America is awash in solutions in search of a problem. Climate change is happening to some extent. But is the problem such an obvious cataclysm to justify sovietizing our entire economy and way of life in the Green New Deal? Differences exist in aggregate, average wages between men and women. So, is massive federal, state, and local intrusions into every business’s labor practices down to the minutest detail reasonable? These examples highlight a light year’s worth of space between proposed solution and hypothetical problem, with emphasis on hypothetical.
Well, we’ve taken the nonsense to a whole new level in the recent barking over gun control. Would any of the proposed “solutions” prevent the mass shootings, mass stabbings, and a career criminal and drug dealer placing cops in his crosshairs in north Philadelphia? Solution and problem have gone beyond the distance to Alpha Centauri (4.37 light years). The two are in separate and parallel universes.
Going back to Sandy Hook, the killer lived in a home with guns, shot his mother to death, and then took a ride past a closer but protected high school to an unarmed elementary school. What background check, gun ban, magazine size limitation, or gun buy-back program would have stopped the guy? What about the murderous loons in El Paso and Dayton? Without a paper trail, there’s nothing to check. Really, do you think any sort of gun ban would have stopped them from getting armed to shoot revelers and Walmart shoppers? Ditto for the Las Vegas murderer.
In Orange County, the savage didn’t even need a gun. He was content with a knife.
And then we have the Philly shooter. The miscreant had already run afoul of half of the gun laws on the books in the city and state, in addition to huge swaths of the rest of the penal code. I suppose that a career of assaults, prison stays, and meth/crack/heroine dealings would have made him sensitive to a ban on a banana clip in his gun. Nooot!!! This is farce chasing buffoonery.
So they chant, “Ban assault weapons”. What is an “assault weapon”? Put that one into law. Go ahead. Ban “semi-automatic”. In so doing, you just criminalized a good portion of the American public – many of the guns not handled by Sylvester Stalone in one of his flicks are semi-automatic. Ban what the thing looks like, like make the pistol grip taboo. Really? Is that the best that you can do? That fact is, a workable definition is as slippery as a frog lathered in Crisco. What the Dems are really trying to do is ban anything that might look like something in a “John Wick” movie.
The whole herd in the Dem presidential field line up in support of the quackery. Just today I heard an interview of one of the “moderates” in the stable, Seth Moulton (D, Mass.). He tried to peddle his service in Afghanistan and Iraq to rationalize his efforts to steal my rights. Seth, I salute your service but I’m not in a mood to surrender my rights to your conscience. You give up your guns; leave mine alone. They’re legal and I’m clean.
Today’s political circus mangles solutions and problems, and any relationship between the two. It’s a burlesque show; it’s a mess. It’s the political equivalent of speaking in tongues and snake handling. The truth of the matter is that power-hungry politicos, already inclined to make us subservient to mommy and daddy government, want to build a political career on the corpse of our rights – legal, Constitutional, and natural. It’s all about manufactured solutions at the service of political careers. Now that’s the very definition of disgraceful.
RogerG