Stuff My Brain Says #83

A law isn’t a law unless it is enforced.

No matter the topic -  gun control, taxes, even jaw walking - laws are completely meaningless if not enforced.

So, if you are mad about a nineteen year-old being able to purchase a firearm to use in a killing spree in a gun-free school zone, or whether or not President Trump paid his “fair share” of taxes, and you think the solution is more laws, look first at what laws are ALREADY on the books and are not enforced.

You’ll realize that we either need less and more effective laws, or increased enforcement of those that already exist.

Sometimes Congress does its best work when on vacation.

© Emittravel 2018

The Wrong Amendment

Due to the recent tragedy in an elementary school, where a psycho went on a murder spree, the conversation all over has been to implement some form of gun control. People have been either vigorously supporting or voraciously condemning the NRA, and screaming for the elimination of so-called "assault weapons". Everyone has become a constitutional scholar when it comes to interpreting the 2nd Amendment - telling us what the founding fathers did and did not mean when they wrote it.

Understand, as the 2nd Amendment stands, we have the (God-given) right to "bear arms". It doesn't say "muskets", or "rifles", or any specific type of "arms". Many of the founding fathers were men of science, so I'm pretty sure they believed in the advancement of all technologies that further scientific investigation would bring. So, ANY law that puts ANY restriction WHATSOVER on what constitutes "arms", is a direct infringement on that right, and therefore unconstitutional.

The argument to the above is often the 1st Amendment, where laws have been written that create boundaries around what constitutes speech and the freedoms that come with it. You can't slander someone (unless, of course, you are a politician - in or out of an election year) and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What constitutes "arms" in the 2nd Amendment therefore deserve the same type of boundaries. There is a major difference though: unlike the words that come out of our mouths, many of the types of weapons that are up for being abolished are ALREADY in the hands of criminals. Making them illegal only disarms law-abiding citizens. The criminals won't care - that is why they are criminals.

Let's look at this from a different perspective. Who do we really want to keep weapons from? The mentally ill. Think about it: every mass shooting that has taken place was perpetrated by someone who was mentally ill. You can't open fire on kindergartners and be in your right mind. So, mentally ill + gun = death of innocents. Maybe we are attacking this from the wrong angle. What designates someone as mentally ill? Someone with "wrong" ideas concerning reality (by reality I mean that which allows for the social framework to hold together). Where does someone get these wrong ideas? From the things they hear and the things they read.

What is needed is not the expropriation of the 2nd Amendment, but the elimination of the 1st.

Let's get rid of "free speech". Don't let people like me have a platform to share ideas that might disrupt the mainstream. Let the elite, those in our government determine what can be said, what can be printed, and what thoughts can be shared in film and games. After all, since they represent us, and we elected them, surely they would best know what would be appropriate. And once that has become entrenched into our culture, no more mental illness. No more mental illness, no more worry about "assault weapons".

There. Problem solved.

(The above was meant as sarcasm.)

© Emittravel 2013