Gun Control

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018, I turned on CNN Headline News to watch Morning Express with Robin Meade. About a minute into the program, she showed a 33 second video clip of a diatribe by Cameron Kasky, a 17-year-old junior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. An impressive, cute and appealing young orator, he was speaking in front of a crowd of what appeared to be all middle aged motherly women, many of whom were carrying signs about a subject that has become known as "gun control." This is what he said:

"This is simply a matter of: are you with us or are you against us? Are you for taking steps to save us or are you for taking NRA blood money? We are not letting the United States be run by that terrorist organization. My friends and I have stared down the barrel of an AR-15 the way you have not. We have seen this weapon of war mow down people we know and love the way you have not. How dare you tell us we don't know what we're talking about! you have no idea what you are talking about!"

"Here is an image from Kentucky this morning. To all American gun owners, this is a wakeup call. They're coming after us. Like and share to spread the word."

Now, as a Vietnam veteran, I consider "gun control" to be hitting what you intend to shoot, and perhaps keeping track of the weapons for which you are responsible. Having witnessed the hundreds of dead bodies in the killing fields of the Tet Offensive, perhaps I have a different sense of proportion than that of young Mr. Kasky and his billboard vandalizing sympathizers. His day of terror is just another six minutes of modern combat. Ho hum. Of course, in combat, you carry a gun so you can shoot back!

I don't recall staring down the barrel of an AR-15, but I've done it with a lot of AK-47s, not to mention various models of enemy machine guns and heavy artillery. I've traversed a live minefield and been peppered by shrapnel from an enemy rocket explosion. My living quarters were blown apart by artillery projectiles and my eyebrows were burned off by napalm. I know what it's like to fear for my life, strangling on my own vomit in a stinking, feces-filled rice paddy halfway around the world from my home and loved ones. I too have watched my friends die violently, but I didn't have the luxury of cowering somewhere in terror waiting for other people with guns to arrive. I was responsible for preserving those lives, even at the cost of my own, like Aaron Feis, Chris Hixon and Scott Beigel. I've been a registered voter for over half a century, and I believe I learned something since I was in high school myself! Over 58,300 names of people like me who died violently, some of whom I knew and loved, are inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

Much as he would like to think otherwise, young Mr. Kasky and the Resist45 vandals do not, unless it is something about fleeing in utter panic while doing absolutely nothing whatever to stop a crazed killer from murdering fellows left behind, people around him he claims to have known and loved. Maybe he can tell me how one can "stare down the barrel" of the murderer's weapon while he's hiding in fear or running the other way. I definitely know what a "terrorist organization" is, and the National Rifle Association isn't it. DUH! I have to question exactly how he and others like him are planning not to let "the United States be run by" anyone, given that he holds no political office, has no economic leverage, and doesn't even vote! He is not only wrong, he's ignorant as well. It's not his fault; he's still a child. That's probably why he is still in high school, to learn things that educated people already know. One of these is that "gun control" is not a "simple matter;" it is one of the most highly complex problems of our society. For the record, I'm for proposing realistic solutions to a very difficult problem and against just marching around demonstrating and bitching about it instead of actually doing something even marginally useful. The fact is, when it comes to gun control and/or politics, Cameron knows nothing!

The complaining students are highly motivated, for sure, but issuing ultimatums, claiming that their adult challengers "don't know what you're talking about" or insinuating that the honorable people they want to convince are taking bribes from a "terrorist organization" isn't working. (DUH, again!) The vote in the Florida House of Representatives should have told them that! The sad fact is that young people like Mr. Kasky are going to continue to be brutally murdered, over and over again (e.g. Mount Pleasant, Michigan, Birmingham, Alabama, Great Mills, Maryland, Ocala, Florida, Palmdale, California, Dixon, Illinois, Santa Fe, Texas, Jonesboro, Georgia, Noblesville, Indiana) until people like him and his parents stop believing that morally superior victimhood is some kind of a virtue. Actually preventing your own kids from being murdered is not, and never has been, the responsibility of "other people!" Staying away from school until these "other people" accomplish what you choose not to does not seem to be a very intelligent tactic, either, even if you know everything already because you're 17 and temporarily popular.

Regardless of what anyone believes about it, parents who persist in not dealing rationally with threats to their children have a lowered expectation of becoming grandparents. Children who believe differently have a lower expectation of living to be parents themselves. It's called "evolution." It's a good thing. It enhances the survival of protective tool users and tends to keep stupid people from living long enough to breed. Not believing in it doesn't make it go away.

