Update from the Sunland
No.843
19.2.18 – 25.2.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To
all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Even after the Parkland massacre [842], the Florida House rejected a
debate on firearm control measures and chose to debate a bill [FL HR.157] declaring
pornography a public health hazard.
Firearms are far more of a public health hazard than pornography. This is precisely the nonsense that
drives me crazy. Parkland was very
much a public domain, public safety matter. Pornography is a private choice, not a public domain
issue. This is precisely why many
citizens distrust government. Far
too many legislators are far more driven to project their moral values on every
citizen rather than face a sensitive public domain safety issue.
Restrictions
on firearms are not new in this Grand Republic. More than a few communities in the Old West decided firearms
were not allowed within city limits and especially in saloons where alcohol was
served in order to improve public safety. Automatic weapons have been prohibited since the National Firearms
Act of 1934 [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236; 26.6.1934] and still are prohibited. We have had restrictions of firearms in this Grand Republic well
beyond our lifetimes. I offer my
perspective of potential, future, common sense, firearms regulations as noted
in the Comments section below.
-- The guilty pleas continue to mount. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has
filed a criminal case against Alex Van Der Zwaan, an associate of Richard Gates
[827], who is a former adviser to
Trump and partner of Manafort, accusing Van Der Zwaan of lying to the FBI. He plead guilty to the charges.
-- The fellow in the Oval Office publicly stated that he
issued memorandum instructions to Attorney General Sessions to develop
regulations that would ban the use of “bump stocks”—the device added to the
rifles used by the perpetrator of the Las Vegas massacre [822] enabling automatic discharge. I hope and must trust that his instruction is not just
pabulum to placate public anger.
We shall see. I also hope
whatever this ban may become is the prohibition of any device, mechanism or
technique that enable any firearm to function is an automatic mode—multiple
projectile discharges with a single trigger pull.
-- In the aftermath of the Parkland massacre [842], more very disturbing information
reached the public domain. Not
only were there myriad signs and actually tips to the FBI and local law
enforcement that the perpetrator was about to explode and threaten schools specifically,
but we learned four (4) law enforcement officers arrived on scene within
minutes of the first indications of trouble and failed to enter the building
and confront the perpetrator, undoubtedly contributing to the loss of life. This particular incident brightly
illuminates a grotesque failure of our approved, established processes, systems
and laws to protect our children.
The system failure at Sutherland Springs, Texas [827], is another such example.
-- The current administration unveiled serious additional
sanctions against the DPRK and focused on the rogue nation’s shipping and
trading companies in an enhanced effort to curtail foreign-currency revenues that
are keeping their nuclear program alive [252,
389, 583, & sub]. Whether
any of these sanctions amounts to economic warfare is a debatable topic. The
tighter we make the noose, the closer we approach military action. I see little choice in this progression
as long as the DPRK carries out aggressive and threatening activities.
-- After serious redaction, the fellow in the Oval Office
declassified and authorized release of the HPSCI Opposition companion
memorandum to the Majority’s memorandum released two weeks ago [840]. I read the Opposition memorandum with the same attention as
I did the Majority’s version.
While there is little definitive information to judge this whole affair,
the Democrat memo certainly paints a different picture and fills in some of the
gaps in the Republican memo. Based
on the available information, the notion that the FBI carried out illegal, or
at best malevolent surveillance of a Trump campaign aide, is rather
ludicrous. There is virtually
nothing to substantiate the claims made by the fellow in the Oval Office. In fact, one sentence in the Opposition
memorandum speaks volumes to me.
“The
initial warrant application and subsequent renewals received independent scrutiny and
approval by four different federal judges, two of whom were
appointed by President George W. Bush, one by President George H.W. Bush and
one by President Ronald Reagan.” (emphasis mine)
Further, after the initial warrant, the FBI was obligated by
law to produce substantive, relevant yield as a consequence of the FISC warrant
in order to gain a renewal, which they did three (3) times with three (3) different
federal judges—all nominated by Republican presidents.
