Random Thoughts From A Liberal To My Fellow Americans

Maybe today could be the day that we have a civil discussion on real issues facing our nation.

If you want a civil discussion on real issues, you have to come to the table without regurgitating falsehoods that fit your narrative.  Such as 18 school shootings this year.

18 or 1 school shootings. The fact remains that there have been schools shootings. The last one killed 14 students some as young as 14 years old. Plus I believe 3 adults teachers. 

That is the issue, so let's discuss that. As an ''exceptional country'' why is it that we can't mitigate this slaughter...

Does the 2nd amendment outweigh the civil rights of all those those that were killed? 

These are tough questions that it seems few want to discuss except to stick to their mantra whatever side that may be.

In my opinion a civil right is a civil right,  be it the right to life or the right to carry a firearm.  One does not negate the other.  I'm just as heartbroken and horrified by the recent school shooting as anybody else, but I don't think banning guns is going to prevent it from happening again.  This hasn't worked too well for anything else that has been banned over the years so I can't expect much success from this attempt either.

So in all humility I ask why can't people support the idea of people (teachers and staff) who are willing, to get the training and carry their own weapons in the school.  Will that prevent another mass shooting,  no it won't.  The hope is that they can act as speed bumps to give time for law enforcement to arrive and prevent additional killings. 

Snuffy, I'm a gun owner and am not advocating the banning of guns...What I want is a discussion by all sides that will in some way help with stopping this slaughter of our children. 

This hasn't worked too well...

It worked very well for Australia.

least the Sheriff of the county parkland is in is using his head a little , he is pushing the "Sentinal  project" simply put , it is the arming of teachers that VOLENTEER to be trained to be armed in the schools . He knows he will face criticism, but as he said , in an active shooter situation , there is 2-5 mins , that's it , the most recent incident had teachers placing themselves selflessly between the shooter , and the children , if they had had the opertunity to choose to be armed and trained , those teachers MIGHT have had a fighting chance. anyone that denies that , IMHO is a fookin idiot and eats tide pods.

In addition to having to volunteer , the teacher would also have to agree to go through training similar but more rigourous ( my thought is training in active shooter type situations ) as well as certain other checks  not specifically named .

Austrailia , has neither the population of the USA , nor did they have it written into their governing document the protection of firearms ownership and use.

Want that changed? there are not one but two methods to do so and remain Constitutional.

No right is unrestricted.

Stop with the Constitutional nonsense. It does not guarantee the right to own mass-murder-weapons. You (supposedly) cannot buy a heavy machine gun or a tank. Why not? They are "arms".

Nothing in the Constitution precludes reasonable limits on arms ownership.

Private ownership of mass-murder-weapons is not reasonable.

Do you really imagine the Fathers sitting at their writing table, saying, "Hey! Let's give everyone the right to own weapons that will inevitably be used to kill lots and lots of innocent people!"?

So in all humility I ask why can't people support the idea of people (teachers and staff) who are willing, to get the training and carry their own weapons in the school.

Because of reality. Let's see, a shooter begins shooting, special teacher has his own students that need to get to shelter first. Then he needs to go to the locked safe, get the gun. Then, he has to determine who is the shooter with 100's of screaming students running around. In that time, due to the efficiency of an AR-15, 20 or more children are dead. You have accomplished nothing. Good guys with guns have never prevented or stopped a shooter. Limiting gun ownership and making guns harder to buy is a lot more likely to have an effect. Every delay that comes between a shooter and obtaining a gun is a chance.

Ok, that's one view.  Perhaps a different view is also possible?  What if the school has been running active shooter training drills (kind of like fire drills) so that students have an idea on what to do in that situation.  Then less time is needed for the teacher to take the children to safety.  Most of the time aren't they instructed to hide inside their locked classroom?  I would think the weapon and safe would be in the classroom so the teacher doesn't need to go out to collect the weapon. Of course if the class is not in the classroom that changes things, but I'm not about to try to lock down every possibility. But if it can save one life doesn't that make the attempt worth it?