As for the sign, my first reaction was that it was put up by the NRA to provoke an emotional response among its own members and sympathizers. But it was almost certainly authored by "Resist45," a disorganized gang of culpably ignorant antisocial malcontents who don't even have enough money (or education) to rent their own signs, just like Mr. Kasky. (They also hate guns!) They are so incredibly stupid that they consider a proposal to kill over three to five million highly motivated opponents, all of whom have firearms, is an idea worthy of public expression.

And I think it is important to note that victims of gun violence are not just upper middle class erudite white children from two-parent Protestant families in yuppy suburbia. Outlaws with guns kill an average of over 31 people every day in the United States, well over half again as many as ever died at Stoneman Douglas High School - ever! Any "gun control" legislation has to recognize that there are already over 340,000,000 firearms in circulation in the United States. Not all of them have been purchased by those who currently have access to them, let alone by somebody who can pass a background check!

We've had these discussions before. Alcoholic beverages used to be a similar problem. The non-drinking victims' ill-advised push for legislation to resolve it resulted in the ratification of the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919. That was such a dismal failure that it was repealed by the 21st Amendment less than 15 years later. People still get illegal alcohol and other drugs. The organized crime syndicates that distribute them, created by Prohibition, are still with us. A lot of them are now also in the business of selling guns to murderers. We haven't been able to get rid of them, either!

Motor vehicles kill about 33,000 Americans every year, but anybody can buy (or steal) a car. You have to apply (and pay a fee, and get registered) for a license legally to drive, but the license doesn't do a thing to make it harder to run a stolen truck into a group of innocent pedestrians in lower Manhattan or blow up a van full of explosives in Oklahoma City.

To solve a problem, it usually helps to figure out how it originated and why. There are many factors involved in illegal use of firearms: fear, ignorance, poverty, mental illness, feelings of inferiority, and rage, just to name a few. One overwhelming factor is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the ratified text of which reads:

"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."

The Funding Fathers had just fought a disastrous war against their own government (England) with an army that began at Lexington and Concord with a hastily-established militia, courtesy of Paul Revere. This experience gave them an uncommon respect for the necessity of citizens being armed against the ever-present threat of tyranny. The people of Syria are learning that necessity today, with a different outcome. One could argue that the United States is nothing like Syria, but recent events in both countries and the activities of their leaders make that argument suspect, to say the least.

The idea of a militia was so well established in the minds of the Fathers that they did not feel it necessary to define what it was. Today we would call it the National Guard. It is an association of armed citizens the purpose of which was to unite for a common purpose, ensure domestic order, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, deter tyranny, repel invaders, and suppress insurrection. Four of these seven purposes are incorporated into the Preamble to the Constitution.

The degree to which the first idea in the Second Amendment relates to the second has been a matter of endless debate throughout our history. The second is perhaps more straightforward, and a more direct statement of a fundamental right. Taken together, the two ideas assert that the United States, as a free state, considers its existence to be necessarily dependent upon the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." In other words, repeal of the Second Amendment "ain't gonna happen," regardless of what anyone thinks about the NRA, one of the stated purposes of which is to defend it. Like the right to freedom of religion, speech, peaceful assembly, personal security, and other Constituional guarantees (all of which historically have been sustained by people with guns), the fundamental right to keep and bear arms doesn't require a license, either. The reality is, we need to find other, viable, constructive, effective, options to deal with people who misuse them. Relying on the guns going away isn't one of them.

Perhaps an examination of the evolution of the application of the Amendment up to the present day might be in order:

1822 - Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.) defended the right to carry a concealed weapon, in this case a sword in a cane. The Kentucky law in question under which Bliss was convicted and fined $100 was intended "to prevent persons in this commonwealth from wearing concealed arms" The right to bear arms was guaranteed by the Second Constitution of Kentucky in 1799, but the Third Kentucky Constitution of 1850 banned concealed weapons and asserted the power of the legislature to enforce the ban. Kentucky's Fourth Constitution, enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."

1840 - Aymette v. State, 21Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), The Tennessee Supreme Court considered the carrying of a concealed bowie knife not to be a right guaranteed under the state constitution, which was considered to be in accord with the Second Amendment. The "arms," of which "the right to keep and bear" secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment..." and that, in contrast, the concealed bowie knife was within the power of the legislature to prohibit because it was "dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens ... not usual in civilized warfare."

1842 - In State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, asserting that the reference to a "well regulated militia" did not limit the right to keep and bear only to arms used in the military.

1846 - In Nunn v. Georgia (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds. reasserted by the US Supreme Court in Columbia v. Heller.