I
find it quite telling that Trump campaign personnel felt there was nothing
wrong or odd that Russia was releasing Hillary Clinton’s eMail messages. How would they have felt if they were
their eMails? This is a very
chilling reality. Violating a
citizen’s privacy? Or, how did the
Russians acquire those eMails? No,
they were not the least bit concerned about the criminal activities of a
foreign government inside the United States against a fellow American citizen. They were only interested in dirt on
their candidate’s primary political opponent. I have not forgotten Trump’s infamous statement to Russia
during the campaign and after the iniquitous Don Jr. meeting with the Russians
in Trump Tower, Manhattan [9.June.2016]:
“Russia, if you are listening, I hope
you are able to find the 30,000 eMails that are missing.”
– 27.July.2016
So, if we are left with he-said / he-said, then there is
little doubt in my little pea-brain who is more believable and probably telling
the truth . . . or at least far closer to the truth. Yes, I think what Hillary Clinton did deleting those eMails
was criminally wrong and she deserves to be prosecuted in a court of law. However, an American citizen cajoling
an adversarial nation to hack into another American citizen’s or organization’s
communications system is far worse.
So, yes, I believe the FBI followed the evidence as the facts led them
and followed the established processes to maintain due process in accordance
with the law; the Democrat version is closer to the truth; and worse, the
Republican version is a blatant attempt to provide cover for the fellow in the
Oval Office, his family members and his cronies—verging on obstruction of
justice as well.
The
most recent of CNN’s Facts First advertisements is perhaps the most poignant
and germane.
“This is an apple. This is an apple. This is an apple. And, when you put them all together,
you have a case.”
We are beginning to see the apples from the Mueller investigation. The case is beginning to come into
view. However, we are not at the
case level, as yet—just a mounting number of apples.
General
Kelly is reportedly closing down classified material access for White House
staff with long-duration interim clearances—Jared Kushner being one of those
individuals. The fact that he is
the president’s son-in-law gives him no special consideration (or least should
not, but we know this president could not care less for the rules); Jared is
just another man who cannot pass a background check and should be dealt with
accordingly.
I
condemned Hillary Clinton’s cavalier handling of highly classified material and
I am compelled to condemn the similar high-handed treatment of classified
material available to these individuals who fail to complete the appropriate
background checks for classified material access. This abuse of classified material has got to stop. Our national security depends on safe
classified information. Defying
the rules risks seriously weakening our national security.
Many
supporters of the fellow in the Oval Office tell me to hold-up, give him a
break, give him time, let him show you he is doing good. I am all for that in general; after
all, I believe in offering everyone the benefit of the doubt. So, what am I to do when I see a man
with very destructive and injurious personal traits, and I fundamentally
disagree with this conduct as a man, as a candidate, and now as the duly
elected fellow in the Oval Office?
I swore an oath 52 years ago to “support and defend the Constitution
against all enemies foreign or domestic.”
I see his actions as attacking the very fabric of this Grand
Republic. I understand and accept
there is a substantial fraction of our citizenry who wish to return to the status quo ante of a day gone by . . . a
paternalistic, segregated and often referred to as a traditional time
(traditional values). It is normal
for folks to resist change.
However, equal is equal, period, full stop! Change is inevitable.
Genuine equality is a far better place for our Grand Republic. When I see the actions of one man or
group of men trying mightily to take us back to that day gone by, and he is
willing to dismantle the very fabric of this Grand Republic and the
Constitution that binds us together, I cannot hold my tongue or pen. I recognize that some truly believe he
is the messiah and trying to return us to that glorious day gone by. I see him in exactly the opposite
light; he is working hard to destroy the hard-fought evolution of our
society. That sure appears to be a
domestic enemy to me.
Comments and contributions from Update no.842:
“So you did want Hillary to win ... I feel sorry for our children
and grandchildren who might have to live in this country in years ahead if the
liberals ever get control again .. the fellow in the oval office as you
disrespectfully keep calling him, is a thousand times better than the last Anti
American fellow in the oval office .. the truth shall be known .. you call him narcissistic,
egocentric ... he is confident and strong .. and is trying to help our country
... and you don't want that??? Is it that you don't like people who are unlike
yourself?”
My reply:
First,
thank you for expressing your opinion in this forum. Diversity in body, mind and spirit are very important in
this Grand Republic. We must be
free and confident to disagree in order to test our opinions.
Well,
your little diatribe convinced me to go back and re-read what I had written. I confess . . . I’m confused; what led
you to conclude I “did want Hillary to win”? How could I want her to win when I think she violated
federal law {Presidential
Recordings Preservation Act [PL 93-526; 88 Stat. 1695; 19.12.1974} when
she unilaterally deleted 30,000 eMails she claimed were personal, when she
forfeited her privacy when she again unilaterally decided to combine her
professional and private communications on a personal server. Since I am in a confessing mood, I will
further confess to my long held desire to find a qualified female president;
however, that desire was grossly insufficient to overcome Hillary’s
transgressions.