We can try to make guns disappear but the reality is they exist and you cannot un-invent them.  The attempt at a gun-free area hasn't worked yet,  maybe changing that approach might have better outcomes? 

Stop with the Constitutional nonsense. It does not guarantee the right to own mass-murder-weapons. You (supposedly) cannot buy a heavy machine gun or a tank. Why not? They are "arms".

And this statement is exactly why when in an argument , one must not only know the facts one wishes to present , but the facts on the other side.

 you are aware that tanks can be purchased on the civilian market from the government through surplus sales?

 All one really needs is the money , and a place to park it , and if they intend to drive it , a place to do so since it is most definitely an over weight vehicle, about the only reason you don't see more is they are impractical and expensive, fuel , insurance , and maintenance wise.

heavy machine guns , you are either unknowledgable or being intellectually dishonest in your argument , because they as well are available to the civilian market, one must have a specific lic issued by the federal government ( Class 3 FFL) one must also have the money to purchase , reason that is is in 1986 it became illegal to sell any full automatic  capable firearm made after that year, so the ones that were out there became the only ones available, supply and demand dictate the price . Also there is also a federal tax added on to the price and every time it is sold not only does the price go up due to rarety and demand , but that tax is usually added by the seller to the cost.

Even though quite a few people think things are banned , they are not since they are available to anyone who wishes to go through the proper and legal procedure.

 That so called Constitutional nonsense you mention to is called due process, so as to insure that an enumerate right of the individual is not usurped by any government.

Allow teachers to conceal carry, then post that information at the entrance to the campus. No more gun free zones at schools. If people like Nikolas Cruz knows that there's a chance he'll be shot before he can shoot anybody,  maybe that can lessen teh amount of school shootings.

I very much doubt that the boy was thinking all that clearly... Gunning down people at random is kinda sorta probably a sign of mental imbalance... And then, a shooter would obviously target all adults as a priority, so as to take down all opposition. There was a guard on duty in Florida.

And... let's imagine that we put cops at all school entrances. That's hundred-billion-dollar pay package... and then the shooters would still have churches, movie theaters, malls, night clubs... which have all been venues for mass-murder.

I, for one, don't understand the reaction to gun violence is having more guns available and access to them made easier. There is not a lot of logic to the premise. A school is a community in miniature. That community has a defined space, and that space takes up thousands upon thousands of square feet. In the case of Parkland, the shooter could have come through the freshman building, the sophomore, junior, senior, or other wings.....He could have entered through any other outside part of the campus. It would have taken an inordinate number of armed personnel to guarantee his capture. Nor would it have probably lowered the carnage. In fact, with the first armed resistance, the massacre might have become even more indiscriminate. We also have to realize that this school did have an armed guard...... it was of no help..... the shooter has the advantage.

There are a number of things in play here....... guns by themselves don't kill people.......people by themselves don't kill people with guns.......people with guns kill people with remarkable regularity when the gun is paired with a sick or evil person....the bigger the gun the sick or evil person gets, the more people are inevitably killed or injured.....95% of the mass casualty deaths in the USA since Sandy Hook involve the use of AR15 type weapons....... Given these statements as facts, most people agree upon, we should be able to come up with solutions that, while they might not eliminate this horror, should lessen the probability of its reoccurrence.  Maybe that is the first point of discussion.

But you have to admit that having one armed guard in an environment that takes up thousands upon thousands of square feet means that it's going to take time for that one armed guard to get to any specific area. And you also show correctly that the shooter could have entered the school thru any building. So if they had more armed guards spread out over the school grounds then perhaps they might have reduced the time spent or the people killed? Lastly your statement of "with the first armed resistance, the massacre might have become even more indiscriminate".  Or it might have ended faster with the shooter running away sooner.

You are correct, there are a number of things in play on this. However as it's shown to be very difficult to eliminate guns or even change the 2nd Amendment, and these events continue to occur then maybe it's time to try something different?  Maybe giving adults in these environments the training and permission to try to defend themselves and their children can save a life?

