I was going to take the day off but I thought I would just share this letter that I wrote to the Bozeman paper that was published in today’s Sunday paper.  Gianforte, as you may recall, is famously known for body slamming a reporter to the ground prior to becoming governor.  So just in case Gianforte’s goons come after me, now you’ll know why! 

It may seem like a small thing to withdraw my meager support for MSU, particularly in light of Gianforte’s $50 million donation.   I am sure my little exercise in principle will have absolutely no effect on MSU and its future, or in the policies enacted by the Board of Regents.    

Governor Gianforte’s financial support to right-wing causes and legislation signed by him are the complete antithesis of what the Board of Regents and the University say they believe in.  And yet, he makes a $50 million donation to the school (which is not even supposed to be allowed until he is out of office) and they turn a blind eye.  My conscience it clear and my principles are intact.  I’m not sure I can say the same about the Board of Regents.  It’s a sad day for Montana State University.

Yesterday I talked about the endless cycle of mass shooting, outrage, prayers and condolences, calls for gun control, a spike in gun sales and then rinse and repeat.  To my point, although I don’t usually read the ad circulars that come with the newspaper, one caught my eye.  I have included pictures of the first two pages of that circular from a local sporting goods store.  Father’s Day sale – step right up and get your father, husband, boyfriend, or yourself a brand-new assault rifle!!

Notice that the price range of these types of weapons range from the one featured on the first page, “Sig Sauer M400 Tread Coil 5.56 with Rome05 30+1,” for $1,079.99 (a price drop of $170.00) to one on the second page, “Del-ton Sierra 316L 5.56 30+1,” for a mere $569.99 (a savings of $60.00).   For those not familiar with firearm jargon, ‘5.56’ refers to the caliber of the gun.  The ‘Rome05’ is a red-dot sight, i.e., point the red dot at something, pull the trigger, and theoretically that is where the bullet goes.  ‘30+1’ refers to the capacity, i.e., 30 rounds plus one in the chamber. 

Regardless of what anyone argues, these guns have one purpose – to kill or wound as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.  These are essentially military combat weapons.  No hunter in their right mind is going to go hunting with a rifle like this unless they are simply interested in obtaining venison or elk hamburger.  To equate these with a standard game rifle is ridiculous.  Today, virtually anyone who is 18 years old can walk into this sporting goods store, purchase one of these weapons and walk out.  They can’t go to the liquor store and buy some booze and a cigar to celebrate because that is illegal, but they can sure as hell buy an assault weapon with no useful purpose other than to kill and wound people!  What a country!  Sometimes this is more like living in Yemen or Somalia!

I was thinking more about the Catch-22 logic I pointed out yesterday where Republicans think more guns is the answer to making people safer, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Using this same type of logic, I’m surprised these people have not offered the following solution for climate change (although many of them believe it’s a hoax!)

Vehicle emissions account for about one fifth of all US emissions.  The solution is quite simple according to the Orwellian Republican logic.  We need to do two things.  We need to build bigger more powerful cars and we need to increase the speed limit on all highways.  If people had more powerful vehicles and they could drive faster, then they would actually spend less time on the road getting from point A to point B and vehicle emissions would go down – right?  For those people who would object, thinking that increasing the speed limit and allowing people to drive faster would result in more highway deaths, the Republicans would argue that is clearly not going to be the case.  If people are allowed to drive faster, they would spend less time on the road getting from point A to point B, so the probability of getting into an accident would be reduced – right again?  Larger, more powerful cars and increasing the speed limit is clearly the solution to reducing vehicle emissions.

If you think that makes absolutely no sense, you’re correct, it doesn’t.  It makes the same amount of sense as the logic behind allowing more people to have more powerful weapons in order to make society safer.  They are both nonsense and yet, here we are.

