We went on a family vacation to San Francisco. It used to be that you could go away and leave your troubles behind. With connectivity, all of our troubles seem to follow us everywhere. In the span of a week we saw two landmark Supreme Court cases hit the news.

Everything old is new again. It would be wrong for me to suggest the court is reaching new ground here. In a way it is, but for the most part we have been here before. Brown vs. Board of Education created new law back in 1954. It also likely went against what the majority of the population felt at the time. We had no public opinion polling back then, so that is merely a guess, but I feel like it is a good guess.

The court is there to interpret the constitution and not to bend to the whims of a fickle majority. I think we can agree with that much. However, it is fair to question whether following legal precedent matters and conservatives have long maintained a disdain for activist judges. The court (by vote of 6-3 both times) just actively created new law on both counts. They created two radically different interpretations of the constitution on both counts.

There is also no denying what they are after. Clarence Thomas mentioned gay marriage in his majority opinion and we know our very own John Cornyn mentioned Brown vs. Board of Education. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to include interracial marriages as well. We are literally going back a century on human rights.

In an odd way, the backdrop of San Francisco is kind of telling here. You have never seen a town more into Pride Month than San Francisco. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a pride flag. Stores had pride messages painted on their windows. Different companies offered pride products. It was the most inclusive, welcoming environment I had ever seen. How does all of this happen in the same country?

It happens because a minority of citizens have managed to control government and the courts. The GOP has effectively won a majority in a presidential election once since 1988. Many of their politicians have suggested that we live in a center-right country right now. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that based on national voting records or public opinion polling. None.

What there is evidence of is plenty of gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics that have kept progressivism at bay. This is where things get dicey. It is fair for people to look at Democrats in general and liberals and progressives specifically and claim they have failed. They didn’t codify abortion into law. They have been ineffective at stopping gerrymandering and have allowed the courts to be dominated by conservatives. There is no denying that.

The question is what happens now. We can go down two roads. One road would be for enough voters to punish Democrats either by staying home or voting for third party candidates. That way, you’d insure a Republican victory. The second road is to recognize the threat and where it is coming from. There you would overwhelm the GOP with a blue wave and then slowly rebuild what they have broken.

There are some that think the first road is tempting. After all, maybe if things get really bad then systemic change will be easier to obtain. That thinking has two problems. First, you are hurting millions along the way and secondly you are assuming there will be a democracy left to get back. Clearly, the GOP doesn’t care what the majority wants. They never have. Your only real bet is to block them from tearing this thing down any further.

Others have commented on the police response in Uvalde, but I have not. I have been waiting for facts, but there have been so few up to this point. We know a few things. First, we know that the shooter went in through a back door, we know parents begged officers to go in, and we know they did not go in for over an hour. We should probably take each of those points one at a time because each has been a huge part of this story. It was initially reported that the shooter went through a door that had been propped open by a rock. As it turned out, she closed the door and naturally assumed it was locked to those outside. Apparently, it wasn’t.

As an aside, I went through this exercise with our daughter. We had her mentally track how many doors students could legally enter at her school and settled on four. We then asked her how many total points of entry there were and settled on fourteen. Keep in mind that there are around 130,000 documented schools in the United States. That’s not counting universities and community colleges. Could you imagine the expense and manpower it would take to guard each of those doors (even just the legal ones) and to secure the rest?

Let’s pretend that your junior highs and high schools have two points of entry and exit and all the rest are successfully locked down. Let’s go with what Ted Cruz suggested and have one point of entry at the elementary schools. Mind you, this would violate fire code and present other possible dangers, but can you imagine the manpower we are talking to have an armed guard at each of those doors? We are talking about over 200,000 people.

The second fact we know is that parents begged to save their children and cops refused. Did they do the right thing? I obviously wasn’t there, haven’t had any combat training, and certainly haven’t game played through any hostage negotiations. Would there have been more dead had the police breached the school and engaged the shooter sooner? Would they have saved more lives doing that? We will never know on both counts.

What is true in this light is how absurd an idea it is to arm teachers. I can count far too many reasons why this is an absolutely horrible idea. Let’s assume that the teacher is trained to fire their weapon as those on the right have suggested. That alleviates only one concern. The second concern would be storage of the weapon. Do you want them to store it on their person or keep it secured somewhere in their classroom? What happens if they or that location is compromised?

Then we move onto the actual gaming of the mass shooter scenario. They may be trained to shoot, but are they trained in that specific scenario? What does SWAT do when they see an armed intruder AND armed teachers? What happens if a teacher has a mental breakdown and become the shooter themselves? Even in the best of cases we encountered a situation where trained police felt powerless to do anything. Whether they were negligent or justified is important but also very telling when you consider what you are asking untrained teachers to do.

There is always a non-zero chance the worst will occur and there always will be a non-zero chance no matter what we do. We start with the most obvious thing and move are way down from there. Restricting the gun is the most obvious thing. Door control, armed teachers, and armed soldiers sounds lovely but ultimately ineffective without doing the obvious thing.

