Why Republican Politicians Should Be Jailed

 Politics  No Responses »
Jun 012022
 

Not all of them, perhaps. But the NRA has a very convenient list of politicians that are friendly to gun rights; which serves as a double-purpose – it’s also a list of politicians who don’t care how big a pile of dead kids it is, as long as they get their backhanders from the NRA.

In the latest tragedy (but hurry up they’ll be another along shortly), the rancid heap of necrotic pus that is the governor (Greg Abbott) tried the usual tactic of blaming mental health despite no evidence the shooter had any mental health issues. The same dude who not only cut mental health funding, but loosened gun controls to make it easier for those with mental health issues to get guns.

There’s a crime that fits the bill – “malfeasance in a public office” – which not completely unreasonably could be argued that certain Republican politicians are guilty of. The ones who take backhanders from the NRA whilst refusing to contemplate any concrete action that might have an effect on mass shootings.

Plus if you threaten them with a scary sounding crime like “malfeasance” they might start contemplating actually doing their fucking jobs.

Who Are You Looking At?

An Alternative Method of Gun Control

 Politics  1 Response »
Dec 222012
 

Given the tragic shooting incident at a US primary school (what would be called an elementary school in the US), it is hardly surprising that the subject of gun control has come up yet again. Normally proposals suggest taking the more extreme types of guns (such as assault rifles) away, without banning all guns.

This may be a mistake given the US Constitution and opposition to changing it. The relevant clause of the constitution reads :-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

There are a number of interesting things that this does not say :-

  1. There is nothing in this statement about the right to bear arms to defend yourself (at least from criminals).
  2. There is nothing in this statement about the right to bear arms to go out shooting defenceless wildlife.
  3. Although the statement includes the right to “keep” arms, it does not say where such arms should be kept.
  4. Although it does not explicitly say so, it is very clearly defined that a person’s right to bear arms is in relation to a “well regulated militia”; in other words one does not have a right to bear arms unless under orders to do so.

So rather than restrict what kind of arms a US citizen can own, perhaps it makes much more sense to restrict where arms can be held and how they can be used :-

  1. Any three or more individuals are free to establish a militia for the defence of the state or some other suitable purpose.
  2. The state is allowed to appeal to a court in the event of a militia it feels is set up for nefarious purposes.
  3. A militia must establish an arsenal which may not be a personal home. An arsenal must have an appropriate level of security.
  4. A militia or member of a militia is allowed to purchase any reasonable weapons, but they must be stored within the militia’s arsenal.
  5. Weapons may only be used by the members of the militia during training or during an operation sanctioned by the militia.
  6. No weapons may be used by an individual without supervision by another two members of the militia.

Of course the real test for a proposal on gun control is whether the NRA like it or not. If they do, it must be wrong!