I'm not really going to address today's unfathomable stupidity of Jayne's babble on the gun issue beyond the bizarre idea that even after writing that trope, Jayne acknowledged it wouldn't "solve" the problem of guns.
I have some ideas that might address the multiple "problems" concerning guns we face as a society that will actually, I believe, make a difference.
First of all, I view all this through the lens of actually SOLVING the problems facing us.
Doing nothing is the wrong thing. Infringing on our rights is the wrong thing. Acting as if the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Suggestion is the wrong thing. Talking about unrealistic ideas that go nowhere is counter-productive... and that includes ideas acknowledged by their advocates to solve nothing.
Like every other problem facing us, we must either decide to try and solve it or if we just want to placate it.
I want to solve it. And as a result, most leftists reading this will recoil in horror at my ideas. But as usual, they will offer, typically, nothing at all and certainly won't offer anything realistic to address the issues at hand in any meaningful, legal, way.
Essentially, the solution of the left, a left that is very big on controlling us, is to disarm the law-abiding people as if their was no 2nd Amendment. Also of note, many of those demanding that WE, effectively, disarm, are surrounded by guns for THEIR security.
Their message, like that of the president, is lost in the cacophony of their hypocrisy.
I'm sorry, Mr. President, but your blood is not more important than mine or that of my family's. And until you get rid of the hundreds of people surrounding you with guns for your and your family's protection, you likely should just keep your mouth shut.
Because all of your myriad of other failings notwithstanding (and an entire library can be written about that) you cannot preach to us about how we should live without guns when you don't live the same way, which is just one of the many reasons that woman you're married to has been an abysmal failure when it comes to her school lunch Gestapo: she wouldn't be caught dead feeding her kids the slop she demands the school systems feed our kids.
Unfortunately, there are no 100% fixes.
In schools, for example, a shooter can hit a play ground as much as he or she can hit a classroom now.
We can arm teachers, make our classrooms bullet proof, surround each school with a battalion of infantry... and those steps would not make a school invulnerable. A shooter with a death wish is going to kill kids and staff indiscriminately for at least a brief time no matter what we do.
But what we can do is look at school shootings and ask ourselves: what would have made a difference here? What would have reduced or possibly... POSSIBLY eliminated the shooter?
The most obvious is to reverse the soft target mentality.
When we see a sign at a school that says "gun free zone," exactly who the hell is that sign for?
Does anyone think for one second that idiotic signs like that do ANYTHING but restrict the access of a gun owner to his or her weapon that would never use it illegally at a school in the first place?
Banning t-shirts... suspending kids that bite their pop tarts into a vague gun shape... that might make the fringe-left get all warm and tingly, but how does that actually make any real difference?
Who, then, suffers as a result of these signs?
The unassailable fact is that the bad guys don't care what your sign says. And people are now dead because of these signs, because those following the laws could not defend themselves and died as a result. No one has been saved because of them.
The problem: school shootings.
As long as bad guys bring guns to places where their are no guns, mainly schools, there are going to be school shootings.
The solution in K-12 is to arm teachers. The solution in higher ed is to arm professors and students. The solution is to dramatically increase school security. The solution is to make each classroom into what amounts to a fortress so that armed intruders can't easily get in. The solution is to make each school building a fortress so that a shooter can't get in.
The downside is simple: this might reduce the number of school shootings... shootings actually IN schools... but in the end, there are so many soft targets out there that these steps will merely move them... not stop them.
What do we do about school buses, for example? How do we keep a shooter off of those, or keep a shooter from firing through the windows or whatever?
Arming school bus drivers wouldn't make them bullet proof or bullet proof the buses or the students.
The fact is that with a determined shooter, it is effectively impossible to stop these kinds of things.
But what I advocate here is to give everyone a chance. Just a chance. Because those kids in Sandy Hook had zero chance. And those students at UCC had no chance.
And the shooters knew it.
The problem: gun use in crime.