If
you go back and read my writing, I referred to him properly for the first few
months of his presidency. I reached
a point where he has relentlessly disrespected the office of the President; at
that point, I could no longer give the man the respect he refused to give to
the office.
I
suspect your definition of “confident and strong” are quite
different from mine. You are
entitled to your opinion for whatever reasons you choose, as am I. I’m good with that.
I
“don't
want that???” meaning “trying to help our country.” Odd, since I served this Grand Republic
for 25 years, which I dare say is more than the majority of American
citizens. I took an oath to defend
this Grand Republic against “all enemies foreign or domestic.” I took and still take that oath very
seriously, which is one of many reasons I am so critical of the fellow in the
Oval Office. He has not made the
same commitment I have made, and as I noted earlier, he disrespects the office.
“That’s
just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
BTW,
I hear you do not believe I debate you.
What do you think a debate is?
Perhaps you can define your meaning of debate.
. . . Round two:
“Cap ... it is obvious you dislike our president so much you can
not contain yourself ..what's scary is you remind me of the Looney left
celebrities who don't really have good reasons except his hair is orange, his
hands are small, he's a racist (not). I thoroughly disliked Obama but I
grudgingly tolerated him vowing to never ever vote for him or anyone that
leaned his direction .. .. never disparaged him greatly although by all means
he deserved it .. most of America, the silent majority grinned and bore Barack
Hussein Obama until they could finally find an out in Trump from the
"fundamental changes" BHO tricked us into to change America into
something we did not want, but he and George Soros wanted. It will take
this country a full four years to get back to normal and hopefully then Trump
is able to continue his great work another four .. he deserves as much a chance
as BHO had .. BHO abused his power greatly and thankfully Trump is managing and
ending some of those ridiculous executive actions . There is no debate
because it always seems to boil down to you are right and I am wrong ..sorry
you will never persuade me to believe that Trump is worse for this country than
what we had before .. and I'm going back decades before .. and it is so obvious
YOU want Trump impeached, pray tell me who you'd replace him with?
No swamp critters!!!”
. . . my reply to round two:
First,
“it
is obvious you dislike our president . . .” A couple of relevant thoughts, if you will permit me. My dislike is for the man who occupies
the Oval Office, not for the president.
I have found some personality traits to be quite repulsive; he exhibits
virtually all of them. I
recognized that other folks feel those traits are admirable and desirable; that
is their choice. Unfortunately, I
have seen his kind far too many times in my life, and their track record is not
good. He cannot help himself . . .
largely, I presume, because he is apparently incapable to self-reflection and
self-examination. Men with his
personality traits cause extraordinary damage. I’d love for you to be correct and for me to be dreadfully
wrong.
Second,
“There
is no debate because it always seems to boil down to you are right and I am
wrong.” I do not believe I
have ever used those words—I’m right, y’re wrong—in any of our
discussions. I have expressed my
opinion and where possible presented the facts that are the basis of my
opinions. Debate is all about contrasting
opinions and perspective on a given topic. I accept that I am open to learning, to being convinced,
that my opinion is wrong. I am man
enough to admit and acknowledge when I am wrong (contrary to the fellow in the
Oval Office, whom we all know [because he relentlessly tells us] he is NEVER
wrong). I have seen no evidence
(as yet, but my eyes are still open) that my assessment of the man is wrong.
I
am not trying to persuade you of anything. If you change your mind, that is your choice entirely. I accept you as you are, regardless of
your political leanings. I may
disagree with you on this topic or that, but I still appreciate your
friendship.
I
am absolutely, categorically and emphatically not in favor of impeachment. That is a very traumatic event no
matter how we cut it. The fact
remains 63M good American citizens voted for the man. If he is ever impeached, it had better be for a strong,
compelling reason beyond some of us disagree or dislike him. I am definitely not keen on Mike Pence. His repressive social conservatism
scares me. However, he would be
more stable and less chaotic than the current fellow.
“No
swamp critters!!!” Frankly, IMHO,
he is the ultimate swamp critter.
