or an office building, if they are willing to be arrested or die. That's a lesson we should have already learned from the terrorists.

Having said that, I can see an argument whereby certain teachers---those with military or law enforcement training---coupled with specialized police "counter terror" training could be armed, perhaps with bean bags, rubber bullets, or other non-lethal means. Perhaps someone who doesn't have regular contact with students such as a gym coach, a vice principal, HR, or even secretary and would be able roam freely without drawing attention to themselves. I would also make the identity of that individual (or individuals) confidential so that no-one, especially the shooter, knows who is a possible threat or not. Declaring an area to be "gun free" is like putting a shark in the middle of a school of fish and posting a "no eating" sign.

Speaking of sharks, I want to add one last thing about the media frenzy going on around the Trump White House. While the corporate owned and controlled media likes to pretend they are the "conscience of America" and that "the public wants" or "the People need" to know is just so much BS. This is all about ratings, and ratings drive advertising which drives revenue. We are told what they want us to know; we are feed predigested news designed to make us form specific opinions while other stories are buried or ignored.

It's also all about one-upmanship between networks and individual reporters. Still, at the heart of it (at least this go around) is trying to destroy or discredit the Trump Administration. The political establishment---the Oligarchs who run this country---had promised Hillary that it was her turn after losing to Obama. Trump wasn't suppose to win. Heck, he wasn't even supposed to be in the race! He was, as Marco Rubio said, "the clown" and referred to Trump's campaign as a "freak show" (other candidates had more unflattering comments to make about Trump the Political Outsider). Trump was, after all, the unvetted and unpreapproved candidate who stole Hillary's crown. Apparently treason is where most American's draw the line.

What we're seeing daily from the media is a collective temper tantrum and their attempt at some sort of revenge for Hillary's loss as well as vindication for being so horribly wrong in not just their election prediction (which was embarrassing enough), but also despite their best efforts to manipulate the public's opinion of Trump. They were so sure they had the majority of us in their hip pocket.




CPRC: Another mass public shooting in Florida; another gun-free zone

Parkland High School: Another Mass Shooting. Another Series of Excuses

Another mass shooting. More innocent lives taken, This time is was ordinary school kids. Young men and women, boys and girls really, just starting their lives. Again, it's the ole story about people "suspected" this or that individual was up to something, or that there were warning signs and yet no body acted. In this case, it seems that his classmates all knew. So did many of his teachers and apparently the neighbors too; Oh, and the police apparently were familiar with this kid but failed to do a follow up. That's the beauty of hindsight. It's always so crystal clear, yet it's the here and now that we always seem to have trouble with.

Of course, there are always the chatterboxes on TV or the radio with their "fill-in-the-blank" analysis (there's nothing like "instant expertise". Just add crisis--real or imitation--- and stir the pot vigorously). Naturally, you have those wanting to blame the weapon, as if it's the incarnation of evil and possesses the hapless soul of whoever touches it. If only we ban all guns, all the carnage will all magically disappear, like the knife attacks in China, machete attacks in the UK, or the recent rash of attacks using trucks and vans in France and Germany, and the countless bombings! I suppose a fork, or hammer, or rock, or pointy stick will do the job just as well don't you?

Mass shootings have become almost the norm, going back to Columbine High School, which is considered the "standard" by those who study such things, including would-be shooters themselves. More recently we had the mass shooting in Las Vegas, of which we still know nothing (I guess officials are still having trouble coming up with a believable narrative given the number of times they've changed their story). Now we have a new mass murderer. This time the suspect in question, Nikolas Cruz, who was allegedly on some sort of behavior modification drugs (as were the others we're told), had been expelled and sought out revenge for the dastardly deed! I guess he couldn't put on his big boy pants and toughed it out huh?

So Cruz plotted his revenge down to the nth degree, from his choice of weapon, an AR-15 semi-automation rifle, which because of its designed, is often misidentified as an "assault rifle"; presumably for sensationalism effect, to his means of transport (an Uber driver), to the appropriate time his cold and cowardly rampage would start. The thing, again, that I find so interesting is how unsurprised everyone was when the shooter was identified.

