We might be on to something here

When discussing gun control these days it's almost like The Irresistible Force vs The Immovable Object.  It seems like we're in permanent gridlock....no one is budging.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I own guns, enjoy shooting guns, and legally carry a gun.  I'm a threat to NO ONE, unless they threaten me or a loved one.  Then I feel I have the right to defend myself.

There are also people who own guns, enjoy shooting guns, and ILLEGALLY carry a gun, and they're a threat to EVERYBODY.  I've said and written many times that these are the people we need to agree to disarm.  And then we all smile, nod, say "great idea"....and do nothing.  Except California.

I can't believe I'm giving a thumbs up to a gun law originating in California, but I am.  I just saw a piece on TV about a program in CA that is cracking down on "armed prohibited persons".  Specifically, the California Dept of Justice has a task force that cross-references five databases to find people who legally purchased guns but are prohibited by law from doing so.  That's apparently how lax our current background check system is.  These "prohibited persons" include felons, individuals with a history of violence, those who have a restraining order against them, those with severe mental illness, and wanted persons.

How could we all not agree on that?  Seems to me these are the exact kind of people we need to disarm!  The anti-gun controllers, however, seem to have their panties in a wad.

I can understand how the sight of law enforcement knocking on doors and then entering to confiscate guns could be frightening to Second Amendment supporters, which includes me.  (Before the knock on the door the violators are notified by mail that they need to disarm and come clean.)  And I can understand how they might be scared of a database that identifies who has guns and who doesn't.  But we need to somehow balance that against the fact that 10,000 people have been hauled in for possessing 18,000 guns that they are already prohibited by law to have. 

These people have already demonstrated they are either mentally ill or are a menace to society.  It seems to me we need to find a way to reassure us law abiding gun owners that WE have nothing to fear, and then go after "armed prohibited persons" everywhere with a vengeance.  They are the problem, not us.

S

Next you'll want me to pick tonight's World Series winner, right?

If Carnac The Magnificent did politics....

Time for some rank amateur, next-to-worthless political prognostication from yours truly.  The US Presidential / Congressional elections are exactly one week away, The Donald is still groping women out in his bus according to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary is already taking reservations from her Banker buddies...cha ching...for overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom according to Donald Trump.  For us the choice is simple: Would you rather die from a venereal disease or a stab in the back?

My timeline:  If Donald Trump wins we'll see some almost immediate riots / civil unrest, primarily in the inner cities where minorities will see his election as the first step to rolling back their civil rights.  That won't happen, of course, but that will be their perception.

If Hillary Clinton wins there will be civil unrest, too, primarily from those who suspect she will immediately start to work abridging their Second Amendment rights. That won't happen, of course, but that will be their perception. 

And Carnac saaaaaays....Hillary Clinton by a nose.

The House of Representatives will stay in the hands of the Republican Party, but that Party will be in total chaos.  The only organized faction of the surviving GOP will be the Brown Shirts...er...the Tea Party.  Their agenda item #1; wrestle the Speakers gavel away from Paul Ryan and pass it to one of their knuckle draggers.  Agenda item #2; begin setting up special investigation units to see what misdeeds they can pin on President Hillary Clinton.  She will prove to be a "target rich environment".

The Senate races are a tough call.  I suspect the Republicans will keep their majority standing, but only barely.  If they do, nothing their archnemesis Hillary Clinton requests will ever get a committee hearing, much less a Senate floor vote.  The Supreme Court, already one member short, will likely stay that way (or get worse as more vacancies open up due to the old-timers there now clocking out).  Republicans (Tea Party members or those intimidated by the Tea Party, which is all the rest of 'em) will never vote for a nominee they feel might overturn Roe v Wade or Citizens United, upset the Second Amendment status quo, etc.

The economy will turn south, more than anything because we've been on a winning streak for a historically long time and are due a correction.  Hillary won't notice because she'll be too busy shaking down The One Percent.  She will get blamed for the recession, as Presidents always are, and her approval rating will plummet. 

The House Tea Party will initiate an impeachment hearing against President Clinton, and will vote "aye" 20 minutes later.  They know there is no way the Senate will vote by a 2/3 majority to convict her, but that's OK with them.  They just have a sharp stick and they want to poke it in her eye.  It will be the centerpiece event of their Annual Summer Family Picnic.