Well, if you’ll excuse me, I need to run down to the sporting goods store to see what else they might have on sale for Father’s Day.  I’m going to be in LA next month and I can see where one of those shoulder fired missiles would be useful on the 405 freeway.  Not to worry, I’m sure they will only sell shoulder fired missiles to someone responsible like me because as we all know, missiles don’t kill people, people who fire missiles kill people – and I probably won’t fire it!  :0) 

My right to bear arms shall not be infringed!!

In these blog posts, I have often suggested that people read the blog posted by history professor, Heather Cox Richardson, called “Letters from an American.”  I have included the link at the bottom of this post.  She is always inciteful and thorough in her analysis and commentary but today’s is particularly relevant to what we see going on around us these days.  It is truly frightening and well worth the read.  As I have pointed out many, many times in my posts, American democracy is under serious threat and Professor Richardson’s post today really demonstrates how serious this threat is.

So, back to guns in this country.  I was thinking about this whole conundrum and a couple of things struck me.  First of all, I was reading an article which described the responses of some Republican members of Congress to the current effort to enact some type of reasonable gun control legislation.  When Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was asked about the possibility of simply increasing the age to buy assault type rifles from 18-years old to 21-years old, he immediately responded that such a measure was “unconstitutional.”  That seems to be the standard response from Republicans these days to any type of gun control legislation – “it’s unconstitutional.”

That struck me as odd because there is nothing in the Second Amendment about an age limit.  It simply 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.”  It doesn’t say anything about age.  There are those that would argue that since you can legally vote when you are 18 years old, that should also be the age at which the Second Amendment kicks in and every 18-year-old should have the ‘right to bear arms.’

Why then was the Congress able to pass the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984 that makes the drinking age 21-years of age across the country?  No doubt there are many 18-year-olds who would like this to be changed, but the fact is, the law was passed for the specific purpose of saving lives.²

Along the same vein, in 2019 Congress passed and the President (Trump) signed an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to raise the age from 18 to 21 in order to legally buy tobacco products.  It is now illegal for any retailer to sell any tobacco product – including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes – to anyone under 21.³

The Congress and the President saw fit to sign legislation involving alcohol and tobacco with the sole purpose of saving lives and yet the current cabal of Republican congressmen and congresswomen are totally unwilling to do anything to address the epidemic of gun violence in this country.  It is illegal for anyone under 21 to buy booze.  It is illegal for anyone under 21 to buy tobacco products.  And yet, upon turning 18, someone can walk into their local sporting goods store and walk out with a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.  How does that make any sense whatsoever?

At a minimum, the country could at least be consistent and increase the age required to buy assault rifles to 21 for the same reason the laws were passed for alcohol and tobacco.  Don’t get me wrong, I believe there should be a total ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  However, given that seems like a bridge too far these days, raising the age to buy assault weapons to 21 would seem to be a reasonable first step.  It has nothing to do with constitutionality, it has to do with common sense.

The whole argument constantly offered by the NRA and their Republican bitches is that restricting access to guns will make law abiding citizens less safe, since only criminals will have guns, so they promote more people having more guns which demonstrably makes citizens less safe.  This is the very definition of Catch-22!

Unfortunately, it’s a given that nothing will change and now that President Biden has called for a ban on assault weapons, there will actually be a buying frenzy for such weapons.  That is what has happened in the past.   Mass shooting.  Outrage.  Prayers and condolences.  Calls for gun control of some kind.  Spike in the purchase of guns and ammunition.  Rinse and repeat!!  And because of this ridiculous hamster wheel, we Americans will be less safe tomorrow than we are today.