1857 - Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) The US Supreme Court ruled that Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because he was a slave, and therefore property. However, in its ruling, it implied that all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection: ... to persons of the Negro race ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

1875 - United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) In a post Civil War era case relating to the Ku Klux Klan depriving freed slaves basic rights such as freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled the application of the First and Second Amendments "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government," respectively. Basically, it ruled that it was a function of the states to guarantee the rights of their (in this case Negro) citizens. This kind of racial discrimination persisted until passage of federal civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

1886 - Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and did not constitute a right to form or belong to a militia, only to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States. Basically, it declared that a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is constitutional because prohibiting such does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states and "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." This interpretation was effectively reversed by McDonald v. City of Chicago.

1905 - Salina v. Blaksley The Kansas Supreme Court became the first court to interpret the right to keep and bear arms as being only a collective, not an individual right. It was overruled in 2010 by the passage of an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution that provides: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

1939 - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The Supreme Court found that a possession of a "sawed-off shotgun" (less than 18 inches long), prohibited by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) did not have "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore [we] cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

1968 - The Gun Control Act of 1968 was prompted by the assassination of U.S. President Kennedy in 1963 and of Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. It bans mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibits most felons, drug users (including users of medical marijuana) and people found mentally incompetent from buying or, generally, of possessing guns. It also mandated the licensing of individuals and companies engaged in the business of selling firearms. It prohibits the direct mail order of firearms other than antique, curios and relics by consumers and private sales between residents of different states and purchase of handguns and their ammunition by anyone under 21. It allows importation of firearms only if they are "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes" such as hunting and organized competitive target shooting. It requires that all newly manufactured firearms produced in or imported into the United States bear a serial number, and makes defacement or removal of the serial number a felony offense.

1980 - In Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the US Supreme Court ruled that "a legislature constitutionally may prohibit a convicted felon from" possessing a firearm and "engaging in activities far more fundamental than the possession of a firearm," and that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'"

1986 - The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was passed to rectify abuses by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) that resulted from the Gun Control Act. It provides that the ATF compliance inspections can be done only once per year, with an additional followup inspection if warranted, and imposes a ban on new automatic firearms with certain exceptions. It allows "safe passage" of inaccessible firearms owned by persons traveling through states in which such firearms might be illegal, prohibits creating or keeping a registry of legal gun owners, and clarifies the categories of persons prohibited from possesing firearms under federal law.

1990 - The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), introduced in the U.S. Senate in 1990 by Senator Joe Biden and signed by President George H.W. Bush, prohibits any "unauthorized individual" from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. It applies to public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools (like Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School), and to non-private property within 1000 feet of them. It provides that the states and their political subdivisions may issue licenses that exempt the licensed individuals from the prohibition, but leaves "unlicensed individuals" (students) defenseless.

1990 - Farmer v. Higgins (11th Cir. 1990) The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruling upheld a 1986 federal law banning the manufacture, sale or ownership of new machine guns except by police or government agencies. The appeals court dismissed the notion that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives individuals a right to possess guns which have been banned by the government. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court which refused to consider the appeal. Gun control advocates called the court action the "worst legal defeat ever" for the NRA.

1991 - United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991) The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruled that one cannot be prosecuted for failure to pay a tax required by the 1934 National Firearms Act, for machine guns produced after 1986 because the government has refused to accept any such payments, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machine gun. Basically, one cannot be prosecuted for not paying a tax the government has refused to collect, BUT one who illegally transfers such a weapon can be prosecuted under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.

1993 - United States v. Warner (10th Cir. 1993) Mr. Jesse Warner was caught in Utah with a machine gun in his car and convicted for its possession. He appealed on the basis the Utah constitution allows its citizens to bear arms, and therefore he is exempt "under authority of the State." However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overruled this, citing Farmer v. Higgins, saying that machine guns were not meant to be in private hands. Although the Utah law gives permission to own automatic firearms, it did not grant him authority under federal law.

1993 - The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993 and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981. It requires background checks on individuals before a firearm (except a curio or relic) may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer unless an exception applies, such as a transfer between private individuals in the same state. In most cases, this check is accomplished by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI, but proof of a previous approved alternative check can be used instead. The Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce (as opposed to purchasing or owning, which are prohibited by various other laws). Currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone, but the reply may take up to three days. If a denial is not issued within that time, the transfer may be completed.

1995 - United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. After the Lopez decision, the act was amended to specifically apply only to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce (virtually all commercial military style weapons).

1996 - United States v. Rybar (3d Cir. 1996) In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Congress has the power to regulate possession of homemade machine guns under the Commerce Clause, later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The Third Circuit made this decision 2-1, with future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in dissent.

2001 - In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, after exhaustive research, held that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals to privately" keep and bear arms but that a federal statute which prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons (not necessarily convicts) subject to a court order that, by its explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child (domestic abuse) did not violate the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of this decision.

