Evolving thoughts on the Second Amendment and Gun Control

 

I have always been a bit ambivalent on the topic of the second amendment and gun control.

I had a friend in high-school who emptied a semi-auto shotgun into a tree, point blank range,  and missed the bird he was shooting at.

I'm not sure folks like him should be trusted with firearms.

But there is that  pesky second amendment...

(I say that facetiously. I believe the constitution was an inspired document, and deserves greater scrutiny, adherence, and application in our governance.)

Now,  I have personally been willing to consider gun control options (I even go as extreme as complete disarmament, though that would be dependent upon all nation-states also disarming), but I do have a couple questions which have never been answered to my satisfaction by the pro gun control crowd:

- I personally know two women who have prevented kidnappings from occurring - one of a small child, the other of a teenage girl - by exercising their second amendment rights. They were both concealed carry registered, and in both instances they used their firearm to detain the kidnapper until police were summoned to take control of the situation.How many lives have been saved by guns versus how many taken? Is the trading of the one life for the other justified?

- The claim is that gun control is about saving lives. If this is truly the case, then why not start with the big fish? Alcohol kills roughly 3x more people than guns, and there are no specific constitutional protections in place around it. Why not start with stricter controls around alcohol? If saving lives is really the concern, doesn't it makes sense to start with this? The argument I usually get is that Guns are designed to kill people. If that is the best argument you can come up with, then you are being dishonest regarding your reasons for wanting gun control. It's not about saving lives, it's about getting rid of something you fear (i.e. no different than wanting to ban spiders or snakes).


That aside, I've proposed a few compromises in the past, but have always been shouted down by the angry mob. Would love any rational feedback on these:

1. Require an R-Rating (possibly a PG-13 in very mild cases) of any program which included gun violence. Maybe if kids aren't raised on images glorifying or romanticizing it, they won't be as prone to emulate it.

2. Require gun safety courses beginning in elementary school. Perhaps a thorough indoctrination on proper handling principles will breed a greater sense of responsibility.

3. Create a firearms license. It would be easy to obtain, thus no real inhibitor of 2A rights. A simple written test, possibly a mental health evaluation and/or background check (i.e. no felony criminal record). 

Perhaps, similar to drivers licenses, there would be a learner permit for kids, allowing them to begin under adult supervision. 

In the event of a violation (mishandling of a firearm, possibly some criminal activities) on first offense, license would be soft-suspended - you aren't allowed to use firearms for a period of 3 months, for example. A second offense while under soft suspension would lead to a hard suspension - your firearms would be removed from your possession and stored in a locker-facility for a period. 

Multiple offenses, or use of a firearm in a crime would lead to license revocation, and firearms confiscation. There would be a process for license reinstatement in most cases. There would also be an option of free storage in the event of a self-reported mental health crisis. I acknowledge there is an issue with regards to firearms inventory (to register or not to register), which would need to be resolved.

4. Create an advanced firearms license.  Instead of being based on restriction or control, this would be reward-based. It would be voluntary, and not required to purchase firearms, but taking the course and being certified would provide benefits or exemptions from some common restrictions (not sure what those would be, ideas? Maybe permission to carry on planes with approved, frangible rounds...), something which would make it a coveted status (reward is generally more effective than punishment at driving behavior).

---

The events of the past week got me thinking about these again, which is what prompted me to write them down. However, in the past twenty-four hours, I've had something of an epiphany. It was prompted by a number of posts which showed up in my social media feed. In the past few months:

These are relatively mild compared to some of the more inflammatory content I have seen in the wild. These all come from people who are in my "friends list". I have also seen some of the comments they have made on other people's posts. Many of those have been far less cordial in nature, than what they post on their own page.

Some were posted before the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and some after. The day after, there was a brief peppering of calls for peace from the more left-leaning folks - a sincere change of heart, or a fear that maybe this time they pushed too far? Given they have continued to make the occasional post consistent with their pre-incident posts, I would wager the latter.

Why do these matter? They are just people speaking out against perceived injustices, right? Pay attention to the language, the words used:
"vile", "N a ZI", "fascist". The posts are thick with emotion. They generalize across entire swath's of the population. They are inflammatory in nature, and are typically founded on a fragment of speech taken out of context, or a wild speculation with no solid footing. They are precisely the type of messages which fuel the hollowing out of the center. Each side feeds into their echo chamber, becoming more fearful, more angry, more extreme, until some at the edges are pushed too far.

Yes, there are some who switch sides. But increasingly they are mirroring - that is, they are remaining just as extreme or more so. I have seen more than one post by democrats who, after witnessing the celebratory comments of their, peers switched to the republican party, with warnings that the "Democrats can't be reasoned with. War is the only option left."