I have advocated before that the only way to end gun use in crime is to end those using guns in crime.
Briefly, if you use or possess a gun in crime, you are showing the willingness to take the life of another as a criminal act. As a result?
You should lose your life.
For those who disagree with the death penalty, then, well, we'll lock offenders up.
For life.
Make it mandatory. No probation, no parole. In a short time, this would dramatically reduce the use of guns in crime.
The problem: failing to prosecute gun crimes.
About 1.2 million background checks have resulted in denials since the system was implemented.
How many of those denials have resulted in prosecutions? EVERY (confirmed) denial is a result of a criminal act.
MORE laws won't solve anything except to continue to punish those of us who do our best to follow these laws once they're implemented.
How MANY times have we been told that we shouldn't judge a terrorist religion by the actions of the several million who support terrorism and Sharia over the US Constitution.
The blood on the hands of those advocating "solutions" that even they acknowledge will not work, will not wash off easily.
The Administration of this country would trust Iran, who routinely has scum chanting "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran over their own American people.
We are, after all, the ones who cling to our guns and our religion.
And so do those who get a pass from the President. We just don't decapitate or burn to death those who disagree.
We have capabilities to address the issue in meaningful ways.
What we, as a nation lack, is the will.
Certainly, there are a great many things that can be done to address the gun crime facing this country. But so far, no one has advocated anything that will realistically make any difference whatsoever.
And that is a prime definition of insanity: the expectation of doing the same things, over and over, while expecting a different outcome.
If people are determined to screw around with our 2nd Amendment, at least have the common sense to do something that will matter... Don't do something to confuse motion... with action... to placate an outraged electorate.
Know that we are at least as smart as you are. And unlike you, we have no ulterior motive.
Would these solve the problem? Probably not, as I am sure plenty of readers will vociferously explain.If these ideas won't "solve" the problem... and even those advocating these ideas acknowledge they won't solve them... then why even bother with them? Instead, why not focus on steps that can be taken that will at least impact the issues before us instead of advocating the waste of even more millions... tens of millions... for a result that will solve nothing save to strengthen the public perception of the gun-grabbers?
I have some ideas that might address the multiple "problems" concerning guns we face as a society that will actually, I believe, make a difference.
First of all, I view all this through the lens of actually SOLVING the problems facing us.
Doing nothing is the wrong thing. Infringing on our rights is the wrong thing. Acting as if the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Suggestion is the wrong thing. Talking about unrealistic ideas that go nowhere is counter-productive... and that includes ideas acknowledged by their advocates to solve nothing.
Like every other problem facing us, we must either decide to try and solve it or if we just want to placate it.
I want to solve it. And as a result, most leftists reading this will recoil in horror at my ideas. But as usual, they will offer, typically, nothing at all and certainly won't offer anything realistic to address the issues at hand in any meaningful, legal, way.
Essentially, the solution of the left, a left that is very big on controlling us, is to disarm the law-abiding people as if their was no 2nd Amendment. Also of note, many of those demanding that WE, effectively, disarm, are surrounded by guns for THEIR security.
Their message, like that of the president, is lost in the cacophony of their hypocrisy.
I'm sorry, Mr. President, but your blood is not more important than mine or that of my family's. And until you get rid of the hundreds of people surrounding you with guns for your and your family's protection, you likely should just keep your mouth shut.
Because all of your myriad of other failings notwithstanding (and an entire library can be written about that) you cannot preach to us about how we should live without guns when you don't live the same way, which is just one of the many reasons that woman you're married to has been an abysmal failure when it comes to her school lunch Gestapo: she wouldn't be caught dead feeding her kids the slop she demands the school systems feed our kids.
Unfortunately, there are no 100% fixes.
In schools, for example, a shooter can hit a play ground as much as he or she can hit a classroom now.
We can arm teachers, make our classrooms bullet proof, surround each school with a battalion of infantry... and those steps would not make a school invulnerable. A shooter with a death wish is going to kill kids and staff indiscriminately for at least a brief time no matter what we do.
