The 2nd Amendment Protects More Than “Hunting Rights”

Seemingly, after every mass shooting involving a high-powered rifle, gun control advocates call for its possession to be heavily regulated or banned.  A frequent reason given is that such a weapon isn’t appropriate for sports hunting, anyway.  And when the AR15 (a semi-automatic version of the military’s M-16 fully automatic rifle) is the weapon, they are right.

But that argument misconstrues the 2^nd Amendment, the purpose of which was to guarantee the rights of Americans to possess firearms for the defense of themselves and their communities.

Read what it says:

          “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was approved (of which, of course, the 2^nd Amendment is a part), Americans had access to muskets and flintlock rifles.  Those were the individual firearms of the day.

Today, the AR15 rifle, a civilian version of its military counterpart, is comparable to the musket of two centuries ago.  It can be a very effective self-defense weapon.

To be sure, firearms have always been mis-used for criminal purposes.  Obviously a rapid-fire AR15 has the capacity to inflict far more damage than a flintlock rifle able to be reloaded only a few times a minute.  But those are matters of degree.  The fact remains that possession of either is a right.  And rights are abused.

Society’s appropriate response must be to focus on thwarting the abusers.  That may require more security at public schools, including metal detectors and guards, to arming willing school personnel and a heightened awareness of society’s potential violent misfits.

What’s the Worth of a Child’s Life?

Seventeen people, mostly children, died in last week’s Florida school slaughter.

Would a security system with metal detectors have thwarted the nineteen year old shooter?  Maybe.

At least it might have which is a lot more than “stricter” gun laws would have done. 

Seemingly after every mass shooting, whether at a a school or a shopping mall, the cry in the media goes up:  “Do Something!”

The usual answer to the “what?” is more gun control.  And that’s almost always the wrong response.  Typically, the laws would not have prevented this shooter from acquiring his arsenal.  His background set off no alarms.  And with millions and millions of firearms in this country (the 2^nd Amendment is alive and well), someone with an application that raises a red flag can always get his weapons illegally.

Well, what about mental health checks?  To be sure most mass killers leave a trail full of warning signs.  But how many millions of people in this country have serious mental problems and who do not gun-down fellow Americans?  Are we, as a country, supposed to detain or confine all of those who “might” become mass murderers?  And what about the person who first gives off deadly clues only when doing the killing?

Evil is and always has been a constant among humankind.  Lamenting its existence won’t make it disappear. Thus, ultimately, focusing on catching the would-be evil doer before the deed is not likely to be very successful. 

Reducing, if not entirely thwarting, the devastation of evil seems much more promising.

All 130,000 of the nation’s public and private schools should have security systems. 

Many schools already have them, for instance, New York City, Boston and Washington D.C.

Such systems are routinely present at professional sports stadiums – both football and baseball.  They are present at courts and government buildings, too.

So why don’t all have them?

Surprisingly, the cost is not prohibitive.  A metal detection machine is about $5000.  If every school had one, that would be $650 million.

Considering an annual Federal Budget in the trillions, that amount seems very palatable.

Our children’s lives are worth it.

 

 

The Insanity of Placing Domestic Spending on a Par with Military Expenditures

In 2011, a budget battle between Democrats and Republicans was resolved by the sides agreeing that spending on domestic projects as well as military requests would be sequestered  with any increases to be in lock-step;.  An increase in defense spending would have to be matched, on a percentage basis, by domestic outlays. 

Certainly there were Republican legislators who resisted the proposal noting that the military needs took priority.  But the Democrats under Obama wanted the balance to tip the other way.  So the compromise was reached.

Pause for a moment.  The military’s role is to protect this country.  If it fails, the concern for perceived domestic needs will be meaningless.  A free, self-governing America will be no more. 

So how can there be a reasonable disagreement as to which recipient of taxpayer funds gets priority?

To be sure, there is disagreement but it is also foolish, so disconnected from real world concerns and worries that those who slight the military can only be ignorant, irresponsible or indifferent to the nation’s best interest.  It’s certainly understandable if one wants to call such people crazy.

It’s no surprise that Elijah Cummings is one of them.

Fortunately, the latest budget leans in the right direction (although not far enough) with defense receiving $160 billion more while domestic spending was hiked by “only” $128 billion.  [Budget hawks, and The Sensible Conservative is one, also are upset with the big increases in non-military spending.  That spending is not a national necessity.  But it was the price to get 60 votes for the budget bill in the Senate.  Without the compromise, there may have been no new money for national security.]

The Nunes Memo – What Does It Mean

 

The summary of FBI efforts to spy on a Trump campaign adviser (under the Obama Administration) is more evidence of the use of government agencies for partisan purposes.

This is hardly a new development; going back to the 1960s, for instance, Presidents Johnson and Nixon used the IRS to target political foes with audits.  More recently, Liberal operative Lois Lerner used her post in that same agency to thwart efforts by conservative groups to obtain tax-exempt status.

But the Nunes memo, drafted by GOP staff members of the House Intelligence Committee, does highlight the suspicious activities of a federal law enforcement agency. The partisan motivation suggested – but not proven – is certainly troubling - but hardly surprising in today’s heated political environment.  It’s part of a trend, not a ground breaker.  Keep in mind the activities of FBI chief James Comey and Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch protecting Hillary Clinton from criminal prosecution.

When one side does not respect the other (even detests it), a foe, an opponent becomes an enemy.  All means are justified to defeat it, even the corruption of one’s sworn duty to uphold the law.  That attitude has seemingly affected not only highly partisan political appointees but “civil service” bureaucrats as well.

That is bad news indeed.