Welcome to the United States of Insanity!!  Milo Minderbinder would be so proud!^*

*Milo Minderbinder, fictional character, a black marketer in the satiric World War II novel Catch-22 by American writer Joseph Heller. Minderbinder, who equates profit with patriotism, exploits his connections as a U.S. Army lieutenant and mess officer to amass personal power and wealth

1. Letters from an American.
2. https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/minimum-legal-drinking-age.htm#:~:text=Minimum%20Legal%20Drinking%20Age%20(MLDA)%20laws%20specify%20the%20legal%20age,varied%20from%20state%20to%20state.
3. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/ctp-newsroom/newly-signed-legislation-raises-federal-minimum-age-sale-tobacco-products-21

Ho hum!  Another mass shooting.  This time a gunman killed 4 people at a hospital complex in Tulsa, OK.  So, in the past two or three weeks, the most publicized mass shootings took place at a grocery store, an elementary school and at a hospital!!  It is very apparent that there is absolutely nowhere that is safe in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”  “The home of the brave,” used to refer to our soldiers who fought and died to protect our country.  Now, every citizen has to exhibit bravery just to go to the store, a movie, take a subway or send their kids to school.  There is no other industrialized country in the world where citizens are under constant threat of being shot.

Unfortunately, as we have all come to understand, nothing will change so we might as well just get used to it.  I realize that is a pretty sad statement but it’s pretty much a fact.  People in this country seem to believe their ‘right to bear arms’ is more important than living in a society where people can freely go about their everyday lives and it is not necessary to have serious discussions about ‘hardening’ our schools and having all of our children routinely participate in active shooter drills.

The root of this belief is the Second Amendment to the Constitution which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Of course, the part of this text that is routinely quoted is the latter part that states, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Little attention is paid to the beginning of the text, “A well regulated Militia.”

The real complication is trying to interpret this text in the context of society today.  The majority of Supreme Court justices (and many on the Federal bench thanks to Mitch McConnell) today are ‘originalists’ in their judicial philosophy. According to Merriam-Webster, originalism is: “a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written.”  The members of the judiciary that ascribe to this philosophy believe that the Constitution does not evolve.

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.  And what weapons were available then?  Single shot muskets and flintlock pistols.  A skilled operator could fire off three rounds per minute.  Things like AR-15 style assault rifles and high-capacity magazines were not even within the realm of possibility.  It is hard for me to imagine that if such weapons had been available that the Second Amendment would have been written the way it was.  An originalist interpretation of the Constitution with respect to firearms just makes no sense to me.  Fire arm technology is allowed to advance exponentially and yet the Constitution is supposed to stay static and frozen in 1791?  How does that make any sense whatsoever?

The current Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts have addressed issues before that were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers. When the country was founded and the First Amendment was written, there was no such thing as Super PACs.  One could argue that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to ensure that elections were fair and as close to one vote per one man as possible.  (Granted there were the issues of slavery and women’s suffrage which were addressed later).  They certainly didn’t envision Super PACS which are an artifact of modern society.  And yet, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled based upon an interpretation of the First Amendment which reflected the evolution of modern society, to overturn a century of campaign finance restrictions which allowed corporations and Super PACs to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections.

The Supreme Court is currently on the verge of striking down a New York restricting the ability of people in New York to carry concealed weapons. “The case in question is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which involves a 1913 law that requires someone who wants to carry a concealed gun in public in New York to have a license to do so, and in order to obtain said license, prove that they have “proper cause.” In New York, that “proper cause” can’t be some vague fear of violence but a credible threat against that person’s life, and one that cannot be mitigated in other ways”¹

Clearly the society and population density in New York today is far different than it was in 1791.  Continuously interpreting the Second Amendment as it was written in 1791 with the emphasis on ‘the right to bear arms shall not be infringed’ without taking into account the evolution of both firearm technology and society as a whole, is nothing short of insanity.  I am no Constitutional lawyer, but it certainly seems to me that the words at the beginning of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia,” could provide some basis for ‘regulating’ exactly what firearms are available to the general public.

However, until such time as the Supreme Court majority is no longer made up of ‘originalists’, the Republicans in Congress find enough backbone to enact commonsense gun control laws, and/or we stop electing politicians bought and paid for by the gun lobby, we might as well just get used to the fact that mass shootings are a way of life in the United States.    Good luck the next time you go to the grocery store!  Maybe ‘fashionable’ bullet-proof vests will start trending on Ebay. 

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/

I have no idea why I decided to write this today, but I saw something in the news that just struck me.

