Posted on 02/19/2018 9:57:11 AM PST by EyesOfTX
The Evening Campaign Update (Because The Campaign Never Ends)
Pretty much everyone knows who Jeff Foxworthy is. Well, anyone over the age of 25 does, anyway.
For those who are unaware, Foxworthy is the southern comedian who is most famous for his “You might be a redneck” routine. Some of his funniest quotes include things like:
- If you’ve ever had to climb a water tower with a can of paint to protect your sister’s honor, you might be a redneck;
- If your wife has ever had to tell you “honey, come get this transmission out of the tub so I can take a bath,” you might be a redneck;
- If you have ever discovered a missing automobile while mowing your front lawn, you might be a redneck.
Get it? Pretty funny stuff, especially for those of us out here in flyover country for whom some of those jokes remind us of certain cousins or uncles.
So what’s all of this Jeff Foxworthy stuff got to do with politics, you ask? Well, bear with me while I explain.
President Trump is taking heat today from his “conservative” flank for this morning’s announcement by one of his spokespeople that he would be in favor of beefing up the federal background checks for gun purchases in the wake of last week’s mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Any mention of working on anything having to do with more gun control laws invariably brings out immediate counter-fire from the protectors of the 2nd Amendment, and normally I find myself agreeing with them.
Gun control laws are notoriously ineffective – all one has to do to see the truth in that is to recognize that Chicago, a city with perhaps the most restrictive gun control laws in America, also is the murder capital of the country. And in most mass shooting situations, we see that no beefing up of anything to do with gun control laws would have done anything to prevent the killings.
Where Parkland’s concerned, though, I find myself agreeing with the President – the fact that this kid with such a long history of violent behavior, mental illness and attention from the local authorities was able to walk into a gun store and pass a federal background check is a huge red flag. The fact that none of the kid’s long list of dangerous, threatening behavior shows up in any background check – including the fact that local police had been called to the kid’s home an astonishing 39 times over the previous 4 years – is a problem that could stand to be corrected.
In order to make this understandable to most Americans, I suggest the President hire Jeff Foxworthy to put it into a new comedy routine. Only, instead of “you might be a redneck,” the punchline should be “you don’t get to buy a gun in America.”
Here are some examples of what the routine could contain:
- If you have a long list of violence and threats of violence on your school record, you don’t get to buy a gun in America;
- If your violence and threats of violence at school became so severe that you were actually kicked out of that school, you don’t get to buy a gun in America;
- If you have a history of mental illness that includes having been institutionalized and prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, you don’t get to buy a gun in America;
- If you have a documented history of torturing animals, you don’t get to buy a gun in America;
- If the local authorities have been called to your home even one time – much less 39 damn times – to prevent you from harming your parents, siblings or any other human being on earth including your own self, you don’t get to buy a gun in America;
- If you have ever been reported to any law enforcement agency for posting violent or terroristic threats on any social media platform, you don’t get to buy a gun in America.
It isn’t really funny – nothing to do with this tragic event is funny at all – but it does sum things up in terms even Chris Cuomo or Jeff Flake or Maxine Waters might understand.
Many have jumped all over the FBI – myself included – for its abject failure to do anything about the warnings it had received in September and January about the guy who committed the Parkland killings, and that criticism is richly deserved. But it is not the fault of the FBI that the shooter was able to pass a background check, because there was nothing in its system that would have raised any flags.
Everything I listed above represents a potential reporting event if we had a law that required such reporting. Unfortunately, current law does not require any of those events listed above – not even the amazing 39 times local police had to go out to the guy’s home to stop him from harming someone – in a way that would raise a flag in an FBI background check for the purchase of a semi-automatic rifle or any other firearm.
So, don’t tell me that no changes to the law would have prevented these killings. The simple reporting requirements listed above would have indeed prevented this guy from buying the semi-automatic rifle he used to murder 15 school children and 2 adults. A further requirement in a new law that law enforcement officials – local, not the FBI since we obviously cannot trust the FBI to do its duty anymore – follow up with and question any such person who is attempting to buy a firearm might have given the guy enough second thoughts to choose another path. Maybe.
This is not hard, and it should not even be controversial in a sane society. But of course, our society is completely insane, so I have no doubt I’ll be attacked mercilessly for making these suggestions.
Whatever. Let the pummeling begin.
That is all.
Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon
Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.
They are right up there with self-medicating nutjobs.
We protect banks, politicians, celebrities, airplanes, some businesses (not enough) and a plethora of other entities, but our schools are protection free. That’s the insanity.
School security should all be armed.