One of the very real problems that friends in law enforcement have shared with me is the ingenuity of the student in today's middle and high schools and the prevalence of gangs in both urban and suburban schools. Having guns under lock and key in schools may {?} become an invitation for thefts of those guns......That would be a really bad unintended consequence. Not saying that would happen, but it appears to be a possibility. The other question is how much training both in class and live action training would a teacher need to be safely certified? Would an organization like the NRA or GOA who oppose more stringent regulations almost all the time, not lobby fiercely against the background intrusion on these teachers.

On the second amendment issue. It is not sacrosanct. Even Justice Scalia, in his commentary on the Heller case, was clear that the state had the right to place restrictions both on ownership and policing guns in the best interests of the citizenry. The constitution, for all the arguments of the strict constitutionalists was never meant to be a document that did not change or be reinterpreted with the times. Our founders were geniuses and visionaries. They knew we would progress through the years and the document that governs us, as imperfect as it may be at any point in time, is perfect enough to be able to handle reinterpretation.

THE IMPACT OF THE MUELLER INDICTMENTS ON THE FUTURE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION

The Meuller investigation has uncovered a lot.  Nothing what Democrats want to hear but a lot nonetheless. 

THE CONTINUED OUTRAGE OVER THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA MASSACRE AND IT'S POTENTIAL EFFECT ON AMERICAN SOCIETY

The outrage on guns has turned into a selective issue.  People are killed in the thousands every year in this country but the only time we hear ANYBODY come together on a subject is during a shooting like this.  You want to come out against guns, do it ALL THE TIME.  Not just when it is the thing to do.  With that, come with a solution.  Oh, before I forget, the problem isn't the gun itself.  It's the mental deficient fool HOLDING THE GUN. Background checks are fine but only go so far.  Tighter legislation is fine, but again, only goes so far.

THE INABILITY OF THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE TO CREDIBLY RELATE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN BOTH DAY TO DAY AND LONG TERM INTERACTIONS

The inability hasn't been just this current administration.  It is a problem that has been going on for quite a while.  No matter how you look at it the last time the public come together on something was after 9/11.  And even that dissipated quickly at it turned into partisan talking points.

On the Mueller investigation,  I make the point that neither I nor anyone else knows what the end result of the investigation will be . Let both sides let the investigation finish and then let's argue the results.  

On the gun control / law issue,  I truly believe that I have a principled and consistent position.

1. You commit a felony, you give up your right to own a gun

2.  If you commit domestic / spousal abuse or have a restraining order for potential domestic violence, you give up the right to own a gun.

3.  If you are on a terrorist watch list or a no fly list, you at least temporarily lose your right to own a gun, until such time as there is final status determination.

4. If you have a history of violent mental health challenges, you forfeit your right to own a gun until appropriate health professionals certify probable safety.

5.  Any crime committed with a weapon comes with automatic prison sentences and forfeiture of the right to own guns.

6. No new semi automatic and automatic gun sales.  Current weapons must be stored in lockers in certified ranges.

7. Limitations on the size and number of clips an individual may purchase and maintain. 

8.A national, consistent background check on every gun purchase, certified or private.

It is a long list, but it is my view.

As to your third point, we are in basic agreement. My main point, however, is that there has to be a limit on the level and transparency of the untruths.

I will respond

1 & 2 , already law and a prohibition to firearms ownership

  3 Add simple due process to be removed at no cost from said lists, and make them public so one knows who is on them , then there is grounds for discussion , otherwise failure to provide due process makes it a non starter. this wont happen due to supposed national security secrets.

4, already a process to legally remove said right , it just seems no one wishes to go through the motions that due process demands to remove a right, that or they do not wish to risk their jobs if they do so in error.

5 already law in some cases federally AND in some states , its known as enhanced sentencing.

6 wont happen , main reason is the 2nd amendment and its protections on possession and bearing. may I suggest a nice European country? they do that there.

7 wont happen for the same reason as 6, the 2nd also applies to feeding devices such as magazines , least it wont happen on the federal level since the 2nd is a limitation on the federal government.

8 as soon as the NICS is free to use for all entities be they a dealer or private entity ,don't see that flying either .

