I tried to set up this discussion with my previous post. If you haven't read it, please do. Real investigation is hard, tedious, unpleasant, and frustrating, so why would anyone want to do it? I have done it for over thirty years. I have a curiosity about life and people and I want to get to the truth. The payoff in investigative efforts is in arriving at a conclusion that is rooted in the truth. I say rooted in the truth because we have the failings of our finite human condition to contend with. Even eye-witnesses are wrong at times.
The tragic shooting that occurred in Tuscon, Arizona this week is a prime example of just how unfair and offline our "news" can be. What happens in these high profile cases? We have more people killed everyday in automobile accidents, murders, war, and an endless list of other causes, so why is this incident receiving national attention? Why aren't the other victims mourned and memorialized with the same fervor? Because a variety of people who would bolster their own causes and agendas are constantly circling like hungry buzzards in search of forums like this. Under the guise of caring and concern they clog the print and electronic media to condemn, find fault, and assess blame. When the facts don't bear them out, they slide into the background or pitch the proverbial ball to another runner. Even if you were present at the scene, you might get the facts wrong because of natural things that affect your perspective. So, go for the simplest explanation available.
If you have ever been responsible for getting a group of people to come to a consensus on anything you know the big problem with conspiracy theory. It rarely happens. Huge government conspiracies especially.
In a case like the Tuscon shooting, people saw the shooter and they captured him at the scene. All the evidence released to date indicates he acted alone. Other evidence indicates he was noticeably off the normal scale for acceptable human behavior. So, we can reasonably assume the named shooter is at fault.
However, he had not been adjudicated in any of the prohibitive categories related to the purchase of a firearm or ammunition. Do we have sufficient firearms laws? Yes. We probably have way too many. We cannot legislate enough to cover all the aberrant behavior in the world today. The law is reactive. Something must happen before the law can work to provide punishment. Our courts can't keep pace with the cases being brought because of over legislation. If we pared down the number of laws and worked off a simpler template, we would see fairer results. Laws related to political correctness, social attitudes, protected classes, hate crimes, and hate speech are redundant and unnecessary. In the case of criminal law, less is more.
Who obeys the law? Those who see value in its role in keeping society functioning. I could say those with a bent toward criminal behavior don't pay any attention to the law and I would be correct. However, when the morals of a society begin to crumble and there are not enough police entities to catch violators then more and more people pick and choose the laws they will obey. Drive around town for thirty minutes and see how many of your friends and neighbors choose not to obey the traffic laws. In order for a free republic to operate effectively, voluntary compliance to the law by the majority is essential. More law is not the answer.
Who benefits from confusion and mistrust? Those who control the reins of the nanny state and thus control the lives and purse strings of the governed. Those at the top of the Oligarchy. Those who have fostered distrust of the ones who must enforce the law and those who protect us from internal and external threats. The more confusion and distrust they can foster, the more people feel they need to be taken care of. The gradual erosion of individual self reliance and freedom is the ultimate goal. These are the people who use incidents like the Tuscon shooting to further their cause. This does not have to be a huge government conspiracy. It can be a relatively few people paired with a deluded and disengaged voting public.
The "Keepers" response? Ban the inanimate objects that have little if anything to do with the problem. They could ban the possession and ownership of automobiles if they really wanted to save lives. But, an armed populace of responsible citizens is a threat to their ultimate plan of state control. This is why the second amendment was written into our U. S. Constitution. In my way of thinking, the less than honorable actions of all those on either side of the aisle who seek to take advantage of dramatic and tragic happenings is transparent and reprehensible.
What do we do then? (I know I will lose some of you here, but this is the answer) We fall on our knees before almighty God as individuals and as a nation and beg his forgiveness for our adultery (spiritual) and we turn to him for guidance in behavior that is right. We destroy whatever idols and other religions that interfere with this effort and we take the high road in individual compliance to God's higher principles. God had a purpose in founding this nation and its very existence is miraculous. If we are to continue as a nation we have to take immediate action and return to what the bible says is the purpose of government in Romans chapter 13.