But what we can do is look at school shootings and ask ourselves: what would have made a difference here? What would have reduced or possibly... POSSIBLY eliminated the shooter?
The most obvious is to reverse the soft target mentality.
When we see a sign at a school that says "gun free zone," exactly who the hell is that sign for?
Does anyone think for one second that idiotic signs like that do ANYTHING but restrict the access of a gun owner to his or her weapon that would never use it illegally at a school in the first place?
Banning t-shirts... suspending kids that bite their pop tarts into a vague gun shape... that might make the fringe-left get all warm and tingly, but how does that actually make any real difference?
Who, then, suffers as a result of these signs?
The unassailable fact is that the bad guys don't care what your sign says. And people are now dead because of these signs, because those following the laws could not defend themselves and died as a result. No one has been saved because of them.
The problem: school shootings.
As long as bad guys bring guns to places where their are no guns, mainly schools, there are going to be school shootings.
The solution in K-12 is to arm teachers. The solution in higher ed is to arm professors and students. The solution is to dramatically increase school security. The solution is to make each classroom into what amounts to a fortress so that armed intruders can't easily get in. The solution is to make each school building a fortress so that a shooter can't get in.
The downside is simple: this might reduce the number of school shootings... shootings actually IN schools... but in the end, there are so many soft targets out there that these steps will merely move them... not stop them.
What do we do about school buses, for example? How do we keep a shooter off of those, or keep a shooter from firing through the windows or whatever?
Arming school bus drivers wouldn't make them bullet proof or bullet proof the buses or the students.
The fact is that with a determined shooter, it is effectively impossible to stop these kinds of things.
But what I advocate here is to give everyone a chance. Just a chance. Because those kids in Sandy Hook had zero chance. And those students at UCC had no chance.
And the shooters knew it.
The problem: gun use in crime.
I have advocated before that the only way to end gun use in crime is to end those using guns in crime.
Briefly, if you use or possess a gun in crime, you are showing the willingness to take the life of another as a criminal act. As a result?
You should lose your life.
For those who disagree with the death penalty, then, well, we'll lock offenders up.
For life.
Make it mandatory. No probation, no parole. In a short time, this would dramatically reduce the use of guns in crime.
The problem: failing to prosecute gun crimes.
About 1.2 million background checks have resulted in denials since the system was implemented.
How many of those denials have resulted in prosecutions? EVERY (confirmed) denial is a result of a criminal act.
A federal prohibition would exist for any person who:
- Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
- Is a fugitive from justice
- Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
- Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
- Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
- Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
- Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
- Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
- Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
"Of approximately 80,000 in 2012 that were denied (a gun) because of a background check … only 44 people were prosecuted for that," Ayotte said during the February 19 meeting.
MORE laws won't solve anything except to continue to punish those of us who do our best to follow these laws once they're implemented. How MANY times have we been told that we shouldn't judge a terrorist religion by the actions of the several million who support terrorism and Sharia over the US Constitution.
The blood on the hands of those advocating "solutions" that even they acknowledge will not work, will not wash off easily.
The Administration of this country would trust Iran, who routinely has scum chanting "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran over their own American people.
We are, after all, the ones who cling to our guns and our religion.
And so do those who get a pass from the President. We just don't decapitate or burn to death those who disagree.
We have capabilities to address the issue in meaningful ways.
What we, as a nation lack, is the will.
Certainly, there are a great many things that can be done to address the gun crime facing this country. But so far, no one has advocated anything that will realistically make any difference whatsoever.
And that is a prime definition of insanity: the expectation of doing the same things, over and over, while expecting a different outcome.
If people are determined to screw around with our 2nd Amendment, at least have the common sense to do something that will matter... Don't do something to confuse motion... with action... to placate an outraged electorate.
Know that we are at least as smart as you are. And unlike you, we have no ulterior motive.
No comments:
Post a Comment