I have long criticized the Clintons for their arrogance and sense of
entitlement. The fellow in the
Oval Office has taken that sense of entitlement to extraordinary levels far
beyond the Clintons ever dreamed of and verging upon royal prerogative and “the
divine right of kings.”
Lastly,
I accept that I could be wrong. I
use Dennis Miller’s incisive words all the time, and I truly believe them. I look for evidence to prove myself
wrong. In this instance, I
genuinely want to be wrong.
Unfortunately, my life experience and the accumulating facts suggest
otherwise. I can only ask, what if
you are wrong?
. . . Round three:
“There's always a chance I could be wrong about my gut feelings
that he will be the best president for our country. I truly believe he is highly intelligent and savvy and has
Americans top most in his intentions .. he will help OUR citizens first and
foremost before he brings hundreds of thousands of immigrants in to help them
as Obama was doing .. but I believe Obama's intentions were more than
humanitarian. Much more.
Soros, like it or believe or not, has funneled billions of dollars in funds
toward movements intended to wreck our great nation just as he did with Britain
in regard to the British pound...Soros is behind the scenes funding as we
speak.. he invests in the entertainment and media empire so he can control it
.. he is a puppet master and Obama was just one of his puppets .. Obama was
groomed in a big part by Soros.. not long ago Soros made the comment that
Hillary wasn't radical enough so I suppose he considered Obama nicely
radical. If only Soros, if he really cared for this country since he does
live here, funneled some of his millions into our own poor and distressed .. if
he really cared he would have donated to assistance organizations rather than
to his Open Society .. he talks a big talk and accuses Trump and especially
Putin of dictatorship but he himself is the silent dictator and his power is
derived from his money. He profited a billion in the 90s at the expense
of the British pound. He would do the same to the US. He covers his evil with his supposed
philanthropy. Trump is not his puppet ... Hillary and Obama are.
“As for Trumps personality, this is what you need to get past and
quit obsessing over .. not everyone is the calm, humble person you are .. And
what a boring world it would be if everyone parroted one personality. As
long as he is not hurting anyone, or hurting our country, who cares if his personality
is not as humble as we expect it should be .. do humor me with a couple names
you categorize as "his kind" who had bad track records!
“Pence' s suppressive conservatism ... are you referring to being
against near full term abortions?”
. . . my reply to round three:
You
are entitled to believe what you wish to believe and espouse what you believe;
I will listen. That is your
right. Let it suffice to say,
respectfully, I do not agree with your assessment. Likewise, I assess the facts I see, hear and verify, and the
signs tell me he does not care a hoot about We, the People. He cares only about himself and his
brand, and as such, he is playing to the emotions of a large chunk of our
citizens to further his purpose(s).
I truly hope he does not disappoint you, but I fear he will in a very
big way . . . and of course blame the Clintons, Obama and the Democrats for his
failings. Also, respectfully, I do
not share your opinion of Obama. I
have no hope of softening your opinion; so, let us let it stand there. I am not a fan of George Soros, as I am
not so many of the money elite. I
condemn the political influence of money in our society regardless of party
affiliation. So, if you wish to
condemn Soros, I would strongly suggest you condemn the Koch’s and the
Republican influencers as well.
Money is bad on all sides and the ultimate corrupting medium. For the record, I am not eager to
repeat the British experiment with socialism; however, we must do better for
our people. We made an attempt at
improvement with the PPACA; instead of improving the law, the Republicans chose
to cut off food & water, and starve it to death.
You
have made an erroneous projection.
I do not want everyone to be boring like me. I want people to be different; diversity is vital. I would be satisfied if people could
simply be respectful of diversity and one another. Unfortunately, the fellow in the Oval Office believes
everyone who disagrees with him is his adversary, his enemy, and chooses to
belittle those who oppose him.
That is not respectful of diversity. “As long as he is not hurting anyone, or hurting our country . . .” Well, apparently, you might consider
adding the additional qualifier . . . not hurting anyone “as long as they agree
with him.” Also, apparently, you
are comfortable with that qualifier.
I am not.
I
will only say, humility is an important trait; it girds one against arrogance.
OK;
I’ll humor you . . . Greg Steele and Arch Ratliff. Do you know them?
“are
you referring to being against near full term abortions?” Well, actually, no. While Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113
(1973)] did not explicitly prohibit third trimester abortions, it did so by
inference. The demarcation for the
Court was an antiquated term called quickening that indicates fetal movement,
heartbeat and viability outside the womb.
