One more shooting. One more chance for the Progressives to screech and whine about gun control. I'm really tired of this cycle. Progressives complain about the cycle, too, because they want action, and they want it now. In 3 weeks they'll be bored again, or outraged about something new such as the fact that Trump doesn't have a dog and doesn't seem to care for them. Progressive try to make it seem like those of us who actually support freedom and the Constitution are uncaring, because we don't do something other than the one thing they deride - "Thoughts and Prayers". I've noticed some are taking a new tack. Not necessarily better. Like every other event, they trot out the same emotions, same flawed statistics, bizarre comparisons to nations without cultures remotely similar to ours, and then one or two tricks. Progressives are not old dogs. They are young dogs and haven't learned that new tricks aren't necessarily smarter or better.
I wrote about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, slightly over 5 years ago. Have my views changed since then, and the presumed thousands of mass shootings that Progressives point out? No. Not in the least. Does the fact this involved children change my views? Nope. Am I cold and heartless? No. I'm just rational. Gun control won't stop this. People who want to kill will kill and they will use whatever method they can. The Progressive argument is "with guns, you can kill MORE" and that's just not proven to be true. It's an assumption based on incomplete data sets. What is the real issue that needs to be discussed after a shooting and the outrage is building?
The real issue is freedom and the Constitution. Progressives keep trying to misuse it. This is no surprise. They don't understand it, and frankly don't really enjoy the freedoms it provides. They, for some bizarre reason, think it creates government and government gives us everything the Constitution provides. Which is incorrect. The Constitution limits the government from getting in our way so we can each pursue the things we want and desire. The Constitution assures the freedoms, the government is just supposed to make sure nobody and no laws get in the way of the freedoms provided. These rights are not given by government. They are given to all by something greater than government. Call it God, or a Natural Order, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any could be the provider of these rights - I don't know what its name is, and the source is immaterial. All that matters is we all agree, and accept, that we have these rights. These rights don't change with time, circumstance, or technology. The Second Amendment allows us the right and ability to protect these rights on our own - individually! Let's not forget that an armed populace also prevents government from having a monopoly on force. One idiot Progressive said "big deal, how will your rifle offset a government tank? You're already at a disadvantage." Brilliant. So since I'm 190 lbs going against George Foreman, I should stop training because I'm going to lose anyway, right? Tell that to David when he stepped in with Goliath. I know the gun itself won't stop a tank. But it gives me a small advantage, if used properly. There are ways to stop a tank with a rifle, in the right situations. I'd rather have the gun rather than just my fists, and I'm certain many in Tiananmen Square felt the same way in 1989.
But the new trick I saw was something I saw posted several times. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Domestic tranquility? Nope
Justice? Not for all
general Welfare? Not for many
This was then followed by various commentaries such as "The founding fathers would weep." "We need to rethink our Constitution." Other silliness and lack of reason was applied to this misinformation. Talk about FAKE NEWS.
I've seen misinterpretations of the Constitution before. But this really took the cake. It's not even close. Domestic tranquility, of course, is exactly what we have. Except for ne'er-do-wells seeking to undermine the office of president, destroy the Constitution, and force people to eat, sleep, drink, act, and believe EXACTLY what they do - by force of law (or at least force of societal pressure). Everyone being the same is, to them, "tranquility". "Oh, it's just a gun. Is your life worse without it?" Yes it is. And it's not just a gun. It's an assurance that you won't force me to be like you - like you're trying to.
Justice, of course, is what the shooter (and all shooters) face, assuming they survive. The "not for all" is based on the assumption that those killed somehow didn't receive their justice because their dead. And, somehow, we who support gun rights are to blame for that. Sorry, not going to buy that crap. I'm no more responsible for a mental patient with guns than I am for 8 immigrants with boxcutters or 2 with home-made pressure cooker bombs. Who, by the way, are responsible for just as much death and destruction, if not more, utilizing LEGAL items. Progressive conveniently ignore these facts because they have the freaking amygdala which is hopped up and functioning at hyperdrive. "But what about the children?" is a joke comment made in virtually every crisis situation on The Simpsons. Because, you know, it's only a meaningful thing if you've thought about the children first.