Now my suggestion because half of what you mention is already law ,

lets revisit the HIPPA laws , see if they can be tweeked to allow so that when someone IS prescribed a pychotropic , it has to go before a judge to have the right to pocess removed , the DR is going to have to state a good reason why those particular drugs were prescribed and the individual will at least be told that by taking them and getting off them without medical supervision will result in a temporary removal of the rights all rights to include voting. if they cant be trusted with a gun , they surely cant be trusted to vote IMHO

other option is use the system already in place as the laws for removal of rights stands.

as pointed out convicted felons already are prohibited from firearms , what it seems to me is some don't like the fact that a convicted felon , can petition the courts to restore all rights lost through a felony conviction. Thats part of due process, it takes along time and is expensive and there is no guarantee the court will allow the restoration of rights.

Some interesting idea,  don't agree with some of them but I think others could be brought into a discussion. My replies are inline with your statements.

1. You commit a felony, you give up your right to own a gun

  While I agree with this there are some states that are working to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences and have been released.  If they are going to restore one civil right don't they really need to restore all of them?

2.  If you commit domestic / spousal abuse or have a restraining order for potential domestic violence, you give up the right to own a gun.

  Isn't this already federal law? 

3.  If you are on a terrorist watch list or a no fly list, you at least temporarily lose your right to own a gun, until such time as there is final status determination.

  My concern with this is how a person can be put on either of those lists.  To my understanding there is no legal process, you are just added when the report is filed.  And for the no fly list, as that is a "secret" list,   you have no idea you are on it until you are prevented from flying. And there is no clear way to have  your addition to the list reviewed and removed if incorrect. Not sure if I can agree with this but there should be discussion around it.

4. If you have a history of violent mental health challenges, you forfeit your right to own a gun until appropriate health professionals certify probable safety.

  I think we would need to change the HIPPA laws for this. I remember the Gifford shooting out in Arizona and I remember the school counselor at Pima CC stating she didn't report her concerns any higher than recommending Laughtner not be allowed back on campus as she was afraid of breaking HIPPA laws.

5.  Any crime committed with a weapon comes with automatic prison sentences and forfeiture of the right to own guns.

  And a prosecutor may not plea bargin down charges when a weapon is used.

6. No new semi automatic and automatic gun sales.  Current weapons must be stored in lockers in certified ranges.

  I really cannot agree with no new sales of semi automatic weapons.  That's the majority of all weapons sold so you are removing the most popular, probably around 98%, of all weapons sold.  And by forcing storage at certified ranges you are removing the ability for self defense.

7. Limitations on the size and number of clips an individual may purchase and maintain.

  I don't agree with this one for several reasons.  What if there is more than one attacker? What if the attacker is high on drugs? (there have been several documented instances where a person high on some drugs has taken 9 or 10 bullet wounds and walked themselves to the ambulance.) Who sets the limit on the size of a magazine and what happens if that size limit is smaller than the default magazine that comes with the weapon? What happens to the millions and millions of magazines already owned by individuals?  I understand the idea behind this is to limit the amount of damage a shooter can do, but just about anybody can spend a little time practicing and learn to replace a magazine in a couple of seconds.

8.A national, consistent background check on every gun purchase, certified or private.

  This I believe could only be done at the state level, not the federal level.  I believe the federal government is prohibited from restricting or managing intra-state commerce which is what a private gun sale would be. The current federal background check isn't bad but it can certainly be cleaned up. All federal agencies should be required to get all their information into the system. States need to be better at forwarding their information. And we need to modify HIPPA laws to allow for mental health information to be added, but that also needs some sort of legal framework around it.

The first one is part of the problem, creating a secondary class of citizens that are forced to live in conditions that do not give themselves or the families they may be raising an equal opportunity at life or protections under the constitution.

People are dumb and do dumb things, this is why we have police and prisons (to catch and punish). If any felon has paid their commitment to society (Prison, Parol, Probation) then the rights granted to him as citizen should be the same as anyone else.  He has paid his debt and should be given the opportunity of a second chance. 