Frankly, I believe Pence would try mightily to prohibit all abortions from
the moment a sperm penetrates an ovum (however that might be determined) and for
any reason whatsoever, if he had the power. I could take the very callous view that abortion does not
and will never affect me. Unfortunately,
I stand for a woman’s right to control her body; the government has absolutely
no right to intrude upon a woman’s bodily functions. No, Pence’s objection-ability is far greater than abortion
to virtually all of the social issues: protection of non-heterosexuals,
prostitution, death with dignity, childhood sex education, stem cell research,
consumption of psychotropic substances, ad
infinitum ad nauseum. I have
myriad reasons to oppose Pence; at least the fellow in the Oval Office has a
somewhat softer position on the social issues.
. . . Round four:
“I will have to think about my responses and get back to you .. at
least we agree Soros is a monster .. and I did not mean you were boring .. you
are definitely wise and well written .. that's not boring, it's interesting ..
but I do know that Trump is trying to please his constituency .. rightly so,
and it helps he really wants the things accomplished we do .. (we the constituents)..”
. . . my reply to round four:
I
eagerly await your response.
I
will not agree with singling out George Soros. To me, he is no different from the Koch brothers and other
big money Republican donors. If
you will back off Soros as specific among the monied political influencers,
then we can agree. I think the
moneymen of any political persuasion are monsters and a scourge upon our
society.
Thank
you for the clarification. You can
call me any names you wish; I know you still love me. ;-)
That
is precisely one of the primary problems I have with the performance of the
fellow in the Oval Office. When he
stood on the platform on the steps of the Capitol Building on 20.January.2017
and took the oath of office, his constituency became all the American People,
all of We, the People, not just those who voted for him, or supported him, or
adore or idolize him. He has
persistently failed to learn or recognize that reality. He is not the president of the
alt-Right. He is President of the
United States of America. I am a
constituent as well, and I most emphatically do not believe he is representing
me.
. . . Round five:
“Cap, I would just like you to list me 5 actions you would want
Trump to perform to make you a happy constituent .. curiosity is killing me..
be specific.. don't say he should quit tweeting!!!”
. . . my reply to round five:
Interesting
question. I will ask you a
comparable question below, but first I will attempt to answer your query.
First,
no, I will not ask him to stop tweeting . . . although I believe his word
choices in his tweets are a major problem for him. Actually, a president communicating directly with We, the
People, is a worthy activity. I
just wish he did it with more class and dignity, and respect for the Office of
the President.
Second,
there are far more than five actions he would need to complete and maintain for
me to be a happy constituent, so I shall endeavor to offer my top five in
descending priority order.
So,
here we go:
1. Respect other human beings . . . as
equals. His money does not
make him king or even more important than joe shit the ragman. His juvenile name-calling, and
attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with or dislikes him is simply
disrespectful and often rude, obscene and disgusting. He chose to become a public servant, which by definition
makes him a free target. There is
always someone who will disagree with him; every president in history has had
to endure public ridicule. He
needs to put his big-girl panties on and take what comes. As a subset of this one, it must be
stated, he has got to stop treating women like they are possessions,
playthings, or servants to feed his ego.
2. Do his homework. He has consistently demonstrated his
lack of understanding regarding world events both in history and
contemporary. He has access to far
more powerful information than any of us do, and I am all too often appalled by
his lack of just basic understanding.
He says he does not need the Presidential Daily Briefing; I say he most
assuredly does.
3. Comply with the Constitution, federal
law and tradition associated with the Office of the President. He chose to become a public servant—the
prime servant of We, the People.
No one forced him to become a government employee. The rules apply to him. He must disclose his tax returns,
divest himself of his private company(ies) that create the enormous
conflict-of-interest conditions, and he must stop ignoring and comply with
federal law.
4. Stop attacking the FBI, the Justice
Department, and the Special Prosecutor’s investigation. He created the situation. Now, he must endure the
consequences. The investigation
began when sufficient information became publicly known that members of his
campaign and family were talking to Russian agents and they attempted to cover
it up. It would have been
dereliction of duty if they had not investigated. As I have written many times, he is making himself appear so
bloody guilty. He should help the
investigators rather than resist.
