Yes, Let’s DO Talk About Gun Control

And right now.  No, now is not the time to wait for a while and mourn.  Now is also the time to get mad.

You’d have to be living in a cave at the moment not to know that yesterday, a gunman entered a K-4 elementary school in Connecticut and murdered 20 children aged 5-10, and six adults.  Then himself.  And prior to that, his mother, at home.  So counting him, 28 people.  As far as we know.

11 days before Christmas.

The weapons he used were two semi-automatic handguns:  a Sig Sauer, and a Glock 9mm.  He left the Bushmaster .223 M4 rifle in the car.  Not enough hands, I guess.

If the assault weapons ban in the U.S. had still been in place, his mother (to whom the guns were registered) would not have been able to purchase them. At least not from a federal or state licensed dealer.  Gun shows, transactions between individuals, doesn’t count.  They were classified as assault weapons because they are capable of firing up to 32 rounds using an extended clip.  But it requires a trigger pull each time it fires, as opposed to fully automatic, which only requires one trigger pull and keeps firing until you let go.

The meager gun laws we do have in the U.S. already do say that you can’t buy a gun if you’re an ex-felon, or if you’re mentally ill.  The latter prohibition is big enough to drive a truck through.

I’ve read of gun dealers who refused to sell a gun to someone who acted strange, even when the buyer’s background check was “clean”.  We need more people like that.

Which brings me to the National Rifle Association (NRA).  Whom I hate.  But first:  I’ve owned handguns.  I know many, many people who own weapons of various kinds, and who are members of the NRA.  The NRA does a very good job–and they may be the only organization that does–at teaching about gun safety, even to kids.  They conduct classes and training, for children and adults.  But somewhere along the line, the NRA has gone off the rails.  Now they are a major lobbying organization, and they have adopted a “slippery slope” philosophy:  ANY gun control is a step toward banning guns for everyone.  So they vigorously fight any response to even the most heinous gun crimes.

But control is not a ban.

You would think they would understand this, but logic is not involved here.

One of the arguments put forth regarding the ban of assault weapons is that as long as criminals and crazy people can still get them, you, as a law-abiding citizen, must be free to buy evermore increasing firepower to match what the criminals have.  What about the concept of preventing criminals from having that firepower?  Then you wouldn’t need it yourself.  You could (eventually) de-escalate.  It will take time.  Because the criminals can still buy those weapons at gun shows and from each other.

The assault weapons ban in the U.S. expired in 2004.  It’s time to bring it back. But improve on it.  It was wimpy in the first place.

To Hell in a Handbasket

Judging from the hysteria of my conservative friends, we are already there.  Only they noticed the gradual drop of the handbasket.  The rest of us were blissfully ignorant.

I am of course referring to the confirmation by the Supreme Court of the Allordable Health Care Act.  Of course, what is lost in the hysteria is what the Supreme Court actually ruled.  They didn’t say it was a good idea (although I think it is, in a flawed sort of way).  They said Congress had the power to pass the law under their powers of taxation.

Which is very, very interesting.  I always understood it to be a tax.  But I was surprised to learn that Congress went out of its way to avoid the word “tax”.  The Supreme Court said the govenment’s argument that Congress had the power to enact the law under the Commerce Act did not hold water.  I completely understand that.  The Commerce Act enables the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, not to force people to buy a product.

In what seems like a hair-splitting move, the Supreme Court said Congress can’t force you to buy a product, but they can tax you if you don’t.  What’s the difference?  Congress called this tax a penalty–but it’s paid to the IRS and is based on income.  Chief Justice John Roberts said, if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it’s a tax.

What stuns me is the lack of understanding about what the law is supposed to do.  Perhaps particularly that those who need it and could benefit from it the most are the people who hate it most.  Immediately after the Supreme Court decision, one of my Facebook friends posted “Bend over America.”  One of my employees said, “They will just have to take me to jail, because I can’t afford insurance”.  You have to hand it to the Republicans.  They’ve done an excellent job of mixing up the ideas of personal freedom and patriotism with the idea of personal benefit.

Remember when it used to be a “government takeover of healthcare”? Last week on TV, John Boehner said it’s a “government takeover of the insurance industry”. (Like that would be a bad thing?)  Of course, he’s still wrong.  It’s regulation of the insurance industry.  It amazes me that Republicans have been able to convince people with no insurance to rally around the insurance industry, in the name of personal freedom and patriotism.  Neat trick.  Government and regulation are four-letter words.  First they will go after the insurance companies.  Next step:  they will be at your door trying to take away your guns.  Please.

It’s hard to even have a semi-logical conversation about this.  I didn’t even try until yesterday, and it fairly quickly devolved into “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” (From him to me.)

To some extent, both sides start with a philosophy.  His is: whatever you get takes away from what I get.  I talked myself blue in the face about how he is already paying for other people’s health care, and this is at least an attempt to even it out.

Back to the employee who said they would have to take her to jail. So, my take on that is that as far as she’s concerned, things are just fine the way they are.  She does get health care.  It’s just that I’m paying for it.

