Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 193: "A Well-Regurgitated Militia" is now available!

Podcast: I Feel Snitty

Episode 193: A Well-Regurgitated Militia

Premiere Date: 5/26/2022

Length: 9:52 (1,639 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/a-well-regurgitated-militia/

Transcript: 

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 193, entitled, “A Well-Regurgitated Militia.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

 

Another day, another mass shooting – this time at an elementary school in Texas, where 19 kids, ages 9 to 11, and 2 teachers were shot and killed. It was the 288^th mass shooting in the United States so far this year. The 192 other countries? 45 combined, with the highest number being Mexico with 8. So, if anyone dares claim this problem is more widespread than the U.S., they’re lying. A single country – the United States - has been host to 6 ½ more times the number of mass shootings than the rest of the world combined.

 

Now we go through the seemingly never-ending mass-shooting cycle.

1) The mass-shooting occurs

2) Republicans offer their thoughts and prayers

3) Democrats demand legislative action

4) Republicans criticize these calls, lamenting it’s too soon

5) Democrats propose legislation

6) Republicans reject said legislation

7) Another mass-shooting occurs

 

It truly amazes me, after the 288^th mass shooting in just five months, Republican politicians can continue to tell gun-reform proponents, “It’s too soon.”

 

What may be even more amazing are the multitudes of arguments Republicans use to refute the need for gun-reform. I’m now going to list all of their favorites and dissect them, bigly.

 

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people!”

This is a very simplistic take, and avoids the crux of the issue. When it comes to traffic accidents, do we say, “Cars don’t kill people; people kill people!”? Sure, a person may have been driving the vehicle, but would there have been an accident without said vehicle? Similarly, with gun violence, sure, there may not have been a victim without a shooter, but said shooter would have had an awfully difficult time shooting the victim without a firearm. The three common denominators for an act of gun violence are: a shooter, a victim, and a gun. Take away any one of these components and you’ll be void of an act of gun violence. So, when it comes to gun violence, people with guns kill people. Period. I mean, several exclamation points!!!

 

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!”

This is one of my favorites, due to its exorbitant level of stupidity. Okay, first off, what constitutes a good guy? Who determines his level of goodness? Does this “guy” always have to be male? What if the “guy” is good, but has never fired a gun? Could he then become unintentionally bad and accidentally shoot innocent bystanders due to his inexperience? On the flip-side, how can we determine if a person is “bad” before they’ve let their true intentions be known? Is there a guide book in the Prejudice Section of a book store where we can better familiarize ourselves with what “good” and “bad” guys look like? Ah, so many questions, and I’m guessing so few answers. Next…

 

“It’s all about the internet, rap and rock music, and video games!”

Now this one makes perfect sense, for the United States is the only country in the world which has been exposed to the internet, rap and rock music, and video games. Yes, my eyes are rolling right now. Be thankful you’re not here to witness the lovely spectacle.

 

“Mental health!”

The issues aren’t mutually-exclusive. We do need increased funding for mental-health facilities in this country, and we also need stricter gun laws. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I recommend they admit themselves to a mental-health facility.

 

“This is part of a bigger problem! (If the perpetrator is black, Hispanic, Muslim, LGBT, an illegal immigrant, etc.)”

This is a deflection tactic where the GOP inaccurately attempts to conflate the issue of gun violence with one which more readily registers with their base. If the perpetrator is white, chances are GOPers will refer to him as a “lone-wolf,” BUT if the shooter isn’t a straight, white, “Christian” male, then they’ll contend that it’s “part of a growing problem in X community.” They do this to otherize the shooter; make their supporters view him as “not one of us;” and attempt to paint the tragedy as one, not of lax gun laws, but of failed immigration policy or something similar. Oh, but once again, the GOP isn’t racist, homophobic, or xenophobic. Yes, I’m rolling my eyes again. I may have a problem.

 

“Chicago!”