I’ve seen no direct evidence of collusion, so he may well be correct—“no
collusion.” I suspect he is far
more concerned now with what the Special Prosecutor has and will uncover
regarding his financial and business transactions than he is about collusion. Unfortunately, he opened Pandora’s Box
all by himself; now, he must take what comes. Further resistance (and that threshold may have already been
crossed) will become obstruction of justice—an impeachable offense.
5. Respect the system and concomitantly
stop (cease & desist) his penchant for nepotism. Jared and Ivanka do not belong in the
White House with access to classified material. Jared has failed his background check. Any other citizen (well, except for
Ivanka, perhaps) would be dismissed without a satisfactory completion. Further, any other employee who has not
completed a background check for access within three months (six at the
absolute outside) should no longer be in the West Wing or have access to
classified material. He is ignoring
the system just as Hillary did with her damn private server and mixed
communications.
OK. I did my best . . . for better or
worse. Now, it is your turn. Please name five things that would
cause you to reject him as the messiah and support impeachment.
. . . Round six:
“Again I will need to perform some digestion .. still think these
are opinion based bullets for the most part .. I will need to perform some fact
checking .. there IS only one truth .. what is it really .. do either of us
know for sure based on supposed fact sources?”
. . . my reply to round six:
Once
again, I shall eagerly await your digestion and response.
Yes,
precisely, my opinions are opinion-based.
You asked me my opinion, not what I could prove in a court of law beyond
a reasonable doubt. I tried to
comply with your request.
In
assessing aircraft accidents, we often never know all the facts; case in point,
the destruction of MH17. We often
have to gather all the facts we are able to collect and evaluate the image
those facts present; investigators usually label such assessments as the likely
cause, rather than the definitive cause.
We wrote a book on that very process about TWA800.
I
did the best I could based on the facts as I know them.
Comment to the Blog:
“Thank you for studying the indictment by Prosecutor
Mueller. You have found the relevant passages amid the jargon. I'm not sure whether Trump's public
statements, including the infamous tweets, can be construed as obstructing
justice or attempting that. If, as
seems clear, those statements served a goal of ending the investigation, I
suspect a case could be made for the obstruction counts. Remember that obstruction of justice is
a criminal act in its own right. Nixon
went out as an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ (case not tried) and that seems the
most likely future for Trump as well.
“The argument that ‘firearms are not the problem’ because
the issue is how people use them has worn thin over time. The fact is that cars, alcohol,
explosives, and other human artifacts are not ‘the problem’ either, but we
regulate the manufacture and use of those things.
“(Example mainly for other readers) Cars provide the great
example. The use of cars leads to
about as many deaths as those by firearms, but many more could die by car. We prevent that by licensing drivers,
refusing to license those [who] society doesn't believe can drive safely,
requiring safety equipment, and many other means. We do little of this with respect to firearms. It's long past
time. The Second Amendment addresses a ‘well
regulated militia,’ and we need to carry out that ‘well regulated’ part. In
order to do that, we need to limit payments by the NRA to politicians. (That should be part of larger limits on
political payments.)”
. . . my response to the Blog:
No,
actually, his tweets in and of themselves cannot and should not be construed as
obstruction of justice. However,
his tweets in conjunction with other actions like firing the director of the
FBI can be used to establish his motivation.
Thin
or not, tools are tools, not animated, mindful entities. Yes, indeed, dangerous objects with the
potential of causing harm are regulated; explosives are a good example. I outlined some new regulation that I
could support within the Second Amendment. I will note in passing, the resistance to firearm regulation
is a direct measure of the inherent distrust of government.
For
the sake of argument, “well regulated” is a modifier of “militia”, not
firearms. Militia in 1791 was not
how we see militia today; society, culture and community were dramatically
different from 227 years ago.
Unfortunately,
Citizens
United stands in the way of restricting campaign contributions to
politicians.
That
aside, take yes for an answer. I
am in favor of reasonable firearm regulations as long as there are safeguards
against abuse by the government, AND we make a bona fide effort to improve the
mental health screening and treatment in this country.
. . . Round two:
“The point about ‘firearms are not the problem’ stands. Small but perhaps important point in
regard to the Second
Amendment: the amendment uses the term "militia,"
presumably in its 1780s meaning. Outfits such as the Michigan Militia are
changing the meaning to suit their own bizarre notion.
. . . my response to round two:
In
an attempt to further constructive discussion, can we avoid such generalized
terms—firearms is a very broad term.