It has begun – the summer lunacy of fools visiting Yellowstone Park.  It’s a bit early in the season but Monday morning, a 25-year-old woman from Ohio was gored and thrown into the air by a bison in the park when she approached within 10 feet of the beast!!  Ten feet!!  Park regulations require people to stay at least 25 yards away from large animals such as bison and 100 yards away from grizzlies and wolves.  [Breaking – it was just announced on the news that this young lady has died from her injuries!]

This happens multiple times every year and in spite of all of the warnings, not to mention using a little common sense, idiots continue to approach animals to closely in the park and get injured.  The fact is, more people are injured by bison every year in Yellowstone than any other animal in the park.  This is just the first for this year.  It is a one hundred percent probability that it will not be the last.

A few fun facts.  A mature bull bison can reach a height of 5.5 to 6.5 feet at its hump and can be 9 to 12.5 feet long.  Females are a bit smaller but, in general, a bison can weigh between 1,800 and 2,400 pounds, i.e., one ton more or less.  Even at that size, bison can run three times faster than humans, so anyone who is foolish enough to approach these animals is doomed to injury or death if they decide to charge – as the woman from Ohio found out.

In 2021, Yellowstone Park hosted 4,860,537 visitors.   The combined populations of Montana and Wyoming are about 1.5 million people.  Do the math.  More than three times the combined populations of Montana and Wyoming visited Yellowstone last year.   Given this, it’s easy to understand why during the summer tourist season, there are long traffic jams throughout most of the park.  Personally, even though it’s only about 90 miles from my house to the West Yellowstone entrance to Yellowstone Park, I do not frequent the park in the summer. 

It would not surprise me if some time in the future, they start requiring reservations to visit the park the same way they now require reservations to drive the Going To The Sun Highway in Glacier National Park.  That would be unfortunate but one has to wonder at what point the park infrastructure will just be overloaded.

I was fortunate this past winter to visit Yellowstone Park on a snowmobile and I found it far more enjoyable than dealing with miles long traffic jams and millions of tourists.   The number of snowmobiles and snowmobile operators are capped so there really weren’t any traffic jams.  The scenery is spectacular and you see all of the same animals.  The geysers and hot pools are really amazing to see in the winter.  I would do another snowmobile trip in Yellowstone in a heartbeat.

The trip I took started in West Yellowstone and went to Old Faithful geyser where we stopped for lunch.  It is an all-day excursion.  I think we met at the outfitters at 8 a.m. and probably left about 9 a.m.   We got back about 3 in the afternoon.  There are many stops along the way and a few places have restroom facilities. 

It is necessary to make reservations for such an excursion well in advance as they do sell out.  The outfitters not only rent snowmobiles but also rent snowmobile suits, helmets, boots, etc.  Yellowstone Park can get VERY cold in the winter but as I have heard said before, “there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing.”  If you are prepared, the trip will be fun. 

If piloting a snowmobile seems a bit much, they also have snow coaches which are basically busses designed to travel over snow.  They are enclosed, heated and elevated so you get a good view of everything.

Yellowstone Park is a truly spectacular place and well worth a visit.  However, like I said, my preference is to go in the winter to avoid the lunacy and circus like atmosphere found in the summertime.  Whenever, you go, it is imperative to respect the wildlife, stay on the boardwalks around the hot pools and geysers, and basically just use some common sense.  Failing to do so, could cost your life as the young lady from Ohio so tragically just found out.  So sad and so needless.

In many Letters to the Editor or guest columns submitted to my local newspaper, The Bozeman Chronicle, authors often use the term ‘Montana values,’ as a rationale behind whatever argument they are trying to make.  I am still trying to figure out exactly what ‘Montana values’ are.  On the one hand, it would seem this refers to the Reagan-esque, rugged cowboy individualism whereby people take personal responsibility for their actions and for taking care of their families.  It conjures up words like integrity, honesty, grit, ‘live and let live’, and images of neighbors helping neighbors.

