Politicians Pardoning Themselves Before- and After-the-Fact

Would you believe the US Senate is currently trying to pass a bill that would automatically give politicians immunity from prosecution if they’re found to be committing crimes while in office?!

This is what’s on the agenda.

If you read this, please send a message to your Senators insisting that they vote against this bill. I expect it would not pass the Supreme Court, but these days you never know.

Here’s the message I sent my Senators:

“Surely you jest. I mean, are you really considering pardoning a politician for a crime that would put anyone else in prison? If so, you'll be proving that our government is made up of people whose number-one agenda is to protect themselves and their political careers. If that is the message you want to give my fellow voters and I, then don't expect to be receiving a vote from your constituents next election. It's bad enough that most people believe that politicians are dishonest; it's worse to get proof of their dishonesty from the Congressional Record.”

On Gun Control

I was watching television the other day, and I noticed a piece on gun control and the U.S. Constitution. It was an interesting program.

The side for gun control was not doing well. They argued that access to guns is leading to violence in schools, injuries and deaths of innocent people, and accidental deaths.

The side against gun control used language like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, and “the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to ‘keep and bear arms’”. Also, the “Guns Save Lives” organization was mentioned, which has signs posted all over American highways; signs that bear a striking resemblance to the old Burma Shave signs.

I feel I must comment on this subject now. I am for gun control.

First let’s look at the sheer stupidity of gun owners who like to fire their guns into the air. Granted, I have seen shooting ranges that are located underground—in basements and other below-ground places—in order to avoid disturbing others, but the majority in my area simply pick an empty field or open gun range, and start shooting. I’ve also noticed that many of them like to shoot their guns into the air, while celebrating, or whatever. Apparently these people have never heard the “what goes up must come down” concept. It’s simple physics. When you fire a gun into the air, the bullet leaves barrel at a high rate of speed. As it gets higher, it is slowed down by gravity, and eventually stops. It then starts to fall back to earth, gaining speed until it returns to the level at which it was fired. The speed at which it is moving is equal to the speed at which it left the gun barrel. If there happens to be a person standing where the bullet lands, said person will be grievously injured or killed. The bullet will hit them as hard as it would had the gun owner simply held the gun on that person and fired. The fact is, the bullet will hit whatever is in its vector path. Unfortunately, the speed of most bullets is not fast enough to achieve escape velocity, or even an altitude which would cause the bullet to vaporize as it returns to earth. In wartime, an action like this is called “friendly fire”, a contradictory term that often reminds me of another: “religious tolerance”. But that’s another topic.

Second, I’ll talk about that silly quote, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Now this has to be one of the most fatuous phrases ever spoken. I realize that—in most cases—a gun cannot be fired by itself. It takes a person to fire a gun; however, a person cannot be shot to death by another person without a gun. (I’m sure someone will make silly statements about a bow or crossbow, but frankly, when was the last time you saw anyone carrying a bow or crossbow as part of their daily apparel? They’re not things you can simply hide in your clothing, after all.) Crime statistics show that more than 66% of all murders are committed using a gun. Some spin doctors (NRA) like to mention that only 5-10% of deaths in this country are caused by guns, but they are including all deaths, not just crime-related ones. Honestly, deaths caused by old age, accidents, and disease should not be considered when speaking about guns and crime. But back to the topic, guns are easily capable of taking lives without humans to pull the trigger. A well-known example of this is a gun commonly called an Uzi. This is a machine gun that is very unstable; it can fire off rounds by being dropped or jarred. Uzis are currently illegal in this country, but they weren’t always so; there are quite a large number of them still circulating about illegally, and some are even legally owned by collectors.

Next, let’s talk about the fact that guns are by far the most commonly used method in which to commit assassinations. The pro-gun lobby never even brings this subject up (for good reason). With a simple pistol, you could kill a perceived enemy from more than 500 yards (5 football fields!). Using more complex guns, an assassin can take a life from a distance of several miles. These deadly weapons are available to anyone with the intent to get one. When was the last time you heard about a presidential assassination attempt—successful or not—that didn’t involve a gun? I don’t think the department of homeland security has been covering all the possibilities, do you? Granted, bombs are becoming quite popular, but still, rarely does a potential assassin make a mistake putting it together (or accidentally killing himself with it); guns come to the bearer fully assembled.

Finally, I must consider the thing all gun enthusiasts love to bring up when confronted by gun control fans: the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Here it is:

“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.”

It seems pretty direct and to-the-point, doesn’t it? I’ll note, however, that the purpose of the amendment was to make certain we had a system of armed forces in order to defend our nation. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...” pretty much says it all. This country hasn’t needed a “Militia” since the formation of the U.S. Armed Forces. What’s more, “...the right to keep and bear Arms...” has been infringed many times since then. Did you know that it is illegal to wear or carry a sword or any other blade longer than 4 inches from the hilt to the tip? There are no permits or other forms that will allow you to do so. Further, a sword or dagger may be carried in a parade, but it must remain sheathed at all times while carried in public, and must be put away immediately after such use. Only the military is allowed to carry such weapons, and then generally when wearing “class A” formal uniforms. Among the military organizations, swords are considered obsolete (not dangerous enough for general use).

I think what it comes down to, is a need to prove—in court—the fact that our country is appallingly short-sighted when it comes to safety and security. We seem to have many objections to gun control, and few objections to the simple fact that guns take lives every day. It is my opinion that we will never solve any of our problems with guns until we can sit down and view the topic with clear, unbiased and thoughtful discussion. I’ll be waiting for such an unprecedented (and unlikely) event.