I don’t know if they changed it, but as of 2015, POLICE OFFICERS in the pastoral peace of Baltimore are not armed.
My brother is a high school teacher. He has a proposal ready to give about arming specific instructors within the school.
Never take an outrageous statement from President Trump at face value.
His list is pretty good except that, as Lurkinanloomen wrote, “Due process matters.”
Like taking property from drug dealers, the conviction should come first.
You are absolutely right. Hence my argument that the schools will need to be hardened, which does lead to what else needs to be hardened. Why are we locking up our society when we need to lock up a few criminals in our midst.
OK, assuming people agree with this, we need to find a way to find these people before they commit their act. This is always the issue BTW, because we cannot even protect a women from the attack of her ex-boyfriend until he makes a direct move against her. Thus she needs to be armed for her own protection. This applies to the schools.
As a former teacher, in my day I would have taken the training necessary to be a CC teacher on the staff. This would be in California of course where the proposal has very little chance of being approved.
Yes, we lock and restrict our lives everywhere but consider the school union tb be too tough a lobby to fight against. To have armed security at every school, the cost would be enormous and would cut into the heart of paying the faculty more and paying the administration much more. It is said that the tax would be worth it, but I don’t know. Turning this over to the government seems like a mistake. How much of a police state can we afford?
Let me know the cost of having 17 kids murdered at a school. Please include any teachers that retire early or draw worker’s comp because of the trauma.
Tell each teacher that they will be paying 1-2% of their salary as a security expense. Let’s see them fight against that. Then we’ll really know what they stand for.
And if the cost of 2-3 extra people at each school is too much, start consolidating schools.
First, they take the right to keep and bear arms from someone who has been institutionalized and is prescribed anti-anxiety drugs. Next, if you are even prescribed the drugs, NOBODY in your house can own guns. Don't laugh-- it already has happened in the "blue" states of NY and NJ.
Once infringement of freedom starts, it never stops, until war breaks out and mass death ensues. I guess this is what they want.
Good point, but the statistics still argue that this event per school is very rare. This is always the risk equation that confronts school districts, of course the tragedy of the event is so catastrophic that it could outweigh any expense if you look at it as you are doing.
See the other post about the cost of an armed security force which is much less and will be the ultimate solution that the schools will choose.
The lion's share of the ever increasing funding goes to administrative BS. If the public was smarter, they would demand that existing funding be used to better protect our children and that the redundant personnel/paper pushers be shown the door. But we're far too stupid and cowardly to demand such a thing. Another alternative is to write a referendum and let the community vote on providing additional monies that will be spent only on specific policies and personnel that will enhance security. But, in the end, the left will hijack those funds and use them for their own purpose and the lack of security will not change. The community, however, would never deny such a request.
Unfortunately, far too many are fixated on screaming at the sky, while blaming Trump, when the solution is easily at hand within their own communities. The flagrant stupidity of these people is so overwhelming that it makes it impossible to follow the news.
Yes, to all your points.
But the stupidity is also the result of elections being held during special times and the school teachers union being able to buy most board seats.
Now this is interesting because these same teachers have to have some respect for their safety do they not?
No.
You are presuming that a person who has served their time is going to commit a crime. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
The entire edifice of gun control rests on the provably false idea that controlling guns will control people. It hasn't worked and it will never work.
Released felons who wish to do harm can rent large trucks, buy hundreds of gallons of gasoline, poison water supplies, and commit any number of non-gun attacks. The idea that we should fixate on guns and punish the millions of people that didn't commit the crime is ludicrous.
People who are provably a danger to society must be institutionalized. That would include mental hospitals for those who are not responsible for their criminal acts and prisons for those who are.
What we mustn't keep doing is excusing small crimes, thinking that they don't have a relationship to larger crimes. I always like to say, "Nobody ever walked into a convenience store with a gun in his hand by accident three times." By that I mean, when someone is convicted a third time for a violent crime, the sentence must be increased exponentially in order to protect the public.
Petty crimes need to be punished lightly at first, perhaps, but again, exponentially increasing the punishment for recidivism. Two months in jail for the first crime. Eight months for the second crime. Three years for the third. Twenty-four years for the fourth.
Justice for the American people cannot be obtained if we continue to let people who have criminal records "as long as your arm" to have access to guns, trucks, or gasoline. Some years ago San Francisco ran a sting operation involving a helpless person with cash. They caught the same guy twice within nine months stealing the money. Imagine how many crimes this man committed during the intervening nine months.
I'm personally fed up with California's gun laws which affect only the law-abiding and have no effect whatever on crime rates.
Hopefully nothing will come of it, like with various other directives (ie banning trannies from the military).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.