However, like many words and terms these days, the term ‘Montana values’ has taken on a 1984-ish, “Newspeak” twist and is often used by the Republicans and their right-wing acolytes to justify enacting laws or taking actions that are completely contrary to the values listed above.  Pushing through legislation based upon ‘Montana values’ has now resulted in more onerous voting laws to counter voter fraud in spite of the fact that Republicans basically swept the ticket in the last election and Trump won the state by double digits.  Laws have been recently passed restricting the rights of transgender and LGBT residents.  The governor is pushing for a special session of the legislature to enact laws that will trigger outlawing abortion (which is now legal in Montana) if Roe v. Wade is overturned. 

One of the more glaring examples of the very loose interpretation of the term ‘Montana values’ is the current candidacy of Ryan Zinke to be the Republican nominee for Montana’s newly created House of Representative district.    I read in the paper this morning that Zinke’s fund raising efforts have far surpassed his Republican rivals. 

You might remember, Ryan Zinke was the Secretary of the Interior, under Trump and, is in fact currently endorsed by Trump.  You might also remember that he left office under a cloud of ethics violations.

“A department investigation found that he had misled officials about his role at a nonprofit that he and his wife were using to attempt to close a land deal with developers. The deal included the chairman of oilfield services company Halliburton, a company whose business operations would have fallen under Interior’s purview.   The Department of Justice also opened an investigation into Zinke’s involvement in Interior denying a permit that would have allowed two native tribes to expand their casino business — a move which faced opposition from lobbyists.”1

Ryan Zinke did not last in the Trump administration due to these scandals which is remarkable since the entire administration was marked by scandal after scandal. 

Fast forward to now.  Like I said, Ryan Zinke is now running for the House of Representatives in Montana.  If the scandals that resulted in him being booted out of the Trump administration were not enough, there is now a huge controversy about his actual residence.  He claims that he lives in Whitefish, MT.  His wife, however, lists her primary residence as Santa Barbara, CA. 

“A home being considered the primary residence for one spouse would normally indicate that it is the primary residence of both spouses, said Andrew Hayashi, director of the Virginia Center for Tax Law at the University of Virginia Law School.

“The details for determining residency will depend on the state or local laws, but I would think that it would be a hard sell to any tax authority that the candidate and his wife do not have the same primary residence (assuming they are not separated),” Hayashi said via email.”¹

Ryan Zinke was forced out of Federal office due to ethics violations.  There are now major questions surrounding exactly where his primary residence is.  And yet, he appears to be a shoe-in for the Montana Republican nomination for the House race in November.  My question is simply, “If so many Montanans pride themselves on their ‘Montana values,’ how is it that a man like Ryan Zinke, whose ethics and honesty have been called in to question in multiple circumstances, will very likely be elected to represent the state in the House of Representatives?”

It leads me to believe that the term ‘Montana values’ really refers to an amorphous set of terms that allow for justification of actions based upon political expediency rather than actual ethical and moral values.  It is simply our version of the Orwellian term ‘Doublethink.’  Doublethink: “The ability to have two completely contradictory beliefs in one’s mind and believe both of them to be true.” 

If Montana elects Ryan Zinke – you get what you pay for!

1. California or Montana? Lyin’ Ryan Zinke Faces More Questions About His Residency – DCCC

I am not going to mar this Memorial Day by engaging in some lengthy political rant.  I simply have a couple of questions.  A total of 1.1 million Americans have been killed in ALL U.S. wars since this country was founded.¹ Over 1 million Americans have died due to the COVID pandemic in the last 2 ½ years.  Why is it that we commemorate the first and just seem to accept the second as a kind of collateral damage?  And how many of the COVID victims died due to people exercising the ‘freedom’ that those in the first group fought so valiantly to defend?  Seems kind of ironic.  Many Americans fought and died to protect our freedom and that freedom ended up killing a lot of innocent Americans. 

Freedom does not mean an abrogation of all responsibility.  True freedom comes with an increase in responsibility for yourself, those around you, for your country and for the planet we share.