2009 - District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) The Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment references an individual right, holding: "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

2010 - McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of previous precedent dictate otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.

2013 - In People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the total ban on carrying firearms outside the home imposed by the Illinois law violated the Second Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. It overturned conviction of 17 year old Aguilar under the law, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment. However, it upheld his conviction for the same offense under prohibition of possession of handguns by minors by state and federal law.

2016 - Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. _ (2016) - The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense. It ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

Taken together, these laws and decisions make it difficult to argue successfully that "bearable" arms can be banned from the general public on the grounds that they are "weapons of war." Indeed, Aymette v. State, United States v. Miller and Lewis v. United States suggests that a "weapon of war" is precisely the kind of "arms" that the people have a "right to keep and bear."

People who believe that "assault rifles" ought to be outlawed are on dangerous moral, as well as legal, ground. They also don't know what they're talking about, because such weapons are already denied to the public. According to the US Army (which is probably a better authority than an uneducated mob of teenagers and their parents), an assault rifle is a "short, compact, selective-fire weapon that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In addition, it must be supplied by a detachable box magazine and have an effective range of at least 330 yards. Under this definition, real assault rifles are already banned because they are automatic weapons when this configuration is selected. Semiautomatic copies of such rifles such as the AR-15, are often incorrectly called "assault rifles," But calling them that doesn't make it so. Like those they are intended to resemble, they are designed under international law preferentially to wound, not kill, and the detachable magazine makes it possible easily to unload them. They are, of course, intended for engaging targets at a range of 300 yards. This makes them much more deadly at close range than handguns, but people who acquire those illegally still kill people with them. Do the "gun control" people really want to restrict rifles now available to the public to those with big, heavy cartridges designed virtually to guarantee a kill of a human-sized animal? Really? Why?

Maybe it would be a good idea for the proponents of killing, as opposed to wounding weapons to know what they're talking about!

There seems to be a tacit assumption that if we get rid of the firearms somehow, we'll get rid of the threat. This has a lot of merit, of course, because firearms are readily available, easy to use, have impressive lethality, and are more user friendly than, say, a suicide vest or a truck full of ANFO. I wonder, though, if getting rid of the firearms is the most desirable option, even if it were Constitutionally possible, which it isn't. A firearm by itself is no threat to anybody. A school shooter who is unable to get a firearm at the moment, on the other hand, is still dangerous. I think we need to concentrate on the killers, rather than on their tools.

A friend of mine invited my attention to an article entitled: What drove Las Vegas shooter to kill? We don't know, and it drives us crazy! I'm not sure that I agree with all the premises proposed. I think there is a tendency in our modern society to make excuses for people who decide to do wicked things. Some religions even deny that it is possible for their adherents to do anything evil. I disagree. The title is illustrative. "What drove Las Vegas shooter to kill" assumes that something "drove" him to shoot all those people, rather than "he just decided to do that and carried out his plan with malice aforethought because he's a mean, rotten, detestible sonofabitch who should have been gotten rid of long ago." Talking about "holding somebody accountable" suggests that the shooter somehow "wasn't accountable" already, automatically. It also helps to deflect blame; if this thing or event or circumstance "caused" him do to thus and so, then it was it that is responsible for all those dead and injured people, and not anybody else, especially him - or us. The fact is, their blood is on a lot of other people's hands, including that of voters and legislators and school board and PTA members who don't vote for effective laws and rules and expect somebody in Washington to do that instead.

To avoid being one of them, I propose the following laws or changes to existing laws. I am second to none in my respect for the Second Amendment and the decisions that have historically construed this to mean that people capable of forming a militia, when necessary, should be allowed to possess guns. I also agree that automatic registration of gun owners is an "infringement" within the meaning of the Amendment. Given, however, that people who secretly store up firearms are usually up to no good, I would be in favor of legally being able to take away more than five from anyone who does that, while providing an avenue to avoid that by responsible firearm owners. I would be in favor of the following federal law:

States or tribal governments shall have the authority to require registration of the ownership of five or more deadly weapons of the same or different types, by the same owner, and to confiscate without compensation more than five such weapons not so registered. Records of such registration shall be made available only to law enforcement authorities, shall be filed by weapon type and serial number, not by owner, and shall not be used to create a database of owners.

Doors, portals or other entryways designed or intended to restrict entry into public buildings shall be capable of being reliably locked or unlocked, while accommodating mandatory emergency exit features, and incapable of allowing failure or defeat of this feature without an instant, reliable and obvious warning at each such door as well as (a) continuously monitored control center(s). Where appropriate, locked doors shall be capable of being opened from the outside only by use of a card or similar means associated with a monitoring system which records the identity of the device used, a recorded image of the individual using it, and the date and time of such use. Such images shall be recorded and protected in a durable vault or safe and maintained for at least seven days.

