We Have to Have Gun Control! By Alastair Browne

As I write this, there has been a shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where a deranged 18 year-old with an AR-15 Assault Rifle went into an elementary school and killed 19 children, ages eight to 10, and two teachers.  The killer was shot to death by police.  

Just the week before that, another hate filled 18 year old white supremacist traveled 200 miles from Conklin to Buffalo, New York.  Driving to a Tops supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood, carrying a modified Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifle, he opens fire in the parking lot and in the supermarket, yelling racial slurs, and kills 11 people, all Black.  This was racially motivated.  The killer is still alive and is waiting to be tried. 

And now, as I write this, another shooting has occurred at a hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  An outpatient shot his doctor, along with another doctor, another patient, and a receptionist, again, using an AR-15 rifle.  The shooter purchased it  a few hours prior to the shooting.

If that isn’t enough, as I am typing out the final draft of this essay, on June 6, 2022, over the weekend, there were two more reported mass shootings, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Chattanooga, Tennessee, with a total of 12 dead, five other mass shootings, and who knows how many unreported ones.   

This isn’t another paper about the “why” or “what made the killer do such a thing,”  or even the mistakes the police made, and there were many, especially in Texas.  

We’ve all been over this time and time again.  

There are many killers from many categories of people:  those being under the influence of drugs, mainly street drugs, those who are ostracized, life-failing types who could not hold down jobs, flunk out of school, fail at sports, fail at romance, and people in hate groups targeting certain ethnic groups, as well as the mentally deranged.  Hate does kill!

All this has to be dealt with, and in the category of Mental Health, treatment must be expanded, and financed.  Extremist hate groups also have to be dealt with, but I don’t know how, and that is not the main point of this essay, but it does bear mentioning. 

All I can say about all this is that it happened before and it will happen again, especially in the United States.  This is what American society has become, a gun crazed society.  Strange that this rare happens in other free societies (war zones excluded), just in the U.S.

No, here I’ll talk about the bills that have been passed on gun control in Congress, and why they never pass.  This leaves us with no new gun laws, especially with assault rifles and automatic weapons, that continue to fall into the hands of hate-filled and mentally deranged people, and racists, and once again, a shooting occurs, killing masses of people, and again, nothing ever gets done.

Why?  It is the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the politicians they support.  The NRA pays them off in the form of endorsing them when their re-election comes up.  This is especially true with Republican politicians.  The NRA contributes literally millions of dollars to endorse these candidates, and in return,  they vote against any bill restricting the sale of guns, no matter what kind, to anyone, no matter who they are.  The gun lobby then continues to make millions of dollars.  The bottom line is MONEY!

The politicians that vote against these bills advocating guns always have excuses.  Among them are: 

“Passing background checks on individuals won’t do any good.”

“Restricting gun use won’t help.”

“Gun laws won’t help.” 

“Guns are not the problem.  People are the problem.”

“Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people,” and so on.  We’ve heard it all, and it’s all nonsense.

There have been cases where gun laws do work.  In 1974, Massachusetts passed a gun law were any gun an individual owns must be registered in the state  and have a license.  In order to get that license, one must take a course on handling guns, and then storing.  Possessing an unregistered gun resulted in a mandatory one year jail sentence.    Road signs all along the state borderline, from interstate highways to back roads were posted, saying, “Massachusetts state gun law - Mandatory one year jail sentence.”  They also went on an advertising blitz in magazine about it.

The law worked.  Killings went way down.

In 1994, under President Bill Clinton, there was a nation wide ban on nine categories of semi-automatic weapons, including the AK-47.  Killings went way down.  When the ban expired in 2004, Congress refused to renew the ban, so when it expired, mass killings tripled.

To repeat, GUN LAWS WORK!  It is a proven fact!

The motive behind the NRA is the constitutional right of every American to keep and bear arms.  Carrying a gun is a right.  It’s true, it is.

The Second Amendment clearly states:

“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”

This made sense when this amendment was ratified, back in 1791.  America back then was a pre-industrial society, a nation of farmers.

Americans, especially living on farms and the frontier, kept a musket rifle in their homes, back in the corner of their log cabins, to be used only when a threatening force such as invaders, as in the War of 1812, Indians, or outlaws invaded their homestead.