If society keeps looking at Felons as pariahs with distrust or disdain even after they have proved they are not the same person they were when they did whatever stupid thing they did then all felonies should be life sentences since that's how they are treated anyways.

This whole idea of treating a felon like a criminal for the rest of their lives no matter what they have done or accomplished since is ridiculous.  Yea, some will screw up again, but less would screw up if they were actually welcomed back to society and able to provide for their families legitimately. I like the 3 strikes rule in CA, but without compassion and good prison/societal reform, it becomes a revolving door.

You are talking about one of my pet peeves throughout my lifetime. You are right. We have a penal system that is anything but rehabilitative. It is a system that is so punishment oriented that the recidivism rate is among the highest in the world. Recidivism for violent felons is almost twice as high as that for white collar criminals.  

My problem is that without a process in place to move people from lives of violence, rejection, and crime to becoming productive citizens in a civilized society, the odds are against society that the person will become a peace loving neighbor. It is much more likely that they will return to their violent ways, and engage in violent acts. 

This is an area that I'd love to discuss and will probably write an article on it during less political times.

On the gun control / law issue,  I truly believe that I have a principled and consistent position.

The issue is you aren't resolving the real problem.  As I said, it's not the gun.  It's the fool holding it.  THAT is the problem nobody wants to take on.  Instead it's the stupid shit like a flag was banned after on shooting, after another there were marches where people just milled around, yelled a few catch phrases then went back to their lives with a false sense of accomplishment.

Bravo for your optimism. I wish I could share it.

Perhaps NT is not representative, but when I see that a significant part of our membership considers the best reaction to a slaughter of children using an AR15 is... to post photos of their beloved AR15s... and to laugh at photos of shooting victims... I despair.

yes I posted a picture of an AR-15 , I made , and built meaning I had to do some machining , fitting and all the assembly , funny thing is , I built it specifically so that it conformed with the ACA (also known as the AWB, Clinton gun ban) as to NOT fit the laws definition of an assault weapon  ( contrived  term anyway made to confuse the uninformed).

and I don't remember seeing anyone laughing at pictures of dead children on any of the articles posted in the last week .

Hey Bob , I know where you can get some French military rifles ,vintage 1940, never fired and only dropped once......

Hey Bob , I know where you can get some French military rifles ,vintage 1940, never fired and only dropped once......

For info, I am a US Army combat veteran. Vietnam, 1971. Volunteer, not draft.

I don't remember seeing anyone laughing at pictures of dead children on any of the articles posted in the last week .

Then you haven't been paying attention. Smart-ass snark has been a very standard response.

... how can someone who served be so uninformed about weaponry?

I inform myself about topics that interest me. Guns are not high on that list. (Not that I see anything wrong with hunting / target shooting, for those who enjoy it.)

I learned to strip and assemble an M16 in Basic, like everyone... fifty years ago... but out in the boonies northwest of Tam Ky I carried a .45 pistol, which only left its holster once. My primary weapon was a radio, which got quite a bit of use.

This text is not new:

About 45 years ago, I spent a year on a hill in the northwest of South Vietnam, a helicopter ride (the road was not secure) from Tam Ky. The village below the hill was called Tien Phouc. I was one of a team of five or six American advisers to a company of some 200 Territorial Forces. I don't pretend to have made a lot of friends among the Vietnamese, but I did get to know them a little. Every few weeks the company went out into the boonies as part of a larger operation. I went along. I was important. Not me personally, of course -- a wet-behind-the-ears Second Lieutenant. But I could call in the resources of the US Army: artillery, gunships, and ... medevacs.

I felt a bit exposed. We often walked on the dikes between rice paddies: fifty guys 5' 3", then one guy 6' 5", then another 50 fifty 5' 3". We were all dressed the same, but I didn't think Charlie would have much trouble identifying the American...

From time to time, things got sticky. My radio could call in the firepower that calmed the enemy pretty fast. It was "easy" -- all I had to do was stay calm and call in the coordinates... Have you ever heard a bullet whizz by your ear? Stay calm. Yeah... On the other hand, I have never been as "alive" as in those crystalline moments of adrenaline. I understand the men who become soldiers of fortune.