Let us not take anything for granted and remember all of those who have sacrificed so much, and hope that someday, the country truly lives up to the promise of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all.

1. How many Americans have died in U.S. wars? | PBS NewsHour

This is a compilation of the ‘major’ school mass shootings since the horrific events of Columbine 23 years ago.¹ 

1999:  Columbine High School in Littleton, CO.   Twelve students and a teacher were killed and 20 more were injured.

2005: Red Lake Senior High School, Red Lake, MN.   Seven people killed

2006: West Nickel Mines School, Nickel Mines, PA.   Five students killed

2007: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.  Thirty-two people killed

2012: Sandy Hook Elementary, Newton, CT.   Twenty first graders and six employees killed

2012:  Oikos University, Oakland, CA.  Six students and one staff member killed

2015:  Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, OR.   Nine people killed

2018:  Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, FL.  Seventeen people killed

2018:  Santa Fe High School, Santa Fe, TX.   Ten people killed

2022:  Robb Elementary School, Uvalde, TX.  Twenty-one people killed.

This list does not include the individual shootings that took place at various schools around the country.  Just in 2022 up to this point, there have been 27 incidents at schools around the country where students have died violent deaths at school at the hands of other students.² And as I have pointed out in previous posts, gun violence is now the leading cause of death in minors in this country.

One would think that in a reasonable society all of the data above would be sufficient for everyone to agree that 1) we have a problem and 2) we need to figure out a way mitigate this insanity.  You would obviously be wrong.  In the 23 years since Columbine, not only has there been zero progress in enacting any type of reasonable gun control measures, the fact is, access to guns and less restrictive gun laws have become the norm.

More and more states have enacted laws enabling almost anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or training.  That is certainly the case here in Montana.  As I have pointed out previously, the Republican-controlled state legislature pushed through a law which was signed by the governor allowing students 18 years old to carry weapons on college campuses!!

The United States Supreme Court is poised to strike down a law in New York State that will ultimately allow more people to carry weapons in New York.  If anyone has ever been to New York City and walked through Times Square in the summer or taken a crowded subway, you can see why allowing more people to carry weapons in New York is a really, really bad idea.  It’s bad enough that here in sparsely populated Montana, you have to wonder when you’re at the supermarket or a restaurant how many of the people around you are ‘packing’.  Translate that to an extremely high-density environment like New York City. 

No other country on the planet would allow this.  If you think that allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to carry a concealed weapon will ‘Make America Great Again,’ I just have no words.

Since it is clear that the Republicans, no matter how many children are killed, will do nothing to enact laws restricting access to guns, or even push for universal background checks, it is necessary to look for other solutions.  Senator Ted Cruz was arguing for making it more difficult to enter schools.  I don’t agree with Ted Cruz on virtually anything but he might be on to something here.

Since Cruz and many other MAGA Republicans pushed so hard for Trump’s infamous border wall, I think it is only reasonable that they would support building impenetrable walls around our schools complete with man traps.  Perhaps they’d also entertain building moats around the schools. 

I can see it now.  Students having to get to school up to 1 hour before classes begin so they can go through the security line, complete with metal detectors, in order get through the security fence.  We can turn the schools into stalags in order to protect the kids since politicians are unwilling to do anything else.

I guess that’s the price we’ll have to pay to ensure we can live in a country where access to assault rifles and high-capacity magazines are more important than saving children’s’ lives.

1. List: The most deadly US mass school shootings (fox4news.com)
2. Here is a list of the 27 school shootings that have taken place this year | The Hill

After another round of ‘prayers and condolences’ being offered by politicians regarding the massacre of school children and two teachers in Texas along with the accompanying media coverage of this tragic event, there are the usual “calls for action”.  Of course, as we all know, nothing will change. There will be absolutely no change towards putting in place even the most commonsense gun laws.  This, in spite of the fact, there is no other country in the industrialized world where it is possible for an 18-year-old kid to purchase two assault rifles.