In situations like these, especially during the War of 1812, militia’s were formed, everyone banded together with their guns, fought the enemy, whoever they may be, and when the battle was over, everyone then put their guns away and resumed their normal lives.

To paraphrase Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, “The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies (the equivalent to today’s National Guard), meaning the militia, as it was written in 1791, would be maintained for the defense of the state.

“I was not intended to guarantee every citizen to an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

Since then, the nation, its citizens, and the guns themselves have changed.

Today, there are “militias” nationwide, with collections of literally hundreds of automatic rifles and high-powered assault weapons.  

The are stubbornly against these “Liberals” and “Democrats,” note the quotation marks, in which the militias believe that these left wingers want to take away ALL their guns.

This is not true.

It is true that the anti-gun lobby wants guns controlled, first by making assault weapons, used only in war, not be available to the general public, as are tanks, hand grenades, and other weapons of war.  Tanks are not sold to the public, and neither are cannons, nor certain types of bombs, nor chemical weapons.  Why should machine guns be available?

Of what use are weapons of war to the general public; not for hunting or even protection.

I have been in Maine, where hunting is a way of life.  Hunters, both men and women, teach their children how to hunt.  Guns, mostly hunting rifles, are handled in a professional manner.  After a day of hunting, the rifles are locked into a case.  

Children handle these guns only under adult supervision.  I have talked to these hunters, so I know.

I can also understand having a gun for protection against intruders.  When someone breaks into someone’s home, threatening that person and their family, it would be good to grab a hold of a gun and fend off the intruder or intruders, and if necessary, kill them.  In this case, one would have to have a gun license, and a permit, with instructions on how to use that gun.

Rhode Island, for example, do require gun permits.

Gun control advocates only want each gun owned by anyone to be registered and the gun owners licensed, like one needs a license to drive a vehicle.

We do need a waiting period before one is able to buy a gun, to investigate his or her background to search for any signs of instability, before deciding to sell the guns.  Any signs of mental illness, or being in hate groups of similar groups, would not permit that individual to buy a gun, and my gun dealer caught doing so would risk a stiff fine and a jail sentence.

We also cannot permit assault weapons to be sold to the general public, for risk of the user turning on the general public, as it is happening now.

Assault weapons are to be used in war, and war only.  They are not needed for hunting and they are not needed to protect against intruders.  Using an assault rifle in this situation may kill the intruders, but there is also a chance of killing one’s own family.

Usually, in homes, the gun owner carelessly leaves a gun lying around, and someone else, usually a child, picks it up, and pulls the trigger, sometimes killing another member of the family, and the cry is always, “I didn’t know the gun was loaded.”

Any owner of any type of gun must always learn how to use it, and store it safely away from children.

I favor the Second Amendment of the Constitution, but I also favor gun control.  Guns have changed, greatly, since the 18th century, and laws to protect the general public must change along with them.  What happened at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas; Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, New York; and at the Natalie Medical Building in Tulsa, Oklahoma were not the first such incidents, nor will they be the last.

Mass shooting occurred for over 25 years, and most of them never made national headlines, and they have been happening in schools, churches, supermarkets, restaurants, and public gatherings, including political rallies and rock concerts.

When a mass shooting occurs, be it killing young children or a congregation in church, bills on gun control are proposed in Congress.

Here are a few, listed in The New York Times, in an article titled “Bills Come, and Then Quietly Go (May 26, 2022;  p. A13); taken in context.  Some sections are copied word for word:

On December 14, 2012, a gunman killed 20 six and seven year-old children, and six teachers.

This was a Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Senator Joe Manchin III and Senator Patrick J. Toomey proposed a bill to strengthen criminal background checks on gun buyers.  Democrats expanded the measure to include expanded background checks, an assault weapons ban, and a limit on the size of gun magazines one can buy.

This bill had bi-partisan support and chances looked good that it would pass, but talks stretched on for months, and the NRA stepped in, charging that it would create a national gun registry, even though the bill outlawed a creation of one.

The Senate voted 54-46, in favor, but six votes short of the required 60 votes for the bill to pass.  Five Democrats joined the Republican majority in opposing it.

It must be noted here that many of these Senators are supported by the NRA.

