Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Bob Butler 54]

It seems to me that we have an old compromise, and a way to change it, and the old compromise is called the Constitution.  It favors the old.  Blue fanatics are not willing to abide by it.  They keep moving the conversation here and elsewhere to prohibition, which hasn't worked, to infringement, when the old compromise specifically forbids infringement.  The response has been for the red to also refuse compromise, and to stick to the old compromise, which favors them and which the blue do not have the numbers to change.

I don't see that as changing soon, and on his good days neither does Eric.  On bad days, he and others spend valuable political capitol anyway.

I try to shift the conversation to ways of changing things for the blue that do not involve breaking the Constitution, but the blue fanatics keep not taking these steps and keep pushing breaking the Constitution.  The red fanatics seeing this have no reason to shift away from the old compromise.

Sports media no longer shows streakers, no longer gratifies one type of unlawful attention seeker.  News media could do the same, not gratify those seeking publicity through violence.  We could do much more to break the media's place in today's spiral of violence.

The Constitution as interpreted does not guarantee the right to own or carry weapons to those questionably sane.  It does, however, guarantee due process.  If the blue want prohibition in that area, they should seek to define and implement a due process.  That much could be and perhaps should be done.

That does not mean that Prohibition is necessarily going to succeed.  Historically, it hasn't.

But the blue fanatics will not move to doing what they can within the Constitution to stop the bloodshed.  They insist on focusing the conversation on breaking it.  The blood, it seems, is on them.