There are rumblings now that the shooter did not act alone. No, I am not talking CIA/IDF conspiracy. I mean he and peers on social media wound each other up, fantasized about doing something, until he finally did (not entirely dissimilar to how WWI was initiated; stupid, brash college kids immersed in hateful, divisive rhetoric, imagining themselves noble warriors of a holy cause.)

And I am increasingly convinced the people generating, participating in these kinds of posts are largely oblivious to the intellectual dishonesty. They are so consumed by the fear of what potentially could be, they are no longer able to reason, or think critically. This observation led to my epiphany.

The founding fathers wrote the second amendment as a protection against tyranny. Most of the time, we think of the tyranny of Government, which was certainly on their minds at the time. But, there is also a tyranny of the masses to be considered. That is why the founding fathers created a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy is an oppressive form of government. The mob rules over the minority.

Even in the more civil quotes I have presented, you can see the process of de-humanization at play. "The <insert opposing party> are vile, evil, fascist...". "They" are anonymized, they are viewed as less than animals, unworthy of respect or compassion.

And so, as I watch the widening gap, I am left to conclude that the Second Amendment -unfettered and unrestricted - is necessary. Necessary to allow individuals to protect against the tyranny of the masses.

Could that change? Sure. But it will take time and effort. The less extreme on both sides will need to:

1. Stop posting, re-posting, liking or commenting on media which fuels dissension and division. Just stop entirely. Instead engage creators who post acts of kindness, kittens, positive news. Stop watching and engaging with media sources who post fear-based narratives, and unsubstantiated rumors. Remove their source of revenue and let them dry up. If everybody turned off CNN, FOX, etc... It would only be a matter of weeks, if not days, before they would change their behavior, or cease to exist.

2. Ignore the extremists on the opposite side, and focus on the extremists on your side of the line. During the Cuban missile crisis it was another Russian officer, not an American, who talked the Russian officer out of launching a nuclear torpedo. YOU have to reign-in YOUR side.

3. Engage the so called 'other side' in honest dialogue. Don't try to find a gotcha word that proves they are as evil as you think, instead, if something sounds 'off' ask clarifying questions, with the assumption you have misunderstood their intent. Assume they actually agree with you on the whole, but just are saying it with different words, or have a different approach to how to achieve the end. Most of the time, I'll wager this is the case. Int he rare instance is isn't, quietly walk away. They are likely still in extremist mode, and it is the other side's responsibility to talk them down (see 2.)

4. Treat everyone with grace, but hold your own side accountable for their 'sins'. Not punitively, but from a perspective of responsibility, repair and recompense.

5. Ideally, abandon the party political system altogether. Stop finding ways to create tribes, to give power to individuals who don't deserve it, and to create enemies of those who should be friends and neighbors.


If you can manage that, then over time, the money and political currency to be made from sensationalism, fear, hate, and stirring the pot will dry up. The extremism will disappear, and the population can move back toward the middle. The tribes will dissolve, and then...

But, when we are at that point, gun control will no longer be a concern, will it?

Thoughts on the President: Eight Months in

I was taking stock of my feelings about the current president recently, and I realized there is an unmistakable pattern:

This pattern goes back to George H. W. Bush, and has been the pattern with every president with the exception of one.

For the first six months in office, I have defended each president; their words, their policies... My general stance has always been give them time, don't believe the slanted take the media presents.

Shortly after the six month mark I stop defending them. My perspective changes from patience and cautious optimism to annoyance, frustration.

I have done that with every single president - except Bill Clinton, I didn't like him from day one. from the very start he felt sleazy to me. But the rest; George Bush I & II, Obama, Trump, Biden... (Okay, I was a little iffy on Biden, after seeing him in the role of Vice President, but I still tried).

And now Trump again, and the pattern has repeated. Why?

Is it the actions taken?

Immigration - I am completely whelmed regarding this. Trump is doing the exact same thing every president has done. Obama still holds the record for deportations, and the "Kids in cages" started with him. In fact, it was under his tenure that I personally witnessed deportation activity, in tiny Cache Valley, Utah. Haven't personally felt it under any other president. I'm  more annoyed that legislators haven't done anything. During every presidency, one side is appalled and the other side is silent, from politician to populace. The United States is using an entire class of people as political currency. So in this I am annoyed at the nation, not the president.

DOGE and budget cuts - I don't quite know what to think of this. We absolutely need to trim the  budget. That will absolutely be painful. I remember my parents talking  about rations on gas, sugar, nylon, etc... associated with WWII. We have overspent, and sooner or later will have to pay the tab. Better our generation than the next. Is He doing it the way I'd like? Probably not. To be fair, I don't know. The media is so flooded with speculation and half-truths, I can't begin to sort out what is or is not real at this point. My irritation here is with the media and social media for the utter failure to do proper journalism.

Policies which appear to enrich the 1% - Again, this is so status quo, I don't think it even factors in. It is a steady hum of irritation in the background, which again, is an issue which needs to be addressed by the legislative body, who won't because they are prime beneficiaries.

