So now the talk about “what needs to be done” is all on doing something about locking mentally defectives up before they can go shoot innocents. We mention it because some people with an IQ not below absolute zero (as in anybody not a raging leftist parasite) are mentioning it too.
Wouldn’t it make sense, seeing as pretty much all of the loser animals committing atrocities like this last one were stark raving mad, to maybe, perhaps, do something to sequester them from civilized society before their madness leads to the wholesale slaughter of little children?
Of course it would. One of the real reasons we’re even seeing this sort of madness was that idiots like the communist-founded ACLU managed to let all of the looney tunes out on the streets seeing as how it was a violation of their “civil rights” to not be allowed to go postal among us.
So far, so good. Nobody in their right mind would hand insane uncle Cletus who believes that his next door neighbor is the Anti-Christ an AR-15 no matter how much he was family.
Only problem with that suggestion is that government would be in charge of it, and they’re about as incompetent as you can get without removing your brain from your head entirely.
There is not a task so simple that government cannot fuck it up beyond any hope of repair and they will never, ever fail to do so. Just take delivering mail as an example.
But let’s use an analogy closer to the idea of putting government in charge of who needs to be locked up “for the Common Good”, not an ignoble goal in itself at all.
Quite a long time ago, society decided that, based on how many innocent children ended up dead or permanently injured as a result of parental abuse, something needed to be done.
Who the hell with a heart could disagree with that? We were born too late to see what the result of not doing something about it was, at least as far as children are concerned, but we remember only too well how abused wives, “frequent fliers” as we sometimes called them, would show up at the ER with alarming regularity and an inexplicable propensity for falling up and down stairs, bumping into doors and falling asleep on the stove top. The frustration at not being able to do anything unless said women pressed charges due to patient confidentiality and privacy concerns cannot adequately be described in words. With that, we are only too familiar. Familiar to the point where our Something Needs to Be Done™ gland was excreting to the point where it was physically painful. And fuck patient confidentiality, those women were and are in danger of their lives on a daily basis.
So we understand the motivation behind Doing Something™ for the children, because who is more deserving of protection than children?
Problem was, as is always the case, that government was put in charge of Protecting the Children™, and they fucked that up too. With the best, undeniably best of intentions, agencies were set up to investigate cases where children might be endangered, and nobody with a soul could be against that. At first, interventions were made only in obvious cases like the aforementioned frequent flyer victims of spousal abuse, but then child protection became a business, a career choice, something where the job security of the individuals employed became dependent on case load. Kind of hard to justify spending millions of dollars on keeping 200 investigators, supervisors, managers, assistant managers, clerks, assistant clerks, specialist 8th class form filers etc. employed if they only had 20 cases a year, right? So the government definition of “necessity”, not particularly well-defined to begin with since bureaucracies live and die on how broadly they can interpret their original charter, got wider and wider.
To the point where perfectly normal, loving, caring parents either are afraid to take little Johnny to the ER for a broken wrist suffered while skate boarding (let’s face it, kids get bruises in ways not involving being placed on a hot stove as punishment for peeing their pants) or bloody well should be. Because all it takes is for one overzealous or just plain incompetent “doctor” to misdiagnose an injury and that family will be in Hell for quite a while. Their kids will be confiscated, they’ll be facing the infinite resources of the state when they’re trying to prove that they’re innocent (innocent until proven guilty does not apply where the government is concerned), all because the government agency needs their funding.
That’s the reality that parents live in today. If you’re a parent, a normal parent, you know already that losing your kids is a fate literally worse than death. Because they mean more to you than life itself. Yet, as a result of undeniably good intentions, you now face the reality that taking your child to the ER because he or she had a boo-boo might just result in you never seeing them again.
All because of government “mission creep.” What makes it even more infuriating is that the system actually encourages going after innocent families since those cases clear out faster, are not as dangerous as legitimate cases since the parents were never a danger to anybody to begin with, which ups your case load statistic which, in turns, guarantees further funding and more jobs. And thus we end up with stories of children dying because of legitimate abuse while other families spend years and all of their savings trying to hold on to their kids because little Susie tripped over her feet and banged her head against the coffee table and her loving parents made the “mistake” of taking her to the ER.
Ask yourselves again: If Susie’s parents were normal, responsible individuals like 99.9% of parents and they were faced with the choice between agreeing to bullshit “counseling” not needed in the first place and the prospect of wasting years of their and her lives ruining themselves with the very real possibility that they might still lose since the state has so many more resources, they print their own money after all, and never see her again, what might a loving parent choose?
But it was all with the Best Intentions.
And now we’re asked to allow that same almighty government to decide who needs to be locked away and/or have their rights taken from them because somebody, somewhere, somebody whose job depends on churning out enough “wins”, decided that they were dangerous based on deliberately vague definitions? After all, if we make those guidelines too strict, somebody might slip through the cracks and, as every totalitarian will tell you, it’s better to convict a hundred innocent people than to let one guilty individual go free.
It will start with only bug shit raving maniacs being locked away, something with which I doubt anybody can disagree, but before you know it the definition of “dangerous to society” will expand to anybody who might pad the case load numbers of the agency in charge. More funding, more jobs. Pretty soon anybody who ever said “fuck this world, let it burn” over a drink at the local bar would have his or her rights revoked for the common good if anybody reported it. Next would be anybody questioning the justice system, anybody expressing doubts about the alleged wisdom of the government, anybody even cracking a fucking joke within earshot of an informer.
Am I being paranoid? Then please explain to me why the current DHS has anybody expressing devotion to the oath they gave to the Constitution or, indeed, anybody distrustful of government in general, listed as a “potential terrorist.” While you’re at it, please explain to me why individuals expressing a total devotion to the only religion that I know of which is responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks is not even MENTIONED as a potential suspect.
We all want to stop the senseless murders, but I just don’t trust the government to come up with guidelines strict and well-defined enough that they will not be abused. Which is sad, because all that we need in order for those guidelines to actually do some good and keep insane animals like the Newtown monster off the streets would be for them to be very rigid, very NOT open to “interpretation” and they WOULD do some good.
What we’ll end up with, on the other hand, because that is what we’ve ended up with every single Zeus-damned time in the past, is legislation that will allow government to take away your unalienable right to self-defense if you ever popped a Xanax because your entire family died in a fire.
So what can we do? Well, first of all, we can end the madness of denying the right of human beings to defend themselves. Let teachers carry guns if they’re properly trained, put up armed guards if nobody at the school qualifies, put the world on notice that if you intend harm, you will be met with lethal force if necessary, remove the targets painted on the backs of the most defenseless members of society and deny them the privilege of a barrel full of helpless fish.
Will it eliminate incidents like Sandy Hook? Of course it won’t. Evil is quite creative and it will never ever be eliminated from our lives, just as we’ll never have unicorns shitting skittles all over our lawns every morning.
But there is no denying the simple, obvious fact that pretty much every single case of mass murder shootings have occurred in “Gun Free Zones” where the beast committing the crime was assured, ahead of time, that it wouldn’t encounter any resistance.
We can’t eliminate evil. It’s part of the human condition. But we can at the very least make evil’s job more difficult.