Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Being lazy is easy. Doing nothing about everything is a difficult profession aka politics.
The highest achievement possible for the typical American politician is a Zen-like state in which he or she appears to be in vigorous motion doing important things,when in fact he/she is completely still, doing nothing. This became the ultimate goal of politics shortly after the Reagan Revolution convinced all Republicans, most Democrats, and most people, that government action is not a solution for anything but is in fact the problem.
Despite the enormity of the fraud involved in demonizing all government action while benefiting greatly from most of it, one cannot help but admire the artistry of those who maintain the illusion of trying to help people while not doing anything of the kind.
Nothing triggers (sorry, it seemed the appropriate word) more violent eruptions of inaction than a mass shooting, after which the activityphobes vigorously endorse the concept of maybe one day starting to think about:
- universal background checks, which means extending background checks to the mere 20 percent of gun buyers not now required to have them (under current law, anyone buying a gun at a gun store must be checked out). Everybody likes this idea, despite the fact that there is no evidence it would have — or would have had — any effect on mass shooters, most of whom have used legally purchased weapons; and/or
- an “assault” weapons ban, by which is meant (apparently, we are constantly getting lost in the weeds of how to define an assault weapon) a ban on future sales of semi-automatic weapons that look military and have large capacity magazines. None of these bans, as so far attempted or proposed, touches the five million or so assault weapons already in private hands (no one knows how many there are because we are not allowed to ask). And a national ban on assault weapons instituted for ten years in 1994 had little measurable effect;
- imposing the death penalty on mass shooters, virtually every one of which is intent on committing suicide, or classifying mass shooting as a hate crime, which will stop potential shooters in their tracks when they realize their legacy will be tainted.
- But the ultimate in frenetic activity while doing nothing was achieved not by a politician, but by Walmart, one of whose stores was the scene of one of the most recent mass shootings. The company ostentatiously removed violent images from its displays of video games, while continuing to sell the games. And guns. There, that ought to fix it.
If anyone decided to commit political suicide and actually do something about the gun problem, Australia has shown us how that would work. After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia mandated that all guns be registered, that civilians could not possess rapid-fire or extended-fire weapons, and that all such existing weapons had to be turned in to the government for destruction. There was no revolution, and there has been only one mass shooting in Australia in the 20 years since.
Another subject that inspires motionless action is government spending. Politicians are upset by excess spending and debt when they are not the ones doing it, that is, when the other party is in power. But if they actually cut off the flow of money to their rich clients, their rich clients will cut them off, and we can’t have that. Hence the brilliant non-solution: a cap on debt that says after we are in that much debt, we’ll quit spending. Honest. Like the serial killer in a bad movie who says to the cops, “Stop me before I kill again,” they don’t really mean it. Every year or two, they raise the debt ceiling, the party in power voting for it, the party out of power bleating about responsibility. Meanwhile, the debt goes up, chink-a-ching.
In the old days you could achieve the illusion of exertion by appointing a blue-ribbon commission. That was back when a magician could amaze an audience by pulling a rabbit from a hat. The bar has been raised.
Today one must “fight” endlessly for “working families,” “defend” our borders against an “invasion” of terrified and destitute migrant families, and, of course, “create jobs.” And when we have done all that, we will not have moved a single step.
Yes, yes, you Commonwealth countries are so wonderful and compassionate. Let me remind you that here in America, we have a little thing called The Bill Of Rights. These are not rights the government may abolish. Any gun laws infringe one of those specific rights.
The 2nd Amendment is pointedly conditional. It begins, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
A crazed malcontent with an AK is not a ‘well regulated militia’; nor is a group of such people. Regulation in a democracy implies that the people, acting through their elected representatives, determine what constitutes a well regulated militia, and what does not.
I cannot understand why this amendment is so misunderstood…It’s really quite simple.
ALL males between certain ages are part of the militia, by law. Well Regulated means equipped, in the language of the day. And we are not a democracy. Sweet Baby Jesus!
Do you have a reference for these assertions or are you pulling it out of thin air?
