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.
I disagree.
Unless there are convictions for criminal offenses or judicial finding of mental incompetence, the 2nd Amendment still applies.
Due process matters.
Background checks are a worthless, feel good, law which clearly infringes on citizens rights.
All gun control laws are basically the same thing. I am fed up with supposedly conservative legislators who jump on the bandwagon.
- 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Half of FR could be excluded from firearms using this.
Everything listed is unconstitutional. Before you are declined any civil right , you must be convicted of a felony or adjudicated as incompetent after notice and hearing and jury trial. If you cannot afford counsel, one is provided for you . This lynch mob hysteria is running head long into the Constitutional protections we all have. The list is patently absurd.
The thing is not "how many more school shootings must we have before we pass gun laws" the thing is "how many more school shootings must we have before we use common sense and stop the sitting duck approach to protecting our kids because liberals WANT school shootings to happen so they can use them for political purposes?" Liberals do not give ONE rats ass about the life of ANYBODY. They ARE the all time world champions of hypocrisy.
>>might have given the guy enough second thoughts to choose another path.
Like renting a truck?
I agree with the author in principle. We have too many crazy people walking around who are being treated with drugs (that make them crazier, it appears) or just being passed off to the next person in the hopes that they finally snap and kill someone someplace else. They should not be getting near guns, much less owning one.
But, then we have the reality of modern America: anyone can call a cop and have them sent to your house and have the visit documented and then you can’t own a gun. Ever. Since no arrest was made, then there is no way to be found not guilty. Would this become a new revenue stream for the lawyers on TV?
The answer, of course, is to make soft targets into hard targets. Period. Because, even if guns are removed from the earth, a lunatic with adult strength and some medieval weapons can still kill 17 kids in a death funnel in a very short time.
Government entities at at least three levels screwed the pooch here.
1) The FBI
2) Local law enforcement - The Sheriff stated his department was aware of the kid. Hell—They’d been called to the home 39 times by some accounts.
3) County school board - Part of the fallout of Good King Barack’s administration is that public schools are “discouraged” from addressing discipline problems. Hence, the school, which was also familiar with the kid, sat on their hands.
Someone please explain to me how the further involvement of the government, which stepped on itself big time, will be an improvement.
I know, I know—Scared politicians say and do dumb and dangerous things.
Could not agree more. Security is the answer if we insist on gathering our kids together to school them. You are more secure in virtually ever municipal building than you are in a school.
Oh great, Trump has joined the fwighted bunny Republican club being spooked by a few brats making demands?
I agree, but I also agree that the government system deeply failed.
In the case of the shooter in Texas a few weeks ago, he was jailed by the Air Force for a felony assault and the information was not reported to the NICS system.
The shooter in Florida was institutionalized and the information was not passed on.
I agree that one must be formally convicted to permanently revoke firearms rights, but perhaps we may want to consider a midway step for additional review.
I won’t presume to determine what the parameters should be, but it might be worth a look. Because the ACLU and other liberal groups have been so successful at making it nearly impossible to institutionalize mental defectives, this is an unanticipated side effect.
What planet are you on? Because on planet earth, the United States government has made it quite clear that they have no need for this "evidence" of which you speak.
All the US Government has to do is make some sh*t up and that gives them all the pretense they need to then raid your house at 0330 with a squad of heavily-armed goons pouring out of a couple of MRAPs.
Evidence, schmevidence.
>>The burden would have to be heavily on the government with clear evidence.
This is not what the author describes. He bases his restrictions on calls, reports, feelings. Any kind of “future crime” restrictions have to rely heavily on things cannot be called evidence—until we are in the Monday Morning Quarterback chair and then all things are made clear.
We have a crime problem, not a gun problem.
Law breaking youth need to be locked up to protect ALL PEOPLE that are not.
Stop coddling kids who will not behave.
We need kid control!
I too agree with the premise that a kid like this should not be the legal owner of a gun. The question is whether the mental health industry could ever be modified such that counselors and therapists would report their charges who were this dangerous. The Florida shooter was judged by a mental health team as no danger to himself or others — which shows how easily they can be duped. No, I do not believe this industry — who basically believes they are helping the client — can ever be turned around to report dangerous people. Sometimes family members do this, but not enough of the time.
The illegal ownership of guns is not stopped by this, which is why individuals in this category need to be committed in an institution and so I also agree with making the schools harder to hit. So I would support metal detectors, access control, armed staff including teachers with concealed firearms. This will be a tremendous bureaucratic burden on the schools and communities and require re laying out of most of the existing campuses. Not that this is not something that we should do, but allowing teachers — and hiring teachers who would join this internal security force — is a less costly way to go.
I believe an interview added to the waiting period for purchase would have helped — I am under the opinion that this is done in Israel. The interview would either result in approval to continue with the purchase or the evaluation that a formal hearing of competence was necessary and then due process would be satisfied.
I could accept an interview situation as not a violation of the second amendment — although many would disagree with me, but it would also be a tremendous bureaucratic burden for the country. And would drastically restrict legal gun ownership as many would simply refuse to go along and many also would join the illegal ownership club. As would our Florida shooter. Unless he were committed.
No. The issue is this kid’s long history with the police was DELIBERATELY withheld from the NICS system as a CHOICE of the school. The problem is not the system, which will be made more intrusive but not more effective, but rather the school willfully did not report him to the system.
That is why the President’s apparent willingness is garnering response.
Ok. How do we properly decide if a person is a danger and should not have a gun? (Let’s try this out in a logic riddle)
I think there needs to be at least a court ruling against someone to make the case to actually “Revoke a citizens 2A Rights”. That is, there needs to be a legal process in which a state actually brings a case before a judge and the citizen gets complete due process. NOTE: THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. It should have many recourse for the judge besides confiscation or indefinite denial. But it should also be susceptible to appeals. And the state should pay all legal fees. Then a time limit for Case Review MUST be mandatory and have absolute objective deliverables met (Medications, doctor visits, an amount of time, training, doctors note, etc.)
The liberals would absolutely agree with this. What is objectionable? This would fix everything, right?
Not so fast. First, you would need a whole nuther court system once the liberals got on a role. And what judges do you suppose would find their way to those courts? How long before a neighbor’s complaint about someone’s temper became the minimal excuse for the state to take up a case against someone? This is how all laws (even with good intentions) start out and are eventually bastardized & corrupted. And THAT is what we are afraid of. We are afraid of government overreach and abuse. And for good reason. We have seen it on every law that has ever been passed.
The liberals want Americans to trust the Government. And this is the problem. Government cannot be trusted.
See post #18 for a reasoned approach and the risk.
Whoops! I don’t know how that happened. Wrong quote pasted.
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.