(about episodes of depraved indifference to mass murder and slaughter)

As usual everyone, from the President on down to local authorities and politicos, focuses on the wrong end of the stick whenever another horrid event of senseless gun violence erupts somewhere, especially when that happens in a school…as it recently did at a high school in Florida.
Again, an emotionally disturbed, if not deranged, youth, with a history of violent outbursts and behavior, which led to his expulsion from it because of that, went home to grab a military type AR15 (which he had apparently legally purchased some time earlier), then in a revenge-driven fit returned to that school with it to slaughter 17 people and wound many others besides, before local law enforcement was able to intervene and arrest him. Worse yet, it seems this 19-year-old had been the subject of 39 police domestic dispute responses in the previous year before this bloody event.
The questions all these factors should raise in our minds here is this: Given all of that, why weren’t there any apparent efforts made at the local community level to intervene with this youth having such obvious serious emotional and behavioral issues? Surely such episodes should have raised red flags of warning that this particular individual had a potential for extreme violence. More importantly, why did it take so long before a single anonymous voice called about him, not to local law enforcement, but to the FBI? An agency whose primary mission is focused on matters of national security, rather than local ones (which probably explains why the information from that call received a low priority of interest and action).
Thus, President Trump’s attempt to pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey of blame on the FBI is way off base (we won’t speculate here as to his motives for doing so) He should be directing his ire at that community’s local leadership and law enforcement instead, because they all failed to follow the current rule of “if you know something or see something…say something”. Had they done so perhaps this terrible event might never have happened.
While we can only applaud what our youth is now trying to do to mobilize their elders away from blind adherence to the 2nd Amendment, to do something that will produce more common sense and rational gun ownership and control laws, they too are missing the real issue here.
Simply put the real issue is a cultural one…and how to overcome it…rather than controlling gun ownership and use. That is, for the past fifty years or so we have had several generations who’ve grown up immersed in a cultural matrix emphasizing extremes of violence as not only acceptable, but the correct way to resolve personal slights and disputes. A form of subliminal indoctrination by pop-music, films, and television, glamorizing being a “bad-ass” as the only way to fit in and not being considered as either a nerd or wuss.
Is it any wonder then that we now have such a culture of depraved indifference about episodes of mass murder and slaughter? That…is the real root cause behind such events…not the insane easy accessibility to high-powered military type weapons designed for just that purpose. In that regard we have previously pointed out that things like the AR15 or the AK47 have no place in the civilian environment of a supposed civil society. We have also pointed out that those who hide behind the 2nd Amendment to prevent any kind of control over these have misconstrued its intent and meaning for that purpose (the profit motive perhaps being the main ingredient driving their opposition to such efforts). So let’s take a look at it:
“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.”
On the face of it it’s a very simple and imperative declarative statement; but, what everyone who argues about its meaning today seems to ignore about it, is the context of the times when our Founders added it to our Constitution. There are two key phrases in it that can only be seriously considered and parsed in that context.
The first one…a well regulated Militia…shows their concerns about how to have the means for both local security/law enforcement, and organized and trained military forces readily available to mobilize for national defense (the old Minute Man concept applied in the Revolutionary War…and still with us today in the form of our Sate National Guard units). Moreover, since the Founders were strongly opposed to the idea of a standing military establishment, having such well organized and trained Militia units in every locality and community of the country, available to be mobilized for national defense if needed, was a logical alternative option.
The second one…the right to keep and bear Arms…relates to such units, because you can’t have well organized and trained Militia units…if they don’t have “arms”. However, since the new national government was short in both funds and weapons, this was an economically effective and practical way to make sure they did have “arms” (which unlike today, saved the taxpayers a bundle in costs). In addition, we should also remember that in those times the country was still mostly agrarian, still had a long frontier line from North to South, and folks still depended on hunting to supplement their food supplies. So almost every household or homestead in the country had a firearm for itself (making it an impossibility to be “infringed”, even if they had wanted to}. We might also add here, that civilians “keep” weapons, for hunting and sport, but only military organizations such as Militias “bear” Arms…a distinction which should not be ignored here.
By that interpretation and perspective, the 2nd Amendment was solely intended to provide a firm constitutional basis for having such organized, trained, and armed units throughout the country, not, as so many contend today, as a right for unrestricted ownership of private arsenals. That erroneous interpretation and perspective only arose much later during the so-called Wild West period in our history, when the law the gun was the only law beyond the Mississippi.
Which was then later glamorized and romanticized by so many of our “westerns” as novels, films, and television productions to become further imbedded into the cultural matrix of our own times.
In short, we believe the crux of our gun violence problems of today derive from that cultural matrix. They do not derive from our contentions about how to control gun ownership without infringing upon our rights. So long as we continue to ignore that cultural matrix factor underlying such violence, and do nothing to try to change it, but only continue to just argue about how any controls infringe upon those right of ours…nothing will ever change.