When I was in school, way back in the 1960's and 1970's, some thought the world was spinning apart. America was a divided nation. There was the Civil Rights Movement along with the Watts and Harlem riots among others, the Vietnam War and with it, the anti-war protests. There were the sit-ins and campus occupations, "love-ins", and mass concerts. There was the Chicago Police Riot and the murders at Kent State. There was the "La Causa" and the United Farm Workers led by Cesar Chavez.

With all this came church fire bombings (and several deaths), the attacks on the "Freedom Riders" (and the murders of three young activists by the KKK in the deep South), the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, and Malcolm X. We had international and domestic terrorist groups. Some were mainly political, like the PLO, Black September, the Baader-Meinhof Group (aka the Red Army Faction), the Weathermen, the American Indian Movement, and the SLA. Some were politically and racially driven like the Black Panthers, the KKK and Neo-Nazis. A few were more socially oriented like the Feminist (or "Women's Lib") Movement, Gay Pride, or the senior's activist group, the "Gray Panthers".

Despite all of this, I don't recall any mass shootings (with the possible exception of Kent State, and that was by the Ohio National Guard). I recall seeing a lot of posturing by groups brandishing rifles and pistols. There were millions of recently returned veterans; many of whom feeling rejected and angry. Some of these returning veterans were suffering from some form of PTSD (Post Traumatic Shock Disorder). All were highly trained to fight and kill, and yet there were no public mass shootings. Of course, there were a number of pretty brutal beatings by various police departments as a result of some protest, but no mass shootings, and certainly none involving school children. Why is that you think?

Personally, I think there are a number of reasons, but the most important of which was discipline, be it in school or at home. First off, when you went to school, you were expected to learn. That meant doing what the teachers asked you to do. It also meant respecting your teachers, not ignoring them; not giving them any lip; not threatening them and absolutely not trying to start a fight with them. At the same time, it also meant respecting the students and certainly not teachers having sex with them. That's the wrong kind of education!

In addition, students respected each other enough not to disrupt class. If you didn't want to learn, fine. Just don't try to drag others down with you. When you failed to do as asked you were sent to the principal's office. Usually this was bad news because it often meant that your parents were notified (more on that in a moment). At other times, it meant a whoop on your behind by the gym teacher with their custom made paddle, and that generally got your attention (and it also meant that your parents were definitely going to be notified).

In most cases, nothing the school could do was as bad as having to face your parents when you got home. The punishment was often more psychological and involved things like being grounded (which meant no going outside) and/or no friends over, no TV or phone access. Sometimes, it meant sentencing you to your room, etc. In some cases it meant some form of corporal punishment (there were, sadly, also instances of rather brutal beatings by a few which would be worthy of jail time today). Worse of all, I think, for many individuals it was the disappointed expressions by their parents. Of course, there was those who simply didn't care which seems to be near epidemic these days.

Nevertheless, respect for others was expected from and by everyone, and along with that came discipline. I am not talking about lockstep conformity, but order and following school guidelines for behavior. Because everyone showed others respect, and there was discipline in the classroom, there were rarely fights in school or on campus. There was no need for metal detectors. No one was bringing guns. Kids weren't trying to cut off the hands of other students in shop class. No one was attacking the teachers or running amuck, and yet guns and other weapons were readily available (and with far less legal restrictions).

Since those days, discipline has gone out of the schools. Attacking a fellow student or teacher may mean getting expelled, which is simply an early vacation. Disrupting class means that everyone will be just as likely to fail the test as you are. In fact, education has been repeatedly dumbed down across the board to accommodate these students. I suppose someone figured out that if the material was to far over the head of some student, they'd get frustrated and decide to act out and keep anyone from learning, so just dumb it down. Just as gangs run the prisons, petty thugs and Dillinger wannabes try to run the schools. At least, that's sure how it appears to me!

At home, parents have largely all but stopped parenting. They've ceded control of their children to the State. Meanwhile, there is little or no respect for anyone; not to teachers, to parents, to authorities, or to the public in general. There are no consequences for their actions. Many grow up with a sense of entitlement; that somehow the world owes them just for breathing. Instead of discipline, there is simply medication to control their behavior, and when they get older, medication turns into drugs---be it prescription or street.