For the next six months the news will revolve around nothing more than the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.  We might get a few days of "other" news following a terrorist attack somewhere, or if California goes missing after an earthquake, but that's about it. 

In the interim, while we're busy lobbing stink bombs at each other, the banks will quietly continue their march to complete domination of us all, the insurance companies will continue to merge, first into the Big Eight, then the Big Four, and finally the Big One.  Same with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.

OR

We'll grow some balls, round up all the above mentioned "deplorables", and ship them all off to a newly renovated (kidding) and restocked (with bread and water) Alcatraz.

Now, is that a happy ending or what?  :) 

S

I'll get the coat hangers, you get the marshmallows

I think many of us are scared to look over our shoulder, afraid of what we might see.  And as more evidence of the denial we are in (IMO), here's what nobody dares say out loud:  Our country is crumbling before our very eyes.  And worse, violence may not be far behind.

Things are near a boiling point.  For years the approval rating of Congress has been less than 10%.  Republicans and Democrats will almost never sit down and find common ground.  Republicans say "no" to President Obama before even hearing what he has to say, and if a President Trump is in our future, I'm sure Democrats will treat him the same.

African Americans feel they are being profiled and abused by the police, and many are quick to take to the streets.  The Donald has said, and apparently many agree, that Mexicans are thieves and murderers and rapists and should be kept out by a tall wall.  The threat of Islamic terrorism has us willingly (?) giving up our civil liberties.  Remember the Occupy Wall Street movement? 

Police are ambushed and killed somewhere almost every day.  It is becoming increasingly difficult for them to protect us when they must first think of protecting themselves.  There is little respect left for "law and order".  "Patriots" are occupying Federal property at gunpoint in Oregon.  The Second Amendment is sacred; guns are bad, blah, blah, blah.  There is no tolerance, and the chasm is getting wider.

Americans don't normally think in terms of armed revolutions.  Those things only happen in Argentina, Eastern Europe, and some of those far-away countries that end in "stan".  We're above all that, right?

I say "don't be so sure."

"Oh Scott, you're paranoid.  You watch too much TV, and you know how the media sensationalizes."

Really?  I live in Ted Cruz country, where 1.2 million people voted for him just yesterday.  He's brilliant and totally without scruples, I don't care how much Scripture he quotes.  I'm around many of his believers every day, and I can tell you that far too many of them are pissed-off knuckle-dragging zealots.  They are emblematic of the underlying anger simmering everywhere.

While it might be good politics to preach love and tolerance, it's unlikely to dissuade the guy hurling a Molotov cocktail at you or taking pot-shots at your car.

Sure, most of us just put in our 40 hours at work, watch a little TV, and coach the kids little league team.  We're not the problem.  But there seems to be no shortage of anger across the country, and it doesn't take many malcontents to set a few fires, randomly kill a few innocents, and intimidate the majority to send our society into a tailspin.  (Then multiply by 10 when you figure in the copycats and the publicity sicko's.)  That's what mobs do, and it works!

I'm just advising you to stay alert and take nothing for granted.   And hope I'm wrong.

S

The Status Quo Lives!....with EDIT

Did anyone but me watch the Townhall Meeting last night where Prez O'Bama politely sparred with pro-gun advocates?  As expected, when the dust settled, the status quo was still intact.  I can't for the life of me understand why the pro-gun side still believes the Federales are intent on coming for their guns (it's a physical impossibility), and why the anti-gun advocates believe that the pro-gun side will someday just say, "Oh, OK, we'll do it your way."  Square peg, round hole.

Full disclosure:  I have guns.  I enjoy shooting them.  I have a Concealed Handgun License.  I will not carry openly.  I am not a member of the NRA.  I'm a political skeptic.  I don't trust either side.  I (arguably) have a fair amount of gray matter between my ears.

On O'Bama's proposal to require background checks on all gun purchases, I don't see a problem with it.  If I were a federally licensed gun dealer, I'd be all for it in order to level the playing field.  Am I worried about having my name on a federal database identifying me as a gun owner?  Ha! I suspect my name is on a whole lot of private and government databases already.  What's one more?
 
If the feds someday come to my house to confiscate my guns, I'll just say "no".  I'll have a legion of Pro Bono lawyers line up to represent me (and enhance their reputation), and I'll win.  And when I do, I'll never have to buy another restaurant meal or beer ever again.  I'll be a folk hero.  Gun makers will fawn all over me, and will happily give me their products just to see me photographed holding one.   And the feds know it.  It's a DOA idea if there ever was one.

