Update no.1063

Update from the Sunland

No.1063

23.5.22 – 29.5.22

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Vadim Shishimarin, the Russian tank sergeant put on trial in Ukrainian court [1061] has been convicted of premeditated murder and violating international laws of war. Shishimarin was sentenced to life in a Ukrainian prison. One down, several thousand to go.

-- The array of the four planets [1059] continues to amaze observers including yours truly. On the 29^th of May, Mars and Jupiter came within a finger of each other and then swapped places in the line. According to the experts, the last time all of the planets aligned was 949 AD, and the next time all of the planets align will be 6.May.2492. I will not make it that far, but it sure would be fantastic to witness.

 

The wisdom of Benjamin Franklin is most appropriate at troubled times like these.

Those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Let us be extraordinarily careful when we consider laws that will affect the fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.

 

On the 24^th of May, 2022, an angry, barely 18-year-old boy walked into Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, through a locked security door that had been propped open by a lazy teacher who had gone to retrieve her cellphone from her automobile. He had just shot and seriously wounded his grandmother, who is still struggling to survive. That boy killed 19 elementary school students and two teachers, and wounded or injured 17 other people. The paramount tragedy is the murder of so many innocent children in the still stinging wake of Sandy Hook (Elementary) School in Newtown, Connecticut, [14.12.2012]. The penultimate tragedy is the 77-minutes armed law enforcement officers stood frozen by the on-scene commander’s erroneous assessment. He apparently decided the situation was a barricaded suspect with hostages rather than an active shooter incident. Texas law enforcement mucked up the incident response from the get-go, and they are paying a helluva price today.

I try not to armchair quarterback law enforcement, doctors, pilots, and other professionals who must make split second decisions. But this atrocity is just too much.  A barricaded suspect is one level, but a suspect who has escalated to active shooter status deserves no quarter. An active shooter is an order of magnitude more serious and urgent situation. 

As we have seen in so many of these events, the angry teenager at Uvalde offered a plethora of signs that he was transforming his anger into action, not least of which were posted videos of him abusing small animals. The signs were there! I watched a short interview with the perpetrator’s mother; she claimed she knew he had problems and sought help, but could not find anyway to help her son. Then, on the 24^th, through a cascade of errors and missteps, the angry teenager actualized his anger until he was eventually terminated by law enforcement. The perpetrator had demonstrable mental health problems that went untreated and unrecognized by law enforcement.

These incidents spark an avalanche of comments, opinions, and debate. The first item is a text exchange the day after that I included here with permission.

Contributor:

Not sure I agree that one’s individual rights outweigh the right to live of 14 children.

Me:

Amen. It does not. We do not know the details, yet, but I suspect there were many pre-cursor signs that were ignored or discounted. Tragic!!

Contributor:

The price of freedom, right?

Me:

No! What happened in Uvalde was not freedom.

I argue to dealing with the root causes, not the symptoms.

Contributor:

He was free to go purchase those guns. This is the result 

Me:

We cannot penalize millions of peaceful, proper gun owners for the criminal actions of a very small fraction of disturbed people.

I would bet a dollar to donuts that there were many pre-cursor signs that were ignored or discounted.

We refuse to deal with those signs.

The police were chasing him. I want to know why they did not stop him before he reached Robb Elementary.

How the hell did he get into that school with firearms?

Texas is the most heavily armed state in the Union, and it did not stop him. More guns are not the answer. But, I want my rights protected as we deal with these disturbed individuals.

Of course, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Contributor:

I’ll argue that yes, yes we can “penalize” millions of peaceful gun owners. If you’re one of them, you’ll understand going through heavy background checks and obstacles in order to purchase one. You’ll be fine with waiting 6 months or 1 year while it’s determined you can safely own one.

The result is too costly. The Founding Fathers were fucking wrong (or narrow sighted). It’s called an Amendment for a reason. Time to change it.

When [you] lived in England did you feel violated? Was your penis smaller? Were you oppressed?

Me:

To your questions: No. My penis was always small. No.

I do not know where this is headed, but I am doing a lot of writing about this issue. To me, it is no different from other prohibitions, e.g., abortion and books on the right; firearms on the left.

I have absolutely no problem with background checks, but the issue is the administration of such controls. We have seen what happens when the USG gets control of a (in hindsight) foolish law. We have 50 years of destruction (so far) with no improvement. I have lost confidence in our ability to administer the law. This is a highly and emotionally charged topic, just like abortion.

Can I re-print this exchange in this week’s Update (without names or relationship, of course).