I’m not entirely a bleeding heart liberal on this.  Because it slays me that rather than pay a miniscule amount to contribute to her own health care, she is willing for me to keep paying for it.  How fair is that?

And I am rapidly approaching the inability to pay for both of us.

I don’t know if the AHCA is the answer.  But something has to change.

Gay Marriage…or Not

Last week was a milestone (or not) in the issue. For the umpty-gajillionth time, a judge–or in this case, a panel of three judges of the 9th District Court of Appeals–has said that banning gay marriage is discriminatory, at least in California, thus killing the passage of Proposition 8.  Prop 8, aka the “Protection of Marriage Act” defines marriage as existing only between a man and a woman.  And that always works out so well.

Prop 8 passed by 52% to 48%, which is in itself confusing.  It’s like a double negative.  In other words, 52% of voters were for the ban.

But what was interesting to me was that I saw a story about it on CBS News this week.  They interviewed one of the supporters of the ban (See?  There we go again.)  He said, “We aren’t trying to deny gay people any rights.  We just don’t want them to call it marriage”.  Or something to that effect.  And I just wanted to scream, like I have for years, What do you care?  Do you hear yourself?  You are drawing a line in the sand over a WORD.  ONE word.

Ah, but hold on there for a minute.  Then they interviewed an opponent (you know, someone who was against the For people.)  She’s a gay woman who got married during the short window of time when it was legal.  She said, in essence, that marriage is important because it has such emotional significance.  And I wanted to say, Do you hear yourself?  You are…well, never mind.  Re-read the end of the previous paragraph.

But that, of course, is the answer:  it has emotional significance on both sides.

I don’t know enough about the provisions in states where “civil unions” but not “marriage” is permitted to know whether or not you really do have all the same rights as if you’re married.  Somehow I doubt it, but if it’s really true, we are back to that ONE WORD.

In the end, marriage is really a legal contract, which if you boil it down to its essence is about property and inheritance.  It’s also good for (theoretically) determining which offspring are yours, if you’re a man, and for breeding a) farm workers and b) soldiers who have to be on your side.  We imbue it with emotional significance, particularly in the West.

Here are two examples:  a history of the British monarchy.  Osama bin Laden.  None of them got married for “love”.  That’s a new thing, relatively speaking.

The origins of marriage are a hot topic in anthropology.  But humans and societies have changed.  I’d say the majority of people today who marry do so for “love”, even if they are driven in some cases by motivations they don’t fully understand, and which may be biological in nature.

Today, the next step in California’s legal battle is an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Which both sides were itching for anyway, no matter who won or lost.  And it’s about time.  It’s time for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate…although they may not.  They’ve refused to hear similar cases in the past.

I hope they do, so we can start on the beginning of the end of arguing over one word.

Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Robert Ludlum

I’m not really big on conspiracy theories, and I’m really sick and tired of hearing about Wikileaks, but my interest has been revived lately by two issues:  the denial of service attacks on its website, and the revival of the arrest warrants from Sweden for Julian Assange for two allegations of sexual assault. 

Yesterday, while reading the article about Ocwen in Time, I came across this article entitled Why Sweden Wants Julian Assange Arrested.  So having stated in the first sentence that I’m not big on conspiracy theories…does anyone else other than me find it interesting that the news of these allegations have only now come to light?  Specifically, after the publication of all the diplomatic cables?  Can you really tell me that the government of Sweden was not pressured by the U.S. to revive these warrants, which Sweden had allowed to languish?  By the way, these warrants are for questioning.  He has not been charged with a crime. 

Do you believe that Amazon.com stopped hosting Wikileaks.org for its stated reason–that the volume of the attacks threatened its other subscribers?  Or do you think there might have been some pressure there as well? 

And finally, the denial of service attacks themselves.  Who has the greatest motive to do this.  Why, that would be the U.S. government, would it not?  The whole thing is beginning to read like a Robert Ludlum novel…or maybe John Le Carre, or Tom Clancy. 

Personally, I’m not really sure how I feel about Wikileaks.  I’m sure there are many who believe that the public has a right to know everything, so that Julian Assange appears to be a hero.   But is that really true?  Are there no circumstances under which some information should be kept secret?  Of course there are.  The date and target of D-Day comes to mind.  But then there is the question of what should be kept secret, and what should not?  And who decides?  Wikileaks has merely released volumes of raw data, with no commentary or filtering.  It reminds me of Greta Van Susteren:  “We report, you decide”.  As I’ve said, I’m not sure exactly how I feel about it, but I’m inclined to be opposed to Wikileaks.  I’m not sure what nationality Assange is, but if he were American, I’m pretty sure he would already have been charged with treason. 

The so-called mainstream media (by which I mean in this case, NPR and CBS) has taken a sort of disdainful stance about Wikileaks, and yet they continue to report what’s in them!  I find that so amusing….and hypocritical. 

What I’d really like to know is…Why?  Why is Assange doing this?  What makes him tick?  I will say this with some certainty:  Assange is playing a deadly serious game, whatever his motivations are.  If I were him, I’d be finding a spider hole like Saddam Hussein did.