Tariffs - Again, mixed feelings. I'm not convinced they will do what he thinks they will do, nor am I convinced he is using them for the correct reasons necessarily (personally, I'd like to see punitive tariffs against the countries at the top of the slavery list - India, China,...). I don't know enough about the big picture however - what tariffs are levied against the US, for instance, compared to what we already had in place, and what we have added. Again, I am swamped with conjecture, spin, and opinion, not facts.

The Big Beautiful Bill - Definitely annoys me, for the same reasons as the Affordable Care Act. A behemoth hiding all kinds of preferential perks, written by the advocates of the 1%. But, this is legislature, not the president.


Are there specific things each president has done I can point to to account for my shift?

W. Bush drastically expanded the surveillance state. That annoyed me.

Obama was horrifically divisive, but in a very high-brow way. In that regard He and Trump are just as abusive, it's just Trump is Bronx-style abusive, Obama is Hamptons-style abusive. I despise that behavior in either form.

I don't know that I can pick out anything specifically about Biden, he was mostly absent.

I don't recall anything specific from H. W. Bush either. But that was long enough ago, perhaps I have forgotten.

As I try to focus on Trump, there is one thing which does absolutely annoy me. In both of his terms, he promised to "Drain the Swamp."

Why hasn't a single political figure been prosecuted? Surely there is sufficient evidence to bring insider trading charges against a number of legislators. Where is the Epstein list? What about Hunter Biden? Joe Biden's activities in Ukraine? Nothing? Not one?

But in each of those cases, is that sufficient to explain my shift?

That last one, maybe, but I'm not convinced on the others.

Is it the media? I know it's garbage, but is the repetition of that garbage getting to me? "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." It it getting to me - in spite of my knowing it's propaganda - through pure repetition?


Maybe the problem isn't the president at all.

  

I keep coming back to this video essay on "The BBCs expose of the Deep State":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH2aeha_UgU&list=WL&index=326


Maybe my annoyance with the president is misplaced. Maybe I am crediting him with authority he doesn't actually possess. Maybe the swamp is beyond the power of the president to drain.

Food, Chemicals, Reasoning

 I saw a post a few days ago, lambasting the general population for their absurd fears of chemicals listed in packaged foods. It was lengthy, and at first glance, seemed reasonable, if not someone unkind in approaching the ideas that people were being irrational with respect to fears of long, indecipherable chemical names listed as ingredients on packages.

The author began with a long list of frightening sounding chemical names - nearly a full page, including such items as yellow-orange 101 and 3-Methylbut-1-yl ethanoate. The author then quite mockingly pointed out the list of ingredients represented the chemical makeup of a banana. The point of this was to note that everything is made of chemicals.

Next the author reviewed at length the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide (also know as water). He pointed out its use as a solvent, the number of deaths it has caused, due to an array of harmful properties, and how some college students pranked a number of people into signing a petition to ban it's use.

There were a few, similar anecdotes presented, in the same superior tone, shaming people for being so gullible, and afraid of "scary words". As I say, not kind, but on the surface, it seemed to make a valid point.

A few days later, removed from the fiery prose of the article, and given space to apply reasoning. I have realized how absolutely, childishly, absurd and misleading the article was, for two chief reasons.

One, consider 3-Methybut-1-yl ethanoate - it is just a chemical compound in a banana, the author uses this to generalize that it is absurd to be afraid of unfamiliar chemical names. 

What about trimethylbenzene? a consumer would be justified in being concerned if this showed up as an ingredient.  It is a hazardous compound found in gasoline.

Is the average consumer expected to memorize the over 160 million chemical names, their properties and potential hazards? Are they expected to spend time googling the ingredients on every package while they are shopping?

"But, that's why we have the FDA." They ensure that only "safe" and "effective" ingredients are used.

Except:
1. Not everything is regulated.
2. Does anybody actually trust "The  government?" Most liberals don't trust it today. Most conservatives didn't trust it four years ago. Most rational people recognize that governmental bodies are composed of humans who make unintentional errors, and who can in  many instances be bribed, misled or otherwise corrupted.

The second key issue the article overlooked is that of compounds versus individual chemicals.

Sodium Chloride is absolutely essential for your survival, your body needs it to survive. Sodium Chloride has it's own ingredient list: Sodium, and Chlorine. You should absolutely NOT consume sodium tablets, nor chlorine tablets. A specific chemical may be fine in combination with certain compounds, but deadly alone or in combination with other chemicals.

The article was no doubt written to combat absurd, extreme phobias regarding ingredient lists, but ultimately it was equally absurd in the opposite extreme.

This is the grand failing of narrative founded in pomposity and fueled by emotion. It grabs attention and pulls in viewers, but it leaves little room for reasoning.