Contributor:

Obviously I’m being facetious but I’m tired of the GOP/redneck rebuttal to this issue.

There is no one-direction answer to this. So let’s attack it from multiple angles. Reformed gun laws, mental health assistance, parent accountability (in the case of a minor), 30-day death penalty in certain scenarios. The whole 9 yards.

Yes, you can

Another contributor offered the following meme:

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Well, no shit.

We want mandatory safety courses for people, not guns.

We want more thorough background checks of people, 
not guns.

We want stricter negligence penalties imposed on people, not guns.

If you’re stupid enough to think activists are pissed at guns, you’re too stupid to own one.

The meme represents many aspects of the current societal question before us and offers plenty for debate in this humble forum.

The last item is a relevant article from across the eastern moat:

“New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern addresses Harvard on gun control and democracy – Ardern warns against ‘scourge of online disinformation’, and wins standing ovation for crackdown on weapons”

Australian Associated Press

The Guardian

Published: Thu 26 May 2022; 21.05 EDT

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/27/jacinda-ardern-wows-harvard-with-new-zealands-lesson-on-gun-control-and-democracy

There are some good and valid points in Ardern’s address.

 

One point of order, for precision, an assault rifle is a military weapon capable of automatic fire as long as the trigger is depressed, and rounds are fed automatically from a magazine. Automatic weapons have been and remain illegal since 1934 – National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236; 26.6.1934]. One action we can and should take is the prohibition of any modification by any method by any source to an existing weapon that enables more than one round to be fired with a single trigger pull.  Such a prohibition would be consistent with the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unfortunately, far too many people in the press, in government, and in the public refer to weapons that look like an assault weapon as assault weapons, and that reality is wrong. Let us get our nomenclature correct.

 

Changing the topic to the on-going rape of Ukraine [1050] by the dictator Putin, the following article sent by a friend and contributor, and corroborated by multiple independent sources, is a revolting and disgusting shocker.

“Henry Kissinger: Ukraine must give Russia territory”

by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The Telegraph

Published: Mon, May 23, 2022, 10:48 AM

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/henry-kissinger-warns-against-defeat-174812366.html

To which I replied:

I am gobsmacked with Kissinger’s opinion. In fact, I will also say I am horrified by his opinion. I also think German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck was spot on correct when he said, “We’re seeing the worst of Europe,” in reference to Hungary and other resistant nations in the European Union. The dictators and wannabe dictators find affinity in supporting each other. Putin and Russia do NOT deserve, warrant, or have any valid claim to one square inch of the sovereign nation of Ukraine—not Donbass or Crimea. Conceding any land to Russia would be catastrophically wrong, just as Chamberlain’s appeasement was in 1938. Kissinger’s opinion must be condemned.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1062:

Comment to the Blog:

“Meanwhile, the very wealthy and their chosen government operatives gather in Davos to plot continued profit. Also, the more radical conservatives (CPAC) are holding their conclave in Hungary in honor and alliance with the Hungarian strongman Victor Orban.

“Who exactly wants to prohibit firearms? Some want to take military-style weapons out of the hands of civilians or to require that all firearms be registered so that dangerous people have a harder time getting them, but that’s all I’ve heard. In the same paragraph: please define ‘radical ideology.’ Republicans describe proposals such as free college as ‘radical.’

“The decision that politicians can accept unlimited bribes openly (FEC v. Cruz) finalizes the corruption of the United States Government.

“The morning’s breaking news reports Biden taking a couple of foreign policy actions that could be consequential, directed at China rather than Russia.”

My response to the Blog:

Yep, an annual event in Davos, Switzerland, these days. It will be interesting to see how the World Economic Forum proposes to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Another yeah, the CPAC choice of convention sites is yet an additional evidentiary fact that the fBICP has supplanted what used to be known as the Grand Old Party (the Republican Party). The fBICP wants to anoint King Baby as you call him. We still have the 2022 and 2024 elections ahead of us, and we shall see if the fBICP efforts in many states to suppress the vote will be successful.

I am not going to take the time to quote examples because they are too easily discounted, but they are out there. How are “military-style weapons” defined? Who maintains that definition? When I served as a Marine Recon platoon commander, I carried an M1911 pistol and a Mossberg 500 shotgun similar to weapons I own today. They are “military-style weapons.” Are they to be included in the ban? Am I to be made a felon when I have NOT threatened or injured anyone?

Touché! Definitions matter, and I did not define the term. In the context of my previous comment, I meant those statements, claims or words advocating or suggesting violence against others or damage to their property based on any combination of the social factors. Your point was well-taken; perspective is crucial.