This is a classic right here. Whenever a mass-shooting takes place, there’s a 210% guarantee at least one Republican will say something along the lines of, “Well, look at Chicago! They have the strictest gun laws in the nation and they’re host to more shootings than I can count!” So, yes, 2 or 3, but anyway. Okay, so first off, Chicago does NOT have the strictest gun laws in the country. That may have been the case 10-15 years ago, but the Supreme Court declared its handgun-ban as unconstitutional in 2008 and their gun registry program, active since 1968, was put to an end in 2013. Also, while AR-15s may be illegal for purchase in Chicago, they’re not illegal to buy in other parts of the state, or in the bordering state of Indiana, which is just 28 miles outside of Chicago. State lines don’t stop gun sales. Indiana holds a “D-” grade when it comes to gun-law strictness, meaning it’s easier to purchase a gun there than it is schedule a haircut. If anything, the Chicago argument just proves the limited effectiveness of inconsistent gun laws – meaning that stricter gun laws should be imposed nationwide, not just where school shootings have taken place. Oh, how I love it when a right-winger’s argument comes back to bite them in the musket.

 

“You say it’s wrong to regulate women’s bodies, but now want to regulate guns!”

You heard it here; Republicans believe women’s bodies are like objects. Given that, I propose Democrats introduce legislation which would provide women castration-rights over men’s little smokies, and when men complained as a result, women compared the pending legislation to gun regulation.

 

“Criminals are going to get guns regardless of the laws!”

This argument always puzzled me, for it’s actually calling for a nation without laws. There is no such thing as a perfect, 100% effective law. That’s not why laws are passed, signed, and enacted. Laws are designed to deter infractions and decrease the prevalence of occurrence as a result. So, no, stricter gun laws won’t stop 100% of gun violence. They will decrease the frequency of them, however, and place less lives at risk as a result. Interestingly, I have a hunch these same anti-gun law individuals spend an inordinate amount of time angrily pointing out the traffic laws which were broken by bad drivers. Having said that, the only way to stop a bad driver with a car is a good driver with a car. See how stupid that sounds?

 

“More security! Arm the teachers!”

I remember reading a survey from prospective teachers. They were asked the question, “What is the #1 reason why you’re set on becoming a teacher?” Of course there were the usuals: “I love kids,” “Learning is rad,” and “I have a fetish with underappreciation while being underpaid.” The #1 reason, though? “Because I want to be one of a few adults, constantly surrounded by vulnerable children, and make like fucking Rambo whenever someone walks in with a gun!” Teachers are there to teach. They spend hours every day educating our nation’s youth, only to go home and spend all evening grading papers, and wondering why they took the job in the first place. They have ZERO time to, in addition to being teachers, train to be police officers on the side. Not only that, but like in homes, where guns are present, there’s an increased likelihood one will become a victim of gun violence. But, yeah, great idea! An “F” for effort.

 

“(A well-regulated militia) Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed!”

The Second Amendment argument has to be the all-time favorite for the NRA camp, which I find to be odd, for they rarely ever express it in full. They tend to just say, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed!” That isn’t the full amendment, though. The full amendment 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 Founders wrote this to mean a well-regulated state-government militia, not a private-citizen one. Also, what were the fancy, high-tech firearms at the time? Muskets? So, in other words, the Founders were essentially saying this with their Second Amendment: “A well regulated state-government Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Muskets, shall not be infringed.” So, for the NRA-types who obsess over their Second Amendment rights, if they want to arm themselves with muskets while being part of a well-regulated state-government Militia, have at it. Otherwise, and I say this with the utmost respect, STFU. Thanks.

 

288 mass shootings in just 5 months, and after each and every mass shooting, Republicans have said the same thing: “It’s too soon to talk about this.” No, for if we had simply talked about matters and passed gun-reform legislation after the first mass shooting, the other 287 may not have taken place. It’s never too soon to discuss lives that were lost from gun violence in the past if we can use it to prevent more lives from being lost in the future.

 

That’s it for today’s episode. Until next time, you can check me out on Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, Podbean, and Blogger. This has been I Feel Snitty, with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.