The official definition of a terrorist is “that of a person that uses unlawful violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.” You’ll immediately notice that at no time does it actually mention death or murder. That is what a lot of people mistake for terrorism. Death is but a side effect. The real goal is the political agenda.

Shortly after the Uvalde massacre, the following advertisement started making it circles around the internet. As you look at this picture, I want you to remember one thing. This isn’t the picture of some jackass taking a picture with his son. That would be bad enough. This is a picture from the maker of the gun designed to sell it. It’s a damn advertisement.

 

Now, let’s first dispense with a few misconceptions. This was intentional. You can’t imagine the number of people that had to sign off on this advertisement. This isn’t the work of some junior level temp that sent out an advertisement like some kind of rogue Bond villain. Dozens of people viewed it and at least half of dozen had to sign off before releasing it into the wild.

Tbere are a few things we know. The first thing is that even the rank and file in the NRA isn’t on board with what leadership is doing. Leadership doesn’t represent them anymore. We also know that the NRA has shifted over the intervening decades where they represent the interests of gun manufacturers more than the interests of individual gun owners.

For those keeping up, Daniel Defense was the producer of the weapon. They are the ones that released the picture above. So, in essence, the NRA and these gun manufacturers are willing to lie to their constituents about the availability of guns and the political motivations of Congressional Democrats and Joe Biden. They want to scare the flock into buying more guns.

So, they want to lie and intimidate the people into doing what they want. Just ask yourself how you feel when you see that picture above. What is the gut emotion in play here? Mind you, I don’t know that the NRA or Daniel Defense wants people to die. However, they are not above using their deaths in order to further their political agenda. They want more people to buy guns. They want more guns and bigger guns. We already have more guns than people. Why not two times? Three times? Four times?

So, when an interest group and a company uses fear and intimidation to further a political agenda what exactly do we call that? What do we call it when that interest group continues to hold it’s rallies and conventions days after these tragedies? It isn’t hard to picture members of the Taliban or Al Queda dancing up and down on 9/11. Heck, politicians used those images to stoke anger in us. Simply transpose the images of politicians and rednecks dancing on stage and cheering and it is the same exact thing.

I want you to take a good look at that picture above. Is that a picture from a company that is so tone deaf that they just don’t know they are being overwhelmingly offensive? Do you really believe that? Or, is that the photo designed to trigger people on one side or another. What do you call people that use fear and intimidation for their own political ends and profit? I wish there was a name for that. It’s right there on the tip of my tongue.

I have done this one before. All that is old is new again. The overwhelming theme that has occurred this week in the argument over gun control are those three words. Because I can. I have gotten into debates with multiple folks on social media and all of them have asserted the same things. The second amendment gives me the right to do it. Of course, whether that’s true or not is up for debate. I don’t have time for that debate in these spaces right now.

Because I can. That has become to conservative mantra in the United States. It has become the mantra of the MAGA crowd. Because I can. I can cheat on my taxes. I can commit fraud on the American public. I can grab the private parts of women. I can be selfish and refuse to wear a mask. I can be selfish and refuse to get a vaccine or follow basic safety protocols. Because I can.

Because we can. Essentially, the difference between a fully functioning adult with moral autonomy and one that isn’t is the keen understanding between “can” and “should.” I’ve fought this my whole life. It’s a hard lesson to learn. That period of early adulthood is key. For the first time in your life you have autonomy from your parents. You CAN do things they would never allow you to do. Because we can. However, that is never the most important question. The most important question is whether we should.

I still remember vividly serving on the editorial board of my college newspaper. A student had been accused of sexual assault. He had not been charged. Journalistic ethics indicate you can report on it and publish his picture. So, the rest of the editorial board chose to do that. We have the right to do it. I didn’t think it was wise since we were a small campus and were the only source of news for the campus.

I lost that debate. They told me I wasn’t a journalism major and simply didn’t understand. We have the right to do it. Because we can. As it turned out, the charges were dropped. The student in question had an identical twin on campus. Both had to transfer to another university because of the fall out. The alleged victim recanted her story, so no one knows if an assault even occurred. Because we can.

All this happened because no one bothered to ask the important question: should we do this? Far too many people have made life more difficult, more painful, and more cruel because they’ve never bothered to ponder that question. Should we do this? Because I can has been the default position. Because I can has been the mantra that has driven this country into a ditch.

Naturally one could take this whole concept to its logical extreme, but any time a decision is made, the effects on those around us should be considered. Does my behavior present an inherent risk to those around me? Does my behavior make the world a better place or a worse place? Because I can is just simply not good enough. We need better. We deserve better.

Whenever these things come up, there are go to responses on the right. Sometimes it can be hard to penetrate those responses because they have been designed to shut down debate on gun control. These people get placed into two baskets. The first ones are the incendiary ones. They are a part of the leadership cult. They are purposefully trying to derail debate. The rest are just parroting what they hear. Many of them mean well, but they are helping the other side just the same. So, you will get a slight variance of these as you discuss this with friends and family.

1. The school’s security measures either failed them or they were not properly used. If they had been then the tragedy would have never occurred.