I ask because I don’t think the Founding Fathers wanted free blacks or most free whites to have these weapons. Governor Reagan wasn’t too excited about Black Panthers carrying weapons.
Well Regulated- https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Militia:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Do I REALLY have to cite references to us being a Constitutional Republic?
Blacks were not citizens.
“…virtually every one of which is intent on committing suicide …”
So far.
Very soon, however, I believe an advanced form of mass shooter is going to appear. This new breed of killer will be professional in manner and approach, which means; they will have a well-worked plan of action going in, they will attempt to survive the “event,” to do it again, to become more efficient with every execution, and whether they live or die on that particular day, while they breath they will be relentless in their quest to rack up scores.
The solitary pro, carrying only a partial death wish, the seeker of action, records and immortality,* that I see as just Stage Two in the mass shooter “phenomena.” It’s in Stage Three, when the teams arrive on the scene, that things will get truly ugly.
*All these suicidal shooters are getting their 15 minutes, but not much more. It is inevitable, one of the ones coming down the pipe is bound to say, “f*ck that, I want fame everlasting.”
Those won’t be crazed malcontents, they will be guerrillas in what they hope is a civil war.
Tom, it almost sounds like you admire Australia’s gun grab. No one can tell me how we had hundreds of years of widespread gun ownership in America but only a recent history of mass shootings. Or what it is about boys and men that makes them fantasize about doing this.
There is in fact a magic bullet here (pardon the pun) — a primary cause for at least the majority of the shootings. The class of SSRI drugs, the first of which was released in 1987. Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Parkland… you name it, and the shooter was either on or in withdrawal from an SSRI. Watch the followup reports after the shooting, and you’ll almost always find that the shooter had been medicated with this crap. 13% of the US population now takes them. While they obviously don’t all become shooters, there’s also a huge number of them who simply commit suicide (which is in fact what most of the shooters are doing).
Better yet, the studies which were used to approve the drugs were absolutely cherry picked, and showed virtually zero benefit (patients told to “get more sleep” showed a far greater measurable improvement!).
I highly recommend Johan Hari’s “Lost Connections” book, in which he covers the details behind the approval process. Even one of SSRI’s biggest advocates, upon reviewing the studies, called them “completely useless”.
Like most, I’ve had family members on these as well. They spoke of being far more impulsive, and feeling somehow “separated” from society.
For some strange reason, television and other mainstream/corporate media never want to talk about this subject. Might it have something to do with advertising revenue?
We have feral animals all over the world. We also have feral humans living in tents in major cities and cars in the woods in Southern States. Also in houses where they have not paid a cent to the banks and are not evicted by local judges. Do you want to wait until they become the majority and vote for who knows what. Luckily it will not make much of a difference as our economic system will shut down before that can happen. Just a thought!
Mr. Dakin,
That is indeed very interesting. Although “well-regulated” suggests a wide discretion in denying the members of the unorganized militia access to firearms. It makes me wonder why the SCOTUS Heller decision in the early years of this century extended the Second Amendment right irrespective of militia status
Of course ‘well regulated’ means ‘subject to regulation’. The US Constitution was not penned during the Middle Ages. It is written in modern English, and is, for the most part, perfectly clear. The idea that we need lawyers and historians to weedle out the ‘real’ meaning is a common tactic of obfuscation, used by both those on the extreme right and the extreme left to serve their special interests.
Ken, as far as the SCOTUS is concerned; it could simply be that the institution is staffed by idiots.
Don’t confuse modern law with that of two hundred years ago. We are discussing what the law was written for at the time. This doesn’t even touch on other aspects, such as natural rights or common law. Let me make this simple. If citizens are free, they are armed. If they are unarmed they are slaves. If your utopia is a land of slaves, then I guess it would be required that we take away the guns. I consider it my natural right to be armed. I don’t want to hide behind lawyer weasel words as justification. Notice I am not arguing for the Constitutional rights, but the rights RECOGNIZED-not granted but recognized-by the Bill Of Rights. The Constitution is about what the government is allowed to do. The Bill Of Rights is about what it CANNOT do. Like infringe on our rights to be armed. Shall Not Be Infringed means exactly that. Let me make it even more simple. Might Makes Right. By being armed, we secure our freedom by force of arms. Please refer to replenishing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. Not my words. Try one of the founding fathers.