To be clear, the Supremes in FEC v. Cruz did not sanction bribes. The mechanism at issue was repayment of personal loans to campaigns, and more specifically, loans that are paid off by donations post-election. Of note, none of the Supremes (majority or dissent) mentioned the additional potential of unpaid debts being declared “bad debt” for tax purposes, which means we the taxpayers will pay the bill. The whole Cruz case from his original action to the Supremes’ decision stinks to high heaven, but it is consistent with Citizens United.

Just a related FYI: I did not mention it in my opinion [1062], all of these cases pressing the limits of campaign finance law have been initiated by Republicans. I did not want to get into listing them all, but there are more than a few. And, the Supremes continue to side with money is speech, and corporations are citizens.

Yeah, I noted the same thing. I suspect the IC sees signs the PRC is taking the cue of Russia-Ukraine to close the loop on their claim to Taiwan. We must pay attention.

 . . . Round two:

“On the prohibition of firearms in general: if you don’t give me specific references that I can check, I won’t believe any credible source has called for such a ban.

“‘Military-style’ weapons refers to AR-15s and other rapid-fire weapons or those that can be modified for that. Why do you need such things when they could be stolen from you or easily acquired by others and be used against you or me? In any case, those are used for mass shootings, which are a dramatic but lower-volume source of death and injury by firearms.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I understand and appreciate your need, your requirement. I could easily spend every waking hour and every word I can plunk out on the keyboard on this one issue alone. Regrettably, or perhaps selfishly, I do not have that capacity.

The key word is credibility. Opinions voiced in this forum and related fora are just common citizens like me willing to express and debate their opinions. I am just a man with a view. I have no credibility.

I am driven by a greater, broader principle in the dark cloud of dueling prohibitions that all impose upon our fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice. The left has their prohibitions, and the right has more prohibitions that matter to them. In general terms, I am against them all. Abortion does not affect me, but I take a position. I do not and have no desire to own an AR-15, but I take a position. As a society, we have an aversion to dealing with root causes and instead choose the easy path of prohibition. Fundamental rights do not work like that. Either we are free, or we are not. Full stop!

To that end, I am fairly certain you do not care for me to repeat what I see as the other side of reality. Millions of citizens own and use AR-15s and related weapons, but it is only a few who choose to use those tools to kill or injure others. The problem is not and never has been the weapon. The root issue is the disturbed or demented mind of the man who chooses to employ that tool for destruction.

 . . . Round three:

“I'll note that we have the same rates of mental illness as the rest of the world, but our homicide rate is far higher than any other developed country. How could that be?”

 . . . my response to round three:

Noted, agreed, and unequivocally undisputed.

As I have argued with other intractable societal issues like immigration reform, we need comprehensive change. Firearm regulation is another such intractable matter. Fifty U.S. senators have been bought and paid for by vast sums of money, and we have been unable to break that obstacle; we only need 10 of them to abandon the money.

My objection is the emotional response to act on the symptoms without also addressing the root cause. I have opened myself to considerable criticism and that is the nature of the beast in an open debate forum. I only urge calm, careful, thorough legislation. Benjamin Franklin’s wise words seem most appropriate: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” We are headed in a direction of tinkering with the fundamental rights and freedoms of 330 million American citizens; let us tread very carefully and deliberately.

 . . . Round four:

“We are not ‘tinkering with’ anyone’s fundamental rights and freedoms. We’ve been accepting a corrupt misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. So long as we ignore the first clause, we continue endangering ourselves. How about we read the Constitution literally on this point?”

 . . . my response to round four:

We disagree on the interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment, and I doubt that disagreement will change. I understand and appreciate your interpretation, but I cannot agree. Strict interpretation cannot and must not be confined to one amendment out of convenience. The Supremes have been pretty clear on that aspect.

Just as a historic reference, after the Dunblane massacre, the British Parliament passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 [1997 c. 64] that prohibited ownership or possession of most firearms leaving essentially only muzzle-loading historic weapons in private hands.

I favor, support and advocate for comprehensive firearm regulation, control and reform as long as we address the root causes. Confining our actions to the symptoms will NOT and NEVER will solve the problem; we must treat the root causes.

 . . . Round five:

“Treating ‘the symptoms’ seems to have worked for the rest of the world.”

 . . . my response to round five:

What?

Pardon my ignorance, I do not understand.

 . . . Round six:

“Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and many others have regulated firearms to reduce shootings, and it's working for all of them.”