All facilities receiving federal funds involving activities in which persons therein are under the supervision and control of, and dependent for their safety upon, others shall provide armed personnel reasonably capable of protecting occupants from harm. This function may be carried out by employees with other primary duties. All such personnel shall be trained in the use of firearms and in mitigation of the hazards against which they are intended to protect.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, in cooperation with the American National Standards Institute and other appropriate government, professional and commercial agencies, shall develop and promulgate a comprehensive standard for Safety Against Firearms, Explosives and Sabotage, and Prevention Of Terrorism in Schools (SAFESPOTS). Within five years of such promulgation, all education facilities receiving federal funds shall have fully implemented those measures identified therein as "required" or "mandatory."

Private or government real property of a value of over 100 million dollars which is open to or frequented by members of the public shall be equipped with means instantly and automatically to identify and provide a public alert to incidents of gunfire and automatically to locate the source thereof within the limits of available technology.

Promoters or facilitators of concerts or other public gatherings of more than 100 fee-paying attendees shall take reasonable measures to protect such attendees from injury or other harm by terrorists or other outlaws.

Failure to take advantage of existing technology for protection or mitigation of damage by, or injury to victims of, terrorism by persons responsible for their safety shall be considered as a factor in determination of compensatory and punitive damages.

Any gathering of five or more persons, for whatever purpose, that actively advocates, employs, precipitates, encourages, aids or abets violence, intimidation, vandalism, or interference in the lawful activities of others, or involves the threat of deadly force or the perception thereof, shall constitute a riot, for the pacification of which, and arrest of the rioters, the use of deadly force by law enforcement is hereby specifically authorized.

Notwithstanding any other law or regulation, the jury which convicts any person of a felony shall have sole and absolute discretion regarding the punishment, within legislatively specified limits, of the convict. Such jury shall have the additional option to impose other conditions, with the irrevocable consent of the convict, as an alternative to punishment, such as, but not limited to, forfeiture of citizenship and expulsion from the United States.

In accordance with the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, loss of citizenship and/or involuntary servitude shall be available for imposition by a jury as punishment for a felony of which the party shall have been duly convicted. When so imposed, the convict shall be required to obey all directions and commands of the jurisdiction against which the felony shall have been committed or, upon decision of the court, of the victim(s) of such felony.

I cannot believe that a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" must deny its citizens the right to self-protection, especially because a small fraction of them choose to harm others who desperately need that protection. In the case of schools, my recommendations are on record. The foregoing are some additional suggestions. Some may be workable, others may not. If someone has any better, let him speak up, and I will be among the first to listen. But if he advocates infringing upon rights guaranteed under the Constitution, he really needs to go back to high school, take an American history course, and get his mind right.

PS: As reported by several news sources, Florida Governor Rick Scott, apparently in response to the aftermath of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, has recently signed into law legislation that provides for the following:"

Strengthening school security:

As a principle (no pun intended), I think this is a good idea, even though at this point nobody seems to know exactly how it will be expressed in practice, if ever. Strengthened security is generally good.

Providing armed police officers in schools:

This is probably also a good idea in principle. How it works out in practice, on the other hand, is a different matter. Will the schools succumb to a feeling of invulnerability, that no other precautions need be taken, as a result of having uniformed police officers wandering around in distinctive uniforms that make them obvious ambush targets? If they are not in uniform, how will people recognize that they are supposed to have guns? Will the police officers actually do something in an emergency, or will they be allowed to hang around in one building with their guns pointed at nothing listening to the sound of students being murdered in another? We'll see.

A ban on bump stocks:

I'm decidedly for this. The bump stock has no other function than to provide a legal weapon with the distinguishing capabilities of an illegal one. It has no use in warfare, because it makes the weapon less accurate than it is designed to be. The only purpose I can see for a bump stock is to make it possible to increase the rate at which random victims are shot. Good riddance, I say.

Increase the legal age to purchase firearms to 21:

That way someone who needs a firearm for protection - young people who live in dangerous neighborhoods, even decorated military heroes - won't be able legally to acquire firearms. Given that 18 to 21 year olds can vote, I don't see how they are not part of "The People" who are authorized to "keep and bear arms" by the Second Amendment. One student affected by this law has already claimed on national television to intend to challenge this provision as a violation of her Second Amendment rights. However that challenge turns out, this law won't have any effect on the underage firearm stealers, like Adam Lanza, for example. Way to go, Rick!