Let us focus on those regulatory measures in federal law upon which we
can agree. If you are seeking
prohibition of all firearms, there is no point to further discussion on the
issue, as that position is a non-starter short of a constitutional repeal of
the 2nd
Amendment in its entirety.
I
do agree; more than a few of the alt-right have bastardized the term
militia. I have tried to adhere to
evolved usage from the time of the Founding of this Grand Republic.
. . . Round three:
“Nobody seeks to prohibit firearms. That notion is pushed by the
likes of the NRA as something for ‘good people’ to oppose, but it is not a
position of any group I know--and I'm a Green Party member and in touch with
the more liberal part of the spectrum.
The people making money from firearms want to scare the less perceptive
who believe they would resist the takeover of the government by the corrupt or
some other bogey men. More
realistically, not only do those people still have their firearms, they don't
even realize that the government has already been taken over by the corrupt.”
. . . my response to round three:
I
think you have underestimated elements of the anti-firearm movement. Yes, there are comprehensive propaganda
efforts playing to inherent fears from both extremes of this issue. I think you are wrong when you state “Nobody
seeks to prohibit firearms.”
Nonetheless, let us set aside that element.
Let
us focus upon what we can agree on.
Let us establish a list of items, send the list to our legislators and
congressional representatives, and engage other citizens to do the same. Who knows, perhaps, we will make a
proper change. I’ll open the list.
1. Prohibit any
device that converts or enables any firearm to function in an automatic mode,
i.e., multiple projectile discharges from one trigger pull.
2. Prohibit any
person under 21 years of age from purchasing a firearm.
3. Expand the
firearm purchase (transfer) background check to include a permanent rejection
for persons:
a. convicted of violent crime(s) including
domestic violence.
b. convicted of any crime involving the
use of a firearm.
c. who are the object of restraining
orders for potential violent behavior.
d. diagnosed with or demonstrated
potential for violent behavior.
e. who appears on the no-fly list.
4. Establish a
public safety exception to the HIPAA restrictions to enable a mental or medical
health professional to notify the background check list that an individual
qualifies as potentially violent.
5. Create a
judicial appeal process for citizens who believe they have been inappropriately
added to the rejection list.
6. Authorize
law enforcement to confiscate all firearms from any individual who qualifies
under §§3.a. & 3.b. above.
7. Congress
will ensure the maintenance of adequate funding for support staff and operation
of the list with sufficient resources to provide check results in a timely
manner, i.e., in less than half the purchase (transfer) waiting period.
Let’s start there.
Over to you.
. . . Round four:
“My statement stands until someone can provide credible evidence
otherwise. You want more limits
than I do. In particular, I would change #2 to age 16. Youth hunting is a
legitimate activity, particularly in households that hunt for food. I would be
cautious with #4 as well. People's prejudices would influence who lands on the
list and who does not.”
. . . my response to round four:
I’m
not asking you to alter your opinion . . . only consider a more focused
approach.
I
tried to be careful with my words.
I said “purchase.” I did
not say “use.” I see no reason to
prohibit children being taught and using firearms under adult (parental)
supervision. Although I imagine it
being a bit too far, I would be in favor of an explicit statement that parents
will be accountable and held responsible for any action of their children
involving firearms. The parental
responsibility ends by law at 18yo (16yo in some states). I see no reason to treat firearm
purchases differently from alcohol and tobacco purchases that are prohibited
under 21yo.
I
agree; caution on all elements is quite appropriate. I provided the number 5 provision for the issue you
articulate as well as others when prejudice may be present, e.g., §§3.c. &
3.d.
. . . Round five:
“I cannot let the idea that people want to ban firearms go
unanswered. That's half of the
problem. Disinformation has these
simple-minded voters in fear that someone will confiscate their weapons. Nobody has suggested that except
pro-firearms people who want their suckers to over-react to sensible controls.”
. . . my response to round five:
When
someone says, why does anyone need a gun?
What are we supposed to take from that sort of question? I think the no-firearms folks are more
prevalent than you suggest. Yet, I
acknowledge that I may have been duped by the misinformation campaign you
suggest. Regardless, we must try
to keep things reasonable, and there is no hint of such an extreme position in
my propose regulation list.
. . . Round six:
“If you are willing to believe that someone wants to come for
people's weapons, why wouldn't less questioning people take that as gospel?