Here are some other examples:

On June 17, 2015, a white gunman killed nine Black people during a Bible study at the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Democrats proposed closing the “Charleston Loophole” allowing the dealer to immediately sell the gun to the buyer if the background check takes longer than three business days.

The closing of the loophole would be that the buyer would have to wait until the check was completed, regardless of how long it would take.

However, the Republicans controlled both chambers of state Congress in South Carolina, so no hearing or vote was ever held.

The bill was dead on arrival.

On February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, a former student killed 14 students and three adults.

Senator Marco Rubio introduced a “Red Flag Bill” seeking to give law enforcement the ability to restrict gun access to unstable and potentially violent people.

Here, the students formed protests that gained national attention, and many were interviewed on talk shows.  

With Republican control of Congress, the bill made little headway.  Mr. Rubio introduced the bill two more times, but never received a floor vote.

These are just three of the most infamous mass shootings, and the reactions by Congress.  Many others occurred, many bills were passed after each one, but either the bills never received a floor vote or they were defeated.

There was one exception to all this, and that was at Sutherland Springs, Texas, at the First Baptist Church.  There, a gunman opened fire in the congregation, killing 26 people.  The gunman was able to purchase his weapon despite a domestic violence conviction.

U.S. Congress proposed the Fix NICS Act, a rare, bipartisan piece of legislation backed by the NRA, making modest (emphasis mine) improvements to the background checks system, requiring states and federal agencies to do a better job reporting legal and mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The measure, which gun safety advocates describe as important but extremely modest, passed as part of a giant 2018 catchall spending bill.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 256 to 167 and the Senate by 65 to 32.

President Trump signed it into law.

It was better than nothing, but only slightly.  These laws were already in effect, this bill just “improved” them by strengthen what they already had.

Other shootings occurred, more innocent people were killed, more bills were proposed, and they all went nowhere.

The excuse is always the same.

“This isn’t a good time to discuss gun control laws.”  

This is coming from the NRA.  To them, there is never a good time to discuss gun control, and when a bill is proposed, they vote it down, so nothing ever gets done.

Will anything get done now, after the latest (so far) school shooting in Texas?  Probably not.

The weekend after the shooting, the NRA held a convention in Houston, Texas, with guest politicians such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Governor Abbott of Texas.  The irony is that the convention was held in the same state 300 miles from the shooting.

Here is a list of gun reform proposals that should/must be passed into law:

Ban ALL assault weapons.  They are military weapons only, and they are to remain in the hands of the military.  Illegal possession of any assault weapon will result in a stiff and mandatory jail sentence.

Machine guns has been federally regulated for 90 years, and the U.S. is still a free country, and we still have our Second Amendment rights.

Ban the sale of high capacity gun magazines.

It must be noted here that the Second Amendment in NOT absolute, nor unlimited.  It never has been.

All legal guns must be registered and each owner must have a license to use one.  This is just common sense for a responsible gun owner.

Once a person owns a gun, they are totally responsible for it.  It that gun falls into the hands of a killer or any type of criminal, that owner must account for it.

Any individual or gun supplier that provides weapons to criminals and others unfit to use them shall be subjects to stiff penalties, including fines and mandatory jail sentences.

Before anyone buys a gun, there must be a strong background check, with no loopholes, exceptions, or favors.  Any signs of instability or any history or presently being a member of an extremist hate group shall be denied.  Any felon, fugitive, and an individual under a restraining order shall be denied.

Red Flag laws are required.  A parent, teacher, or counselor can notify the law and courts is the child is exhibiting violent tendencies, including suicide.

Also, remove guns from people in crisis.

Safe gun storage laws are required.  People who fail to secure guns from children and criminals shall be subjected to punishment by stiff fines and/or jail sentence.

Raise the legal age of buying a gun to 21.

Mental health resources must be available to gun sellers and investigators.

Gun manufacturers will have no immunity in the event that one of their guns be used in a mass shooting.  Gun manufacturers will be subjected to lawsuits should one occur.

All guns, whether purchased in gun shops or on the internet, or any other source, shall be held to the same laws, and each individual wanting to buy a gun shall be subject to the background checks previously mentioned.  Any gun to be given