Thursday, February 15, 2018

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE

You've heard this before and I'll say it.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people with guns, knives, sticks, vehicles, poison and so on. 

That means it doesn't matter what the gun likes like.  Plenty of people use an AR-15 to hunt with, as it is a light efficient hunting tool. 

The rub comes with capacity.   I agree that bump stocks and high capacity magazines are not necessary both for the safety hunting and reduction of damage in an event like this school shooting.  Yet, one person killed is one too many and seventeen killed is seventeen too many.  That takes us back to the person.

We have a long list of people not able to own a gun.  The reasons are because they are felons and have lost the 'right' to own a firearm, and for mental health reasons that get documented and because of being a potential threat like a restraining order for a few.

The problem lies, not with the gun or its type, but the access to guns legally and illegally.  There is a big black market for illegal guns.  The reason is that felons mostly can't get a gun any other way.  There is also an undocumented source of guns not tracked and that is guns handed down and across family members and friends as gifts or simply loaned.  And then, there are thousands of guns stolen from homes and cars.  Those are certainly in the hands of criminals and if the thieves don't use them they sell them to bad people that do. 

We can't get a handle on opioids that kill more people in a week than one of these school shootings.  The difference is the addicts' simple pass away quietly in a corner somewhere.  Too bad, so sad.  Moving on.  But let someone shoot someone with a gun and the sky is falling.  Well, hell the sky has fallen for the poor person shot.  I got off point there a little.  Point is opioids aren't even protected by the constitution like guns.  Meaning we have way more control how to handle drugs killing people than we do people with guns and we don't. 

We as a people are smart.  There are guys that can set a Volkswagen size space vehicle on an asteroid traveling at thousands of feet per second millions of miles away and send back pictures of it.  So, why don't we put some thought into how to control the 'access' to guns. 

If I want an AR-15 to hang on my wall because resembles the type of gun used in Vietnam then there is no one to say I can't.  But, were I to start posting online how much I want to shot up the town with it, then it's all bets off and I should be blackballed and have it taken away from me if I already have one.  That's reasonable.  If my doctors say I'm psychotic and enters me into a database that says "Don't give this nut a gun", then I shouldn't have one until I can appeal with more evaluation from more doctors or don't ever get a gun, period.

Why is there so much push back from the right on these emotional knee-jerk declarations from the left?  It is just because of the tone.  Ban guns, ban types of guns - it's always the gun.  Perhaps a person ought not to have an AR-15, but it isn't because of the type of gun, it's because of the person that has or wants it.  I think a lot more progress can be made on controlling guns if the focus goes to the problem of the people getting these guns and forget about the gun.  As I said before it is reasonable to sensibly restrict peripheral stuff like bump stocks and high capacity magazines.   There is no difference in shooting a Browning 30 caliber deer rifle and an M1, except for the look.

So, let's all take a deep breath and turn our attention to the root of the problem, people.  How do we keep people that shouldn't have a gun from getting one?  There is where our ire needs to be directed.

Friday, January 5, 2018

My take on Scalia Dissents



For the past week, I've been listening to Scalia Dissents.  The thing that has struck me about his view on the Supreme Court rulings he hasn't gone along with is how aligned I think he is with the framers of the Constitution.  As he details his reasoning for a dissent, I keep thinking, of course, why doesn't everyone go along with that? 

The reasons an activist court doesn't go along with it is that they don't care about the rule of law or the constitutionality if it doesn't fit their liberal agenda or looks to be in line with the populist thinking at the time, which generally equates to the most vocal.   Antonin Scalia minced no words in denouncing his fellow supreme justices when they stray from the Constitution, historical precedent which is grounded in longstanding acceptance by the people, especially those that wrote the Constitution and bending interpretation of the law to include classes of people supposedly harmed that were never considered harmed before.

There is some argument that is if one person is harmed that there has to be five more like him that didn't have the resources to bring an argument all the way to the Supreme Court.  Then, to rule in that person's favor sets a precedent that millions have to suffer with for decades to come.  The Civil War came about partly because of a Supreme Court ruling by the Dred Scott decision.  Roe vs. Wade has killed millions.  A fact, regardless of which way a person falls on the issue of abortion.  I equate it to cutting off one's nose despite his face. I think because of untended consequences the Supreme Court has the right to refuse to hear certain cases. 

Scalia has often been accused of being a right-winger Justice.  Without going into a debate about what the difference is between a conservative and a liberal, I find Scalia's Constitutional basis decision making a proper way to rule on cases brought before them.  Scalia was a great proponent of the 14th Amendment where the Constitution doesn't address an issue specifically then the issue lies with the state to legislate.  That hasn't sat well with the liberal mindset where they want the Federal platform to control all behavior along with everyone's money.  If you sense a conservative bias here, you're right.  On that basis, perhaps that is why I relate so well to Scalia Dissents. 

One thing is certain.  The law can be argued, turned and twisted to fit almost anyone's notion of what they want the outcome to be.  The same can be said of the Bible.  Scalia was mostly immune to it and weighed the merits of a case on the Constitution.  An activist court embraces the turns and twists to codify a ruling contrary to the Constitution for the aforementioned reasons. 

From the founding of our nation, the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong fewer times than right.  Still, that doesn't justify the wrong ones.  It has always been an activist court to some degree.  That is why some much emphasis has been placed on the selection of the Justice by the President.  People want the bias to be in their favor, not the opposing party.  Yet, to the surprise of many, the judges appointed by Republican presidents rule in favor of the liberal mindset.  Most of those rulings are grounded in the Constitution.  So, there we have it, not everyone on both sides of the political divide gets their way all the time. Although, I would argue those rulings with the most import have been activist rulings and Scalia would be quick to tell you so and why.

Don't take my word for it.  Go to Audible.com and get the Scalia Dissents for yourself and listen to it.  A person may wrap their arms around it or go into a foot-stomping tirade.  I find most, not all, the logic irrefutable when measured by the way Scalia reasons the issue by Constitution