That idea seriously poisons debate on the issue. Too many people see the debate
as being weapons or no weapons, and that is not actually even an option people
seek.
“If the no-firearms people exist at all, why have they not been in
touch with me? Every legitimate ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ cause makes contact
with me, and I can easily find information for ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’
advocates as well. I think you've
been taken in.”
. . . my response to round six:
I
trust that your use of pronoun ‘you’ is a second person plural generality
rather than a singular reference.
If per chance it is latter, I must assure you that your supposition is
incorrect. I do not believe anyone
is going to show up at my door to confiscate the firearms I own. I am simply reflecting the reality that
some citizens do see this issue in those stark terms and we cannot ignore that
reality. It is that mindset that
produced the Waco incident. Some
folks see that incident (and others) as government action without due process
of law.
I
do agree such thinking is a contagious poison in our public debate regarding
firearm regulation discussions. It
seems to me the antidote is open, productive discussion.
Once
again, we have been distracted from agreeing upon a list of practical
regulations the vast majority of our citizens can agree with and respect the 2nd Amendment. I am not eager and would strongly
resist any attempt to repeal or tinker with the 2nd Amendment.
Let
us return to what we can agree upon and convince others to join us in that
agreement.
Another contribution:
“As I have been saying to you and others for more than two years,
it never made any sense to me that Putin would actually prefer the
unpredictable Trump to the predictable Clinton. For that reason, I have always believed that any smart
Russian who wished to influence the election (or at least cause political
division in this country) would not be so foolish as to leave tracks that
indicated a preference for Clinton, but instead would be sure to make it look
the opposite in order to set up Trump for the accusations that, with the help of
the liberal press, have haunted our POTUS (collusion with Russia so as to
increase his chances of election.) Everything I have seen is still consistent with this
counter theory: Putin has succeeded in sowing discontent and suspicion and the
popular notion that for some unfathomable reason he wanted Trump to be
president and therefore undermined Clinton's campaign. I think is is obvious, well, maybe not
quite so obvious in such matters of intrigue, that Putin's efforts had the
opposite goal. Again, why in the
world would he have preferred Trump, the wild card America First candidate,
over the weaker, less threatening Clinton? This is to say nothing of the implications of the uranium
deal arranged under Clinton's watch that favored Russia over U. S. interests.”
My reply:
Sometimes,
disinformation campaigns are intended simply to cause confusion, doubt, discord,
chaos and such. In a diverse free
society, as this Grand Republic has always been, dissension is inherently a
part of life. We can probably
count on one hand the number of times in our history when there was nearly
unanimity of opinion. Heck, even
after Pearl Harbor, one Member of Congress, Representative Jeanette Pickering
Rankin of Montana, voted against the declaration of war against Imperial Japan.
I
have no facts that would enable me to refute your hypothesis; it is certainly
plausible. For the sake of this
important intercourse, allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps, Putin had reason to believe
Trump would be more malleable to his will and purposes, or at least much less
willing to interfere in Russian initiatives like Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine. When Trump wore out his welcome with U.S.
banks with repeated bankruptcies and was well on his way to doing the same with
European banks, he turned to former Soviet block banks. If we could see into his business
dealings (which the Special Prosecutor may well be doing), we may well find
plenty of evidence that Trump demonstrated consistently his willingness to
subvert any principle for dollars to feed his branding efforts. I suspect Putin and his cronies learned
quickly they could positively influence the man who would become president
simply by loaning him money with few if any strings attached. If you look at Trump’s complimentary
statements, verging on effervescent, about Putin over the course of the
campaign and his presidency, the malleable hypothesis begins to make
sense. Your hypothesis remains
quite plausible; however, I fear, I mean I truly and deeply fear, my hypothesis
may be closer to the truth. I
anxiously await the Special Prosecutor’s findings.
I
do not understand the so-called “uranium deal,” but I am quite suspicious of
the public conspiracy theories regarding this matter.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Thanks for your typically thoughtful response.
“I have to admit that if it walks, talks, or smells like a duck,
or goes ‘quack’ more that once, it may be a duck. I still think it just a flawed human patriot in the life-long
habit of enjoying adulation and ignoring criticism, qualities not rare among
politicians but not particularly useful for a POTUS.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
I
can agree with that assessment.
Humility is an important trait in life.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