Usually, all it takes is to game this one out. Someone shows up with an automatic weapon, body armor, and numerous clips of ammunition then what is likely to happen? Of course, our response should vary slightly based on the person making this statement. Again, many are not in a psychological place to admit that they are not in control of their own destiny here. As the thinking goes, THEY did not use proper security, so THEY were not safe. WE use proper security, so WE will be safe. Understand that they need a reason to feel like it won’t happen to them.

2. If the teachers were armed then this wouldn’t have happened.

Okay, since I am in the classroom let me also game this situation out. Let’s pretend that we have a handful of professionals that are also trained and experienced in using a firearm. After all, we wouldn’t want old Ms. Jones to have to carry a weapon she’s never fired before. However, during one of these events you would have your two or three heroes going across campus in a matter of seconds and forced to make a split second decision to shoot someone that might be a student without hurting those around him (assuming it’s a male shooter).

Then, a few minutes later the SWAT team enters the building. They see what appears to be two, three, or four grown people holding guns and pointing it at each other. Who do they shoot exactly? How do they know who the good guys are with the guns and which one is the bad guy? You’d be looking at multiple dead bodies at that point.

3. We can’t enact X law because in this shooting Y occurred.

Remember this phrase: perfect is the enemy of good. There will be no perfect solutions. There will be no laws that prevent every single scenario. The goal is better and not perfect. We capture as many different scenarios as possible and realize there will be a new scenario. My sister (a head volleyball coach) has had to add to her rulebook every year. There are new scenarios to consider. This is like any other law and any other rule. People are creative and they dream up new ways to get what they want. We keep us as best we can. Remember the mantra: perfect is the enemy of good.

4. The kid was a disturbed kid and there was no telling that this would happen.

You will notice that a lot of these start to melt together. The best defense is to marry these together to make a response difficult. So, I repeat my response from the last one. If you think it’s a mental health problem then step up and make some suggestions. In a lot of these cases you had parents and neighbors that knew something was wrong. They were just powerless to stop it. We can be angry at the mother in the Sandy Hook case for instance. Her son was autistic and she introduced him to guns as a way to connect with him. We can lambast her all we want. She paid the ultimate price and we have to remember that she begged for help along the way because she knew her son was in trouble, There has to be a way for family, friends, and neighbors to alert authorities and actually get assistance and not be turned away. We need to figure this out AND we need common sense gun control legislation. This is not an either/or situation. It is both.

We have the smartest readers on the known internet here. Please feel free to add your own responses to these things in the comments. We need to help each other get through this and debate the friends, family members, and trolls they will encounter in our lives.

 

Thoughts and prayers. When one hears that phrase they have to suppress the rage that exists inside them. After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with thoughts and prayers. Surely you would rather have someone think about you and pray for you then do nothing at all. Moreover, everyone seems to offer that in these times and not everyone can be a bad actor.

There are three levels of response to these kinds of things. The first level is a gut reaction to the event. We hold our loved ones a little longer. We hug them a little more strongly. We seek the comfort of a beloved family pet and thank our lucky stars if no one we personally know was involved.

The second visceral reaction is one of unadulterated anger. My initial reaction was the same as Sandy Hook. It was the same as Santa Fe. It was the same as Columbine and Florida. It’s the exact same as Virginia Tech and Boulder as well. It was the same as Vegas. It was definitely the same as Buffalo.

People doing nothing other than going about their daily lives don’t deserve this. No one deserves this. It’s particularly cruel when it involves children. They had their whole lives in front of them. My first immediate thought is that the right can take their second amendment and shove it up their sanctimonious ass. They can take their thoughts and prayers and shove it up their sanctimonious ass. They can take their pro life hypocrisy and shove it up their sanctimonious ass. They don’t get to speak anymore. They get to sit down and shut the hell up so the adults can get to work.

Admittedly, as great as that feels to say, it doesn’t help the situation either. Sadness doesn’t help prevent the next one. Anger doesn’t help prevent the next one. Only action will help prevent the next one. So, any overtures to repeal the second amendment are going nowhere. We know that. The only thing it does is provide the other side with a juicy soundbite to play on the campaign trail. It’s time for adults to sit down and figure this thing out.

Universal background checks should be a thing. The assault weapons ban should be a thing. Mandatory waiting periods should be a thing. Gun registration should be a thing. Let the right prattle on about how this is a mental health issue. Great. Get up off your ass and actually do something about mental health then.

You don’t get to make excuses you have no intention of following through on just to deflect from the obvious gun problem we have. You don’t get to offer platitudes about this, that, and the other without offering real solutions. We pay you for solutions. We don’t pay you for thoughts and prayers. We don’t pay you to flee to Cancun. We don’t pay you to make excuses, obfuscate, or derail the legislative process. We pay you to make our lives better. We pay you to make our lives safer.

Maybe repealing the second amendment isn’t reasonable. We are allowed our immediate thoughts as we process yet another one of these. We are allowed our outward signs of anger after one of these that never should have happened in the first place. We are allowed to dream of a world where the United States can manage to be like every other industrialized nation in the world. So, no I will not take your guns. Joe Biden will not take your guns. Kamala Harris and every other Democrat will not take your guns. Just understand that deep down inside many of us want to.