Or... sometimes we'd just be walking along, and I'd hear a "boom" from up ahead. Anti-personnel mine. This was bad news for the guy who'd walked on it, of course, but I was egotistical enough to worry about myself. I had to move up the line, so I could decide how bad things were -- could the guy be carried out, or did we need a medevac? Moving up the line meant... stepping OUT of the line... where any mines would have been detonated by some other poor bastard... and maybe stepping on one myself. (As another Looey from Tam Ky did one day. He went straight up and came back down with nothing more than a broken ankle and a one-way ticket home!)

It was the medevac pilots who did the miracle flying, but still, I was pretty popular with the Viets.

Off Topic [ph] Warning you again. Stop using the emotions to irritate members. I will remove the privilege. 

oh I saw the snark directed at you, for throwing a tantrum after the pictures of dead children ( actually same one twice only one pixelated) were removed as a terms of service violation by the R.A. and the subsiquint articles whining about it. no snark directed at the photos , only you, directly for observed actions .

 So you were a FAC, that only carried a .45? even USAF FAC's have to carry something more than that. now what you did in the field as to what you carried is another matter......

yuuuuup.

So you were a FAC, that only carried a .45? even USAF FAC's have to carry something more than that. now what you did in the field as to what you carried is another matter......

yuuuuup.

This is the first time anyone has ever refused to recognize my service. You're pitiful.

and how did I refuse to recognize said service? by not thanking you? for something I did myself as well? FAC is forward air controller , I simply stated the branch of service I served in for 10 years , their equivalent requires more than carrying a hand gun, it require they carry a rifle as well. but I also acknowleged that what is required sometimes is not what happens while in the field.

Muellers indictments had one purpose, to show that a crime had been committed. His next ones should be about linking Americans to that crime.

Nothing will happen about gun control, because in the end, the republicans are addicted to NRA money and frightened of their supposed voting power. That trumps schoolchildren's lives, everytime.

The Trump administration cannot connect with average Americans because it consists of people who never spent anytime outside the wealth bubble.

Muellers indictments had one purpose, to show that a crime had been committed.

I disagree. It had more than one purpose and it only showed foreign interference with acts of espionage committed by Russian operatives. All those who in any way interacted with them were called "unwitting". Please note there was no mention of hacking the DNC or Podesta e-mails.
Why?
Because Mueller is only serving indictments on what can be proven. I also believe this may signal the end of the Russian interference part of this - which should have been the only objective. I've reserved judgement on Mueller, but unless he starts investigating the Clinton campaign and Mueller's buddies at the FBI for their involvement, I'm going to have to conclude this was a biased investigation or an obvious attempt to either discredit the election of 2016 or an attempt at a third world coup.

I have an interest in all of the above topics, but I guess topic 1 would be foremost in my thoughts. Some of your points I agree with, most I disagree with and most specifically this:

"the Trump administration should be seriously concerned with the number of former aides and appointees that have either pleaded guilty or are cooperating with the special counsel. This is a classic case of climbing the tree, biting off the low hanging fruit, and building the case toward the most important leadership. Just as a matter of comparison, it should be likened to the way good prosecutors have moved forward with RICO indictments against criminal organizations"

Exactly why should the Trump administration be concerned with indictments involving things totally unrelated to "collusion" or the 2016 election? The problem here is the mandate Rob Rosenstein gave to Robert Mueller. Normally there is a crime to be investigated, here there was no crime just a mandate to go find crime. Thus we have people being indicted for issues of their own making. Wasn't this supposed to be about Russian interference in the 2016 election?
It isn't climbing any tree to go after people for business dealings and allowing liberals in the media to smear the President with what somebody in the campaign did long before they were in the campaign.
It's ironic that you mentioned "RICO". Isn't that the "guilt by association law" that Bobby Kennedy worshiper Blakey cooked up? The same Blakey who always believed the mob killed JFK and then came up with a short cut to indicting the Mafia leaders. Very effective! Has it ever been used on anyone else? If not, why not?