It’s easy today to say the shooter was an insane one off, or to proclaim we need to do something about the gun lobby, but historically in the U.S. nothing has been done for various political and financial reasons. And right now, there’s a war in Ukraine that’s funding a complete arms industry, and we can easily justify such use of guns, but history has shown that after the war is over the left-over weapons are used in crimes and other violence.
Recently, two Hill commentators, Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave, covered I believe a reality check on this issue. Ms. Gray showing the illogical comparison of gun laws between states and gun violence. Which is another dimension to this problem in the U.S. in that we are not like other nations with our laws. We are a republic with 50 states and 50 different ways to do things. And Mr. Soave who cites the actual stats with gun violence, showing that a clear majority of cases are single shooter events and suicides, more so than mass shootings. It’s that mass shootings get the most attention in society than suicides. Both issues, as noted by Ms. Gray, tie back to availability of guns in American society.
Solving the Mental Illness Gun Problem
If we say the killers of mass shootings, like that which just took place in Texas, is because of mental illness, but we still want a society where guns are freely accessible. Then the only choice is to subject all peoples to annual psychological screenings kept in a government database to ensure that no one of psychological issue gets a gun. If society waits around for someone to be evaluated at the time of purchase, you miss personal history. That could be an issue when the person is being evaluated. And if you outlaw only those with any history of psychological problems, then you are missing the undiagnosed. That’s why all peoples from birth would have to undergo constant evaluation. That would make a dystopian society, and one where people would pay to get out of the exams or figure someway to cheat.
There are two other choices: Accepting the routine killings as the normal for this individual freedom. Basically, it’s the price society must pay for such gun freedom. This is the path Rosella’s world has taken during her time. Or society must restrict gun use like that of Japan. Which has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the world.
Rosella Tolfree’s World and Gun Violence
Things are so bad in Rosella Tolfree’s time that murder via gun has become legal in Texas because of the court case State of Texas vs. Hanson. This decision was predicated on the legal construct that gun rights were in control of the individual and that only the individual had the right to determine if someone had the right to live or not with the exercise of those gun rights, and not by the state or any other government authority. Although this ruling was restricted to Texas, this didn’t stop people from exercising the newly founded interpretation of the Second amendment.
This helped to reinforce the domestic terrorist activities of specific groups operating in the U.S. This is a list of the groups currently in operation that are considered a threat of concern-
John Elliott’s Democratic National Militia – This group flourishes after the collapse of the NRA because of IRS issues. But this movement leads to the single largest battle against Federal Forces by U.S. citizens in a long time. Many of the DNM attack Federal monuments in Washington, D.C. with vehicles.
The Darwinists– This is a group of gun rights enthusiasts who have taken the idea of gun freedom to the extreme by combining it with Darwinian logic. They rampage periodically on mass killings in the name of human evolution and survival.
The Unit of Civil Enforcement (UCE)– This is a splinter division of the DNM that rides around taking the law into their own hands doing vigilante justice on the spot.
The Order of the Holy Vengeance– This is a fundamental Christian group that kills anyone who doesn’t follow their beliefs.
Eventually, after Rosella Tolfree’s time, there’s a reinterpretation of the Second amendment away from the individual right of gun ownership, and back to the original purpose as understood before the mid-20th century. Based on both historical evidence of how the U.S. Army was formed prior to the Civil War, and the specific wording of the Second amendment the judiciary system will find that the true meaning of the Second amendment has more to do with the formation of a national army at the Federal level than the rights of individuals to own arms in society.
In short, the individual’s right expressed in the Second amendment was a necessary reality so the Federal level could have a standing army at that time. After the Civil War, the nature of how the Federal armed forces are formed changed, but these later courts will find that the Second amendment still applies in that individuals within those armed forces still need the right to possess arms to do the work. Thus this leaves the Federal level to restrict individual gun ownership outside the context of the armed forces. Only with this legal change does America’s gun violence finally become less in Rosella’s world.
ADDENDUM
The New York Post recently posted Elon Musk’s position on gun rights. “‘I strongly believe that the right to bear arms is an important safeguard against potential tyranny of government. Historically, maintaining their power over the people is why those in power did not allow public ownership of guns,’ Musk told the outlet.”
While it is a truism that governments and their leaders prefer all the weapons in the government’s power versus the individual, they typically do this for a civil society versus a show of force. Only in governments which are true dictatorships do you see the government’s use of weapons as a force against the people. Ironically, history has also shown that the people in such situations rise with their own weapons.
The problem with Musk’s statement is that the safeguard potential depends on the subjective view of the individual owner of the gun concerning their government, and not on based on an objective standard judging those in power. Under this logic, John Wilkes Booth is justified in his murder of President Lincoln. The same would be true for Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK. And yet, America has allowed the personal ownership of guns in both times. In each case mentioned, the individual owner of the gun made the subjective decision that the President was tyrannical and had to be killed. Musk’s statement would also likewise justify the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th in that those doing so were simply attempting to overthrow what they saw as a tyrannical and corrupt process.
Bottom-line, Musk’s statement being subjective allows the individual to decide when a government is truly tyrannical is a recipe for chaos and lawlessness. Something to consider as he attempts to purchase Twitter.
Another Post About Gun Violence
Gun Rights, Gun Violence, and Crime
Click here to go to the Rosella Tolfree Website and read more posts.
Leave a Reply