 . . . my response to round six:

I have not studied the Australia and New Zealand laws. I have studied the British firearms laws that prohibit all firearms other than muzzle-loading historic weapons. Yes, agreed, those laws work in the named countries. I cannot imagine such laws overcoming the history of this once grand republic.

It is intellectually intriguing to read the so-called “strict constructionists” twisting their interpretation of facts to suit their purposes—abortion versus gun rights.

 

Another contribution:

“Hi Cap, how is Putin's deviation any different than Bush (43) and Iraq? I keep this short for clarity.”

My reply:

I have no intention of defending 43. The Iraq incursion was a stretch from the get-go, although there were more than a few contributors. Bush 43 lost me when he sacked Shinseki for speaking the truth, and he & Rummie did not listen. That said, surely you are not justifying Putin’s War by invoking Bush’s mistake?

 

A different contribution:

“We’ve spoken on this subject before because as you know over here we have very strict rules for individuals on weapon control. And so we Brits, over the pond, find it so hard to understand your utterly relaxed laws, I know it goes back a long way but you really must produce an amendment and begin to stop this butchery of the innocent and children especially.

“As you know as a ‘cold war’ warrior I had responsibilities on weapons that had such devastating power it has cured myself of ever coming close to weapons large and small.

“Mr. Biden is absolutely correct on this, your nation, all of it, needs to listen and act.

“I trust Cap you will understand my interfering attitude to this subject but I’m not alone am I-the free democratic world shares these views. Amongst us all, you are alone, can I urge your great nation to take action on this. I know it won’t happen overnight but you need to make a positive start, now. Not next year NOW.”

My response:

My apologies for the delayed response. The latest tragedy, this time in Uvalde, Texas, has besieged and overwhelmed me. That is just reality. I say, Don’t cry for me, Argentina! This is what I signed up for—a vigorous public debate forum. That said, on to your contribution.

Again, you are entitled and welcome to contribute as you wish. I try to avoid nationalistic parochialism in this forum. The United States certainly deserves criticism.

As you will read in this week’s Update, you are not alone in questioning U.S. law regarding firearms. I think I have reviewed U.S. law from the Constitution to current laws with you and in this forum; no need to repeat. I will also note British law regarding firearm regulation began with the Firearms Act, 1920 [10 & 11 Geo. 5. Ch. 43] [16.8.1920]. After the Dunblane Primary School massacre [13.3.1996], Parliament tightened British firearm laws further with Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 [1997 c. 5] and Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 [1997 c. 64] that essentially left only muzzle-loading historic weapons in public hands.

The dictator Putin may well be correct—democracy is a failed governance concept. This once grand republic is perhaps exhibit no.1; we are frozen by tribal intransigence. The vast majority of American citizens are in favor of reasonable firearm regulation, but money [i.e., the National Rifle Association (NRA)] has bought enough senators to block any legislative attempt. How much longer this situation will prevail is unknown.

My words are meant to apply calm, unemotional reason to this highly volatile issue. I will persevere. 

 . . . Round two:

“Thanks Cap-yes you are perfectly correct and in order to mention our Dunblane school disaster, that was a school I would visit and often pass when speaking to youngsters about service life.

“That shook us all quite severely and the government of the day took the necessary action. You must somehow do the same. There has to be a procedure in your constitution that could overwhelm these controllers, these sad gun lovers. It is a mental discrepancy and an ancient and unneeded requirement to deter other gun lovers from their personal lives.

“Our thoughts are with all the lives of those poor ruined families.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I illuminated Dunblane only for the historical record. I certainly am not noting such tragedies to somehow backhandedly justify the vulgar carnage we endure in this once grand republic.

It is amazing the small-world connections we have. I note here that back in the day, I flew a Premier I jet into Uvalde airport numerous times. There was a good size aircraft modification company we were working with for an upgrade kit to the H400 Beechjet.

I cannot predict what may result from this latest senseless savage massacre of children. We shall see. I doubt it will be as strict as we should have.

I would caution the “gun lover” moniker. The place of firearms in American history and culture is far more complex than simple affinity.

Yes, absolutely, our thoughts, prayers, and concerns for the mounting families who have lost precious children. I remember Columbine [20.4.1999] and all the others in between.

I wish the far-right conservatives cared about children as much as they claim they do about a microscopic clump of dividing cells. I am all in favor of comprehensive firearm regulation and control that respects the fundamental rights of all citizens, especially the peaceful, law-abiding, contributory citizens. Again, we shall see.

 . . . Round three:

“Thanks, Cap, for your words. We Brits and I’m certain many others wish you God speed in national efforts.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Thx mate. We need all the well-wishes we can gather. It is a rough road ahead.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)