I noticed yesterday when listening to Governor Abbott in Texas he referred to the weapons procured by the shooter as ‘long guns’ rather than ‘assault rifles.’  I assure you the use of this language is by design.  In a previous post I referred to a book that I read during the down time with my knee, Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry That Radicalized America, by Ryan Busse, who is a former executive for Kimber Firearms.   The use of the term ‘long guns’ to refer to ‘assault rifles’ is part of the strategy by the NRA and their acolytes to make these types of weapons less controversial and thereby more acceptable.

Let’s not kid ourselves.  AR-15 style ‘assault weapons’ and high-capacity magazines have no purpose other than to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.  Lumping assault rifles together with ‘long guns’ is like lumping Ferraris together with my 2010 4-cycliner Ford Ranger pickup.  They are two completely different things and have two completely different purposes.  Long guns usually refer to hunting rifles, e.g., 30-06 deer rifle with a scope or a shotgun for bird hunting.  No one hunts game or goes bird hunting with an assault rifle!!

Likewise, I use my pickup to haul stuff from Home Depot or take loads of junk to the dump.  It is utilitarian by its very nature.  No one in their right mind would pull up to Home Depot with their Ferrari, load it up with bags of gravel and soil and haul it home.  I don’t ever recall seeing a Ferrari in my many trips to the dump.  That is not what a Ferrari is designed for.  No one in their right mind would argue that.  So, the idea that you can lump assault rifles in the same category as long guns is pure bullshit and is simply meant to make something that is unacceptable in virtually every other industrialized country in the world palatable to the American public.

It is very clear that the current Republican politicians will not take any action or will continue to block any bills introduced by Democrats having to do with any type of gun control legislature.  The solution, therefore, is to elect new politicians who will actually do something to curb the gun violence in this country.  The majority of Americans, in poll after poll, support many commonsense gun-control measures.  And yet, we as a country, continue to elect politicians who refuse to address this epidemic.  One can only conclude that in spite of all of the prayers and condolences that are routinely offered after each of these incidents, reducing the epidemic of mass shootings in this country is not a sufficient enough concern to motivate people to elect politicians to address the issue. 

It seems more important to many people to elect politicians who vow to restrict access to abortion, enact voter suppression laws, legislate against transgender and LGBT rights, fight against any effort to address climate change and place the blame for all of the ills in this country upon immigrants.  As long as that is the case, we will continue to just offer prayers and condolences as more of our citizens are needlessly slaughtered.  ‘We the people’ could solve this problem, but ‘we the people’ have chosen not to and believe there are other more pressing problems than the continued massacres of innocent children.

In the famous words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

I wrote everything after the first couple paragraphs over a year ago on March 25, 2021.  It was about the spate of mass shootings taking place in this country.  And what has happened since then?  More states have passed laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.  The number of mass shootings this year is on track to exceed all previous years.  And, as I have pointed out in previous blogs, gun violence is now the leading cause of death in minors in this country. 

What has Congress done to solve this crisis?  Zero!!!  Instead, politicians are squandering their time on ‘woke’ issues like passing anti-transgender laws, passing anti-abortion laws, railing against immigrants, passing voter suppression laws and doing absolutely squat to address the gun violence which permeates American culture more than any other country in the world.  So why doesn’t anything get done?  They will fight like hell to protect a fetus, but do absolutely nothing to protect living, breathing children going to school.  I am sure I will be able to post the same blog next year at this same time because nothing will change until the political whores in the Republican party who are beholden to the NRA muster the political courage to do something!  Currently, it looks like hell will freeze over first!

I’ve been thinking a lot about these latest mass shootings the last couple of days and yesterday I read a piece in the New York Times that tried to address the same question that I had been asking myself – “Why can’t we solve this problem?”

