Update no.843

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 2^nd 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:

Subject:  Re: [Update from the Sunland] New comment on Update no.842.

From:  "Calvin R"

Date:  Wed, February 21, 2018 10:16 am

To:  "cap@parlier.com"

“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 2^nd 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                        :-)