James; Our viewpoints are so essentially disparate on this topic that there is no need to carry on (I can’t speak for Ken). However, I must say that you present your position comprehensively and with great clarity. That, I do appreciate.
Fair enough.
Agree to disagree. Got to think, though, that a few drafters were thinking of Shay’s Rebellion. If we only had a “legislative history.”
There is no historical evidence suggesting that a constitutional right to bear arms makes revolutionary action more efficient or forceful. Quite the opposite in fact since American gun fetishism is precisely what appears to keep a sizeable and now ageing proportion of the American populace from using politics to effect beneficial change in their lives.
Gun ownership beyond pragmatic concerns of self-defence is nothing more than a lifestyle product sold to people who seek to find happiness and fulfilment by roleplaying as 17th century husbandmen.
Jeez, I guess up here in Canada we are all enslaved. Better come up here free us and spread Democracy then.
By the way, I do own guns but not for one minute do we feel they represent my personal or national freedom. Unless a country from the south comes up here to spread democracy of course.
Just read a half page article in Time Mag. (Aug. 19, 2019 Pg. 34) by two Doctors who claim “hate is NOT a mental illness”. Arnie Allison
I am not sure if the viewpoint of one Australian is welcomed here or not.Some might think that the laws
forbid anyone here from owning a gun. I am 64,and
have lived and made a living from a 460 acre block
(95% forested ) for 42 years. I have a gun license,
and am allowed a single shot .22 rifle (5 cartridge magazine ) and a 303-25 single shot rifle (10 cartridge magazine) which is used occasionally on feral pigs. No one is allowed to own an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. No one is allowed to own a firearm in an urban area unless they are in a gun club,and the firearm is stored on the gun club premises.Farmers or graziers need to have a gun license,with restrictions. These laws seem to be effective in reducing
gun violence,and New Zealand has recently introduced similar laws.
Your viewpoint is highly valued here. You sound like a mature person living under reasonable laws. Thanks.
G’ud on ya mate. Same here in Canada except there is not a restriction on urban possession.
However Toronto, (I’m over on the west side, think Sidney and Perth), is experiencing a very high rate of gun violence. It is all gang violence.
There is talk of imposing more strict gun laws which has to be done at the federal level. But we all shrug our shoulders in resignation because we know the regulations will not fix this particular problem. Why? Because the funds will keep coming illegally from the US regardless.
This is the poison the US is distributing. Its is a snake oil elixir for an ailment that does not exist. Note to Americans: you will never have this personal freedom everyone keeps talking about that is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. YOU ARE THE TYRANT.
“I have seen the enemy…”
“the guns”, not funds
The part of the second amendment that some have read into the text is ” A belligent asshole with a gun has the right to deprive other citizens of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The text is not in the Bill of Rights but some surely believe it is there. Seems they are clueless about the Oath of Allegiance – “….that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…..” The purpose of the amendment was to PROTECT not to destroy. and pardon me for saying this, if one thinks a semi-automatic .223 with a hundred round clip is a defense against a rocket propelled grenade, or that personal body armor is a defense againt .60 cal armor piercing rounds….. you cant fix stupid
The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the boys had rally points, where they could arm themselves and organize, should there be a slave uprising or revolt in their area. The 2nd was about a rapid and efficient response to that potential threat.
There is also a reason why the wording of the 2nd Amendment is intentionally vague to the point of absurdity, the Framers did not want to spell out this true purpose in plain English.
One, contemporary politics and the art of the compromise dictated that it be such, two, it would look seedy, not only to the eyes of the world then, but probably to posterity as well, and three, it would have frightened, unnecessarily, all but bravest of the lily white women folk of the time.
Note: re: home defense. I’m looking into purchasing an M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, and if I can swing it, I’d like to install a surface to air missile battery in my backyard … for the drones that violate my airspace.
Historical context is all important – but, to no small extent, it rests in the eyes of the historian.
“…intentionally vague” – good stuff!