Will more background checks keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them?  Highly doubtful.  Will the NRA-types ever be willing to give it a try?  Lololololol!

So can we do anything to curb gun violence, something that both sides might buy into?  I think so.  It's common knowledge that convicted felons have, by existing law, forfeited many of their civil rights, including the right to own a gun.  It's also common knowledge that many convicted felons continue to own guns, and continue to use them.  So lets round 'em up and lock 'em away!

Oops....one little problem.  It costs LOTS of money to incarcerate a person.  I suspect we could get hundreds of thousands of felons in possession of guns off our streets if we would just put a concerted effort into going after them.  BUT WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO AGREE TO PAY THE PRICE TO BUILD MORE PRISON CELLS, AND HIRE MORE PRISON GUARDS, and probably pay more welfare to the families left behind by their now-jailed breadwinners.

So, can we afford it?  No...and yes.  The original numbers to do all this would be staggering, and the Tea Party would no doubt piss and moan about it because all they know how to say is "cut taxes".  But then once some non-partisan think tanks examined it, I think they would find that since the perps would likely wind up back in jail at some time in the future anyway, and the cost of legal proceedings and public defenders being what they are, yeah, we probably could afford it.  It fact, it would likely be a good investment of taxpayer money. 

I'd love to see the NRA try and oppose such a strategy, try to oppose putting bad guys back behind bars.  The most hemophilic of the bleeding heart left might bemoan yet more people being locked up vs rehabbed, but I think they could be drowned out by the public applauding the lower gun violence numbers.

So why don't we think more outside the box to find things that could be agreed to by all sides?  Have we become that unimaginative?  *shaking head*

S

EDIT:  The news is reporting a Philadelphia police officer was ambushed in his car by an assailant claiming to be an ISIS sympathizer.  But beyond that, he also had a lengthy criminal record.  This is EXACTLY the type of gun violence that could be prevented if felons in possession of guns could be locked up.

Guns just went to the top of this year's Christmas "want list"

Another mass-casualty shooting, this time in Southern California.  One of the shooters worked with many of those he killed, so "workplace violence", right?  Umm, maybe.  But he was also of the Muslim faith / political persuasion, had recently traveled to Saudi Arabia to pick up his bride (the second shooter), and started growing a beard upon his return, so "Islamic terrorism", right?  Umm, maybe.

There are lots of unanswered questions, but regardless, the call for more gun control will intensify once again.  The thing most apparent to me is that, even if the "gun controllers" get the new laws they want, they will still be disappointed.

Those who buy guns legally (with background checks) will still do so.  (FYI, the guns the Cali shooters used were all purchased legally.)  Those who buy guns without background checks will still do so.  Those are the guns that will be used in most crimes, making the owners of those guns criminals.  They're already criminals, so to them, what's the big deal breaking one more law?

Let's assume you could require background checks on all gun sales from this point forward, whether from a gun dealer or from an individual, and make it stick (which you can't).  There are already somewhere between 200 and 300 MILLION guns floating around out there right now.  Who owns those?  Have they been background checked?  This is reality, folks.

If the gun controllers think they will see any appreciable difference by requiring universal background checks in 6 months, or even 6 years, they are simply being delusional.  It will likely take many decades for enough guns to be sold with checks to new, properly vetted owners to see any difference at all. 

The reality is this:  If there was ever an issue that will cause otherwise fine, upstanding citizens to resort to "civil disobedience", restricting their Second Amendment rights to "keep and bear arms" is it.  In their minds, whether you agree or not, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution says it's legal to own guns, and as the Supreme Court has agreed, they wouldn't be breaking any law if they resisted.  You can argue until you're blue about the definition of "well armed militia", they won't care.

If you make new laws that in effect outlaw certain types of guns, you've just opened up a whole new field for organized crime to capitalize on.  It didn't work with alcohol back in the 1920's and 30's, and it won't work with guns today.  Too many people already have them, and too many others want them.

So IMHO even if the gun controllers do get their wish, the effect on the number of future mass shootings will be virtually non-existent.  If they want to try, go ahead.  They will just be pissing into the wind.  Don't expect any miracle results. 

Please don't shoot the messenger.

S