General welfare, of course, is misrepresented by Progressives in many ways. If it's not class envy or fear that someone is earning more than them (that is, those who actually work), it's that 'welfare' somehow magically equates with safety. That is, the government needs to provide safety to everyone at all times. After all, the Constitution says "insure", doesn't it? Uh, yeah, it does. Except that doesn't mean the government is going to keep YOU safe AT ALL TIMES. That's moronic. It can't do that, and it shouldn't do that. It shouldn't even try to do it a little bit, especially if it means impinging on liberty. As Ben Franklin wisely opined:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." NPR feels his comment has "lost its context". Let's not discuss that NPR lost its context about 20 years ago. Volokh alters the perspective, quite properly, here. Giving up some liberty for an improved, longer-term, safety, is logical. But giving up guns DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT ASSURANCE. The Bath Schoolhouse proves this. In a fictional sense, so does Heathers.
Finally, there is the point whether the Constitution does assure these things to everyone. In fact, it doesn't say that everyone's general welfare will be assured at all. It simply says THE general welfare. That means YOUR general welfare is YOUR responsibility, not the government's. It means YOU need to take care of yourself and your family, but the government will help protect the opportunities for you to do that. Which it has, quite effectively. My safety and general welfare is not the government's business. It's mine, and mine alone.
Of course, the Progressives, once their attempt to be rational fails, will fall back on emotion. This is the part where someone complains about me not caring or being unfeeling because I won't "do something" and don't support their agenda. What about the children, indeed? "What would you do if it was your kids?"
Well, I don't know. It's not my kids, but I do know one thing. I wouldn't want gun control, even stopping assault weapons won't work.. I'd probably want to arm my kid, make sure they were trained properly, or get on the school's back for not properly training the teachers or providing decent security. I've never been in a situation like that, so I don't know how I'd behave. I do know how I'd feel, because it's pretty close to how I feel now. Pretty bad, upset that bad things happen to good people and that life is unfair and sometimes destructive. Empathetic folk think my response is strange, shallow and uncaring. It's not. I genuinely hurt for those kids and their families. But I don't have to rage against the government for that. I rage against the government for plenty of stuff. This isn't one of them. In this case, the rage is felt for the gunman. After all, the government is doing its job properly, in this case.
Feelings won't fix anything. They will lead to bad policy. Which is why things like the claims about the number of school shootings in 2018 is bothersome. It's fake news. These are statistics which are conjured up out of nothing in order to develop greater outrage - emotionally driven policy news. Funny how Progressive rage on and on about how 'fake news' got Trump elected (no it didn't) but want to use real fake news to drive policy. Emotions, in this case, are completely insane.
Right now, everyone feels so bad for the families of the victims they aren't stopping to think about the potential impact of the policies they want to implement to stop these shootings. Let's ignore the fact that shootings are in decline, and run with the misguided Progressive belief that they are getting worse. The reality is that stopping guns won't stop killings, let alone mass killings. These are disturbed people. They will find a way to do what they want. The proper question is related to how can we identify and stop these potential events prior to them happening? We can't just toss threatening people in jail. And we can't use mental illness as a defining point for gun sales. After all, we've seen several regimes use political affiliations as indicators of mental illness, and even in the US some prominent politicians, celebrities, and activists have made claims that Republicans, climate skeptics, Trump voters, and a host of other types of people are 'mentally ill', so you see how this can be a problem. Any defining term about "mental illness" will have to have clear exclusions for political affiliation.
Today, as far as I'm concerned, we need to end the outrage about guns, and focus the outrage at the shooters. We should block their names and images from news broadcasts and other outlets. We should stop having schools listed as gun-free zones, and we should end gun-free zones altogether. Nobody in politics has seemed to make the correlation between active shooters and these zones. I have no problem with trained, armed, teachers or school staff. It should be a requirement.
But I simply can't listen to pinheads railing on removing freedoms so they can feel safe. If I can feel safe, in spite of these events, so can they.
