A Belly Full of Bad Intention is Still Protected by the Bill of Rights

I’ve declared my politics to be radically moderate, but I’m afraid I may have spoken too soon.  To be moderate, a political stance has to have positions to the right and left of it, just as to be in the middle implies different directions, if not endpoints to either direction. If I’m in between Boston and Austin, say, it’s clear I’m in the United States. This past week, though, my moderate politics feel as though they’re stuck between Krypton and a peanut-butter-covered-banana. Let me explain—the political quandary if not the Superman/Supersnack analogy.

As so much today, it is President Trump who’s introduced the issue under discussion—gun control. Turning my political understanding on its head, though, he’s moved me to disagree with his conclusions based on reasoning I’ve never applied here before.

First, on gun control. I think guns do kill people, at least much more effectively than knives do. That is, given an assault rifle and, say, two-hundred rounds loaded into clips, I can go into any large gathering of human beings—school, church, mall, football game—and if I open fire I’m likely to kill at least 10 or 15 people and wound another dozen or more. This act would take little training or discipline—and no humanity, of course.

While I don’t own a gun, I do have a handful of knives, ranging from a hunting knife to a penknife to a Leatherman. Even if I were to invest in a half-dozen Cyclone Tri-Edged Spiraling Dagger Knives, reputed by some to be the deadliest knife available, I’d most likely be overpowered or assaulted before I could kill more than four or five people. A bellyful of bad intention and a knife can’t kill as many people as a troubled kid with an assault weapon can.

So, I’m not personally in favor of guns. I am, however, very much in favor of the Constitution, including, but not limited to, the Second Amendment. Can it be limited, the same way we limit the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech in certain circumstances? Sure. It’s very reasonable to talk about the balance of individual versus societal rights, or to put it in scarified terms: the right to carry a gun versus the right not to have your life flow out of the gunshot wounds inflicted by your fellow citizen. If we want to limit access by certain folks to certain types of weapons, that’s a conversation I think we should have.

This week, President Trump, while leading a bipartisan conversation on gun violence, was in favor of keeping assault rifles out of the hands of lunatics—a reasonable goal, I think, although quantifying lunacy does present a challenge. This sounds like what I’ve just described. Unfortunately, from my point of view, he then said words that chilled me when I heard them, and should chill you now:

“I like taking guns away early. Take the guns first, due process second.”

Let me repeat:

“Take the guns first, due process second.”

Leaving aside that we’ve now got a President of these United States of America unwittingly quoting Alice in Wonderland’s Queen of Hearts (“Sentence first-verdict afterward!”), I’m terrified that we didn’t ALL jump up and say,

“Wait a gosh-darned second Mr. President! This isn’t just about guns, for goodness’ sake. Due process is about as close to holy as we’ve got in this secular country. The government, or its representatives, has to prove its case, not confiscate then litigate. Our rights come from God (or Nature), not from the government. You rule by our consent.”

Or words to that effect.

Again, I may be nuts, but I’m not a gun nut. I DO, however, think the right to be free of illegal search and seizure and the right to due process apply not just to religious folks, people spouting unpopular political beliefs or criminals—they also apply to gun owners, whether nuts or not.

2 responses to “A Belly Full of Bad Intention is Still Protected by the Bill of Rights”

  1. Due process as a plaintiff is only available to those citizens who can afford the attorney legal fees and court costs.


  2. This renewed whole gun control debate is nothing more than a red herring issue used by shameless politicians and uninformed shills on both the left and right in order to sanctify themselves and advance their own brand. The old bromide, “Figures don’t lie but liars sure can figure,” has particularly fitting application to the oft quoted gun fatality statistics used by effete liberals (thank you, Spirou) who love to sanctimoniously howl in horror over the 33,000 annual gun related fatalities in America. What they so deceptively fail to tell us is that fully two thirds of those deaths are suicides…leaving only 11,000+ actual homicides by firearm. If I commit suicide by poison pill, auto exhaust, firearm, deliberate drug overdose or a jump from the skyscraper window should be irrelevant to any debate involving the truth and the criminal misuse of firearms directed at other people. Compare those 11,000 deaths to the annual slaughter by motor vehicles on American highways. Or the MILLIONS killed annually by alcohol and tobacco. And then there is the huge and growing number of annual deaths by drug overdose. But, Gentle Reader, I will give you a chance by only asking you to compare those 11,000 gun deaths to just the total fatalities caused by operating a motor vehicle, boat, plane and train while under the influence of alcohol.
    Does anyone advocate eliminating cars, motorcycles, trucks, planes, trains, boats, alcohol and tobacco? Of course not…actually we did prohibit one of the former about a century ago and THAT was a colossal failure.
    The real culprit in the Parkland, Florida school shooting is the FBI that didn’t act when it had ample, early warnings from people who “saw something and said something.” It amounts to deliberate criminal negligence by THE NUMERO UNO government agency that is supposed to protect us…..and which…you guessed it: favors gun control. The same FBI also received early warning signs about the 911 Trade Tower bombers who wanted to enroll in private flight schools too but nothing was done then either. Congress is lining up on the gun control debate again but there seems to be disproportionately minuscule interest in forming a committee to seriously investigate why there was no FBI action on the tips and to what extent that inaction was deliberately intended to passively allow what eventually happened at Parkland, Florida…in order to strengthen the anti-gun move. Our government has done worse things…on a far greater scale. Those people who don’t learn their history end up repeating it. My Rice Krispies tell me so and they never lie.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: