JUST DO SOMETHING!

From Wash. Post “Daily 202”:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/03/enough-biden-said-gun-violence-well-know-soon/

“Enough! Enough! Enough!” — President Biden, June 2, 2022.

In a rare prime-time address, Biden rattled off more than two decades of mass shootings — “after Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Charleston, after Orlando, after Las Vegas, after Parkland, nothing has been done.”

“Just DO something!”

Joe Biden has given us a rather cogent summary of the arguments that gun opponents have been making.  With a couple of exceptions, though, I don’t see how the 2d Amendment is RELEVANT IN ANY WAY, yet that distinction does not seem to curb strident calls for revocation of or substantial changes to the 2d Amendment, AS IF any of those proposals are inhibited thereby!  Wayne LaPierre of the NRA seems to think so, but why is his mere opinion dispositive of the issue?

I do not believe (though many disagree with me) that the 2d Amendment addresses ANYTHING pertaining to arms COMMERCE—buying or selling arms.  The PLAIN LANGUAGE of the 2d Amendment (disregarding the meaningless fluff about “well regulated Militias”) seeks to protect a “right” ONLY in “keeping” (possessing) and “bearing” (carrying) arms.  Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the unlimited POWER to regulate “interstate" commerce, and there is NO EXCEPTION therein for “arms.”  PRESUMABLY, Congress has the constitutional power to control (or even prohibit) INTERSTATE arms sales and purchases!

Given that all states have ratified that language as “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI), I think they are also bound thereby.  A majority on the Supreme Court may not (yet) agree with me.  They should.

In MY opinion, some of these proposals (Biden’s “policy solutions”) have their own defects, but they are not CONSTITUTIONALLY impaired.  As clearly indicated, they are POLITICAL in nature, so the aim to have “bipartisan” support seems reasonable.  What bothers me is that this stuff gets predictably dragged out and yelled about EVERY TIME there is some horrible gun incident, frequently involving innocent little children as victims.  But NONE of those incidents have been precisely linked to any of the popular “solutions,” limitations on magazine and clip capacities excepted.  

(Given modern technology, I don’t know why rifles cannot be manufactured with a durable electronic "shot limiter" built in, to disable the firing mechanism (temporarily, requiring an operator re-set) after so many shots have been fired, REGARDLESS of clip size!)

Most of the proposed remedies seem to be “feel-good” propositions that have almost nothing to do with the demonstrated horrors of “gun violence”!  For instance, HOW might an “assault weapon” be actually DEFINED (for law-writing purposes)?  It can’t be banned if it can’t be precisely described!  Would a “ban” also be on private possession or just on sales and purchases?  How might such a law be enforced, especially in regard to private sales?  It seems to be an attempt to regulate gun aesthetics—mere appearances—and not gun function.  

Does a gun that “looks bad” actually encourage misuse?  Supposedly, the perp in the recent Texas shooting LEGALLY bought an AR-15 to use in the slaughter.  But as he is dead now, we’ll never know WHY he chose that particular weapon.  I think that is important to know.

EVERYONE needs to understand the significant difference between (1) “semi-automatic” and (2) “fully automatic.”  Legal guns (including so-called “assault weapons”) are all “semi-automatic,” requiring a separate trigger-pull for each shot fired.  Federal law bans all unlicensed FULLY automatic weapons, like machine guns.  The AR-15 is NOT a “machine gun.”

I have recently reviewed federal firearms laws, and they seem pretty thorough to me.  Advocates of “gun control” are obliged to specifically address any regulatory and enforcement shortcomings. What legal changes MIGHT have prevented the subsequent slaughter(s)?  How so?

If someone is put on some sort of “red-flag” list or “background check” list, should not they know who maintains those lists, what are the SPECIFIC “flags” being examined, and how might one challenge being WRONGFULLY listed?  All that is called “due process,” constitutionally guaranteed for everyone.  Everybody's unmitigated, unconditional, unlimited and ETERNAL rights to DUE PROCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION must be strictly observed, INCLUDING those of arms dealers; sweaty, swaggering, gun-totin’ white supremacists; innocent little children; EVERYBODY.

If some “questionable” people have no official record of misbehavior or mental/emotional issues, HOW might such persons be picked up and listed?  The perp in Texas HAD to undergo a federally mandated “background check,” and he easily passed it!  He HAD NO RECORD!  Supposedly, he had just turned 18 and was emotionally primed to avenge all the horrible crap he’d had to endure for a long time in his adolescence!  HOW might someone like him to be detected and intercepted?  What TREATMENT for adolescent “disturbance” might be suggested, and how should we round up and identify all the “adolescents” who might be thus “disturbed”?  Might it be like admittance to the “Key Club” or FFA?  I doubt it.

Many mental-health advocates are annoyed that gun violence has been linked with “mental illness.”  I certainly agree that the perps seem “disturbed,” but the knee-jerk connections to “mental illness” generally are absurd.

If the Biden Administration is going to advocate a more aggressive response, it needs to address or answer ALL my questions IN ADVANCE, and come up with concrete proposals to be introduced in Congress and shepherded through the legislative process from beginning to end. Waiting for Congress to act will be like waiting for Godot!  (He ain’t coming!)  POLITICALLY, I think “small bites” make more sense than the omnibus ”toilet bowl” so piously favored by Democrats and almost ALWAYS guaranteed to fail.

I hate to say this, but I am inclined to believe that, really, NOTHING much can be done about such horrible slaughter of innocent little children!  There is really NO SUCH THING as “crime prevention,” yet many people babble that phrase AS IF we all know what it is and how it’s achieved.  MOST laws are “enforced” AFTER THE FACT; after innocent people are murdered or the money is gone!  Life in a truly “free” society involves assuming risks of misbehavior by others!  We might punish the Hell out of them after the fact, but we may not be able to PREVENT their misbehaviors!  STOPPING all those nasty folks in advance is just unlikely.  It only takes a few seconds to pick up a loaded gun and blow somebody away!

Just ask Alec Baldwin!