In March of 2019, a gunman armed with an assault rifle attacked two mosques in New Zealand and murdered 51 people. “Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had announced a temporary ban just days after a terror attack on two mosques in Christchurch in March that left 51 people dead and was streamed live on Facebook. Weeks later, all but one of Parliament’s 120 lawmakers voted to make the ban permanent. It outlaws military-style semiautomatic weapons and assault rifles, and some gun parts, and violators face five years in prison.”²  

They embarked on a gun buy back program which resulted in 56,000 weapons being turned in by 32,000 people.  This cost the New Zealand government about $100 million NZ.  Was there controversy?  Of course.  Was it universally popular?  Of course not.  That said, they did something!  The massacre happened in March and by the end of the year they had enacted laws and taken thousands of weapons off the street.  Compare that to this country.  There has been a constant increase in mass shootings over the last decade and this country has done nothing!

Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, took her clue from Australia.  “In making her case for the ban, Ms. Ardern had pointed to Australia’s success implementing gun-control measures after a mass shooting there in 1996. The country implemented strict new laws and carried out a gun buyback that removed more than 20 percent of firearms from circulation. Since then, rates of gun violence and gun suicides have tumbled.”²

The fact is, the United States just has too many guns, and the almost unlimited access to assault style weapons is not making America safe, in fact, just the contrary.  America has more guns than people.  In a 2018 survey, the number of guns in American was estimated to be 393 million.  The population of the United States is about 330 million.  This figure of 393 million firearms represents 46 percent of all civilian owned firearms IN THE WORLD!  There is a growing body of research that suggests this is the only variable that explains the excessive number of mass shootings in America compared to the rest of the world.¹

“The same can be said for gun deaths in general, of which mass shootings account for only a tiny fraction. As German Lopez has explained in Vox, “When researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America’s high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the U.S. is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers.”¹

On average, every single day in the United States, 100 people are killed by guns.  Think about that – 100 people each and every day die because of firearms.  That’s like a small regional jet crashing every day.  One would think that would get people’s attention and there would be a huge outcry for something to be done.  The fact is, there is a huge outcry after every single incident of a mass shooting – and then the cries for reform die away or are beat into submission by gun rights advocates and conservative politicians.

“If the United States were to hold a national referendum tomorrow, a number of gun control measures would probably pass: universal background checks and bans on high-capacity magazines and even on assault-style weapons — all of these proposals have the support of at least 50 percent of the electorate. So why don’t we have stricter gun control? According to The Washington Post’s Robert Gebelhoff, Americans simply don’t care about it enough.”¹

Sadly, not only don’t Americans view gun control legislation as a priority, but after these types of incidents, guns sales usual spike.³ In addition, the gun rights organizations such as the NRA immediately start lobbying against any type of such legislation.  And now, it appears as if the Supreme Court will hear a case that actually might expand the Second Amendment, given the conservative majority currently on the court.⁴ Even if the current Second Amendment case gets tossed out on a technicality, there will be more such cases in the future that are designed to broaden the rights under the Second Amendment rather than abridge them in any way.

The rest of the industrialized world seems to have figured how to move forward without having their citizens have almost unlimited access to firearms including assault rifles.   Frankly, I can’t think of one real problem facing this country that more guns is going to solve.  In spite of all of the rhetoric surrounding the latest mass shootings and how people are outraged, don’t expect anything to change – except the number of guns on the streets – there will be more of them.  I guess in addition to wearing masks when we go to the grocery store now, we should all wear body armor as well!  So, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go update my Christmas list for this year.

 “Dear Santa, I’d like an AK-47, AR-15, grenade launcher, and a bazooka (not the bubble gum!), and about 10,000 rounds of ammunition.  Oh, and you can throw in a new Glock for a stocking stuffer.  Thanks, Mike”

The insanity is staggering.

1. Opinion | Why America Can’t Fix Its Gun Violence Crisis – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
2. New Zealand Ban on Most Semiautomatic Weapons Takes Effect – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
3. Gun industry prepares for a surge in demand after back-to-back mass shootings – CNN
4. Gun rights: Supreme Court hears biggest Second Amendment case in a decade – CNN Politics