To make matters worse, most of these kids walk or sit around with their face in a "Smartphone" or on a laptop. They live increasingly in a digital world; one which includes very violent games that desensitizes players to scenes of carnage and death (and worse, believe there is a reset button which brings "people" back to life...as if nothing ever happened). These children (and adults) lose or never develop social skills and the ability to interact with other individuals. They don't know history. They don't know ethics or civics. They don't understand how to rationally discuss topics, especially with those who may disagree with them.

So what do they do? How do they react? They panic. They act out with violence. They try to disrupt what's going on around them because they can't cope with different opinions. They protest...be at school, at an event...or on streets and highways (then they get upset because people don't stop and coddle their "outrage"). They demand no "free speech" or open forums (seriously). Is it any wonder some of these same individuals become violent? It's what they've been conditioned by society to do.

As for the argument about guns and the Second Amendment, I've heard people argue that the Founders didn't intend for ordinary citizens to have guns, except for hunting and self protection in the wilds. Now that we've become "civilized", and can buy our food at the local supermarket, who needs guns? As for self protection, we have the police. We have pepper spray. We have whistles. Besides, perhaps they just need money or whatever for their drug or booze addiction. Perhaps they had a crappy childhood. Maybe their religion tells them it's ok and we're suppose to go accept it. If we just give them whatever they want, then maybe they won't murder us or brutalize us...too badly. Yeah, right.

You and I have a inherent right to protect ourselves, our possessions, and the lives of others if threatened with serious harm. We do not have a duty to forfeit any of these, even at the risk of terminating the bad guy's life. That is, of course, my own opinion, but I won't hesitate for a fraction of a second. If, on the other hand, you're fine with whatever happens, be it being robbed of your money, your possessions, your life or that of your family and/or friends, that's your call.
If you are a woman and you're ok with being raped and/or beaten to a pulp, that's also your call...but don't start whining about it or demanding that others do the same thing just to make yourself feel better about your decision. As the old saying goes, "if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns" is absolutely true. Don't be naive enough to expect the bad guys to turn in their guns. They will always have what they want and what they need. If you're unarmed, then so much the better for them.

Also, our Founding Fathers understood that government---all government---was not to be trusted. Given human nature, power tends to corrupt no matter how good the intentions. As Lord Acton once said, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It was the absence of guns which made the despots of modern Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia possible. Just like in distant past, it often was the absence of adequate weapons which made tyrants possible. Our Founding Fathers wanted us to have the ability not just to hunt, or defend ourselves from the lowlifes of the world, but most of all, from government (perhaps the lowest of the lowlifes).

Some may argue that we have the police and/or military for that. Well yeah...and who do you think they work for? The government. Very few (in the beginning) will stand with the people in the event of a revolt or revolution, and while each take an oath to uphold the Constitution, also included in that oath is a duty to follow the orders given to them. It won't be easy for many to decide which of the two they should follow. America, as most of you all should already know, is not the country it was intended to be. We're an Oligarchy; a plutocracy with an ever growing police state mentality. The notion of a democratic Constitutional Republic is long gone. It's just not reality not matter how badly we want to believe. Americans may find that the day to restore the intent of the Founders is closer than they think.

On a personal note, I can understand the need to curtail full auto weapons (which an AR-15 is not) without a special permit (and even then, they must be keep at a secure site such as a police station or armory), as well as restricting body armor (not to many bears or moose shoot back), full auto conversion kits and "bump stocks", armor piercing shells, again, without certain restrictions and permits. As it now stands, new guns must be registered. This includes a background check for any criminal or mental health issues. However, as we've seen, too often the system fails at this stage and those who shouldn't have a gun get one.

Until a full record check can be completed, no weapon should ever leave the store. The same goes with pre-owned rifles and pistols. This may hurt used gun dealers but it would add another layer of safety. Perhaps dealers of used guns can work out arrangements with local gun store owners to store the item with them until the background check is completed (alternatively, with the local armory or police since they're doing part of the background check anyway). However, undermining our 2nd Amendment is the wrong thing to do, and may lead down a path we don't want to tread. Even without guns, people will find other lethal means to do harm. Meanwhile, let's start restoring some discipline back into the schools and respect back into society.


Parkland high school shooting: At least 17 killed, suspect in custody, Florida sheriff says


Knife-wielding attackers kills 29, injure 130 at China train station


Another Machete Attack in the UK


Attack in Paris