Top Three Takeaways – March 25th, 2021
- The more things change the more they stay the same. It’s true regarding gun control arguments. It’s true of identity politics. It’s true of immigration reform. It’s basically true of about every federal issue. It’s also somewhat brilliantly all by design. Yesterday, while having a conversation on the latest “we have to do something” argument over gun control, I made a point that’s worth elaborating on broadly. I used Florida’s illustration of reforms passed as part of the Stoneman Douglas School Safety Act as an example of what’s possible when real reform is desired. By now you’ve been conditioned by many Congressional Democrats and their allies in news media ,to think Democrats stand for “common sense” gun control reforms and Republicans stand opposed. Except that’s simply not true. Inside of three weeks of the attack at Stoneman Douglas, Florida created a task force, led by Governor Scott who held meetings with gun control advocates, mental health experts, law enforcement professionals, community leaders and parents of victims to craft comprehensive reforms within the state of Florida. Within a month of the attack, Florida’s Republican Governor and Republican led state legislature passed sweeping reforms addressing mental health issues, school safety and gun control. The difference is when politicians operate in good faith, aren’t trying to overreach and are genuinely seeking solutions. That’s true of reforms involving firearms, even in one of the most conservatively led states in the country. This just in. Republicans don’t want their families murdered either. The issue is the lack of...
- Intellectual honesty. Rather than operating in good faith on issues like gun control, immigration policy and race – members of both parties commonly prefer to exploit the issue as opposed to fixing it. This leads to often faulty legislation being proposed and show votes on the bad bills. It doesn’t lead to solutions. But then again...maybe that’s the way it should be. Think about how radical the changes in policy would be on any number of issues if every time the party of the president flipped along with the party controlling Congress. This is why the best policy is often the policy made closest to home. Do we really need sweeping gun control measures at the federal level when it can instead reflect the will of the majority of the people at the state level? Do we really want federal politicians setting racial quotas or making declarations regarding the perception of racism or is it better for them to simply ensure all Americans have equal rights? Now immigration is a purely federal issue, so those solutions must come from within the belly of beast but generally you get the point. Rather than outcries for Congress to “do something”, it was created for it to far more often do nothing. Literally the only responsibility of every member of Congress is to uphold the Constitution and the only legislative requirement is to create a budget. Ironically two things they commonly don’t do. But the founders were brilliant and having a bunch of narcissistic fakers in Congress who are more self-interested than solutions-based is nothing new. That’s why they made it hard to get things done.
- Get real. Now, as a supporter of the Stoneman Douglas School Safety Act, I’ll offer this up to every other Floridian who still wants Congress to do something. Can a gun be violent, or does it require a person? This isn’t a trick question. “Gun violence” literally doesn’t and can’t exist. It’s a grammar usage problem exploited to create emotional reactions. It’s the antithesis of intellectual honesty. So too is the term “assault weapon”. What weapon isn’t assaulting when used? You're insulting my intelligence with your assaulting rhetoric. Now, if you’re interested in solutions, riddle me this. Why is it that fully automatic guns were legally sold in the United States through the mid-80's and yet we didn’t have the proliferation of murderous attacks on innocent people the likes of which we’ve sadly witnessed for the past 22 years? Until you’ve adequately answered that question you’re not interested in solutions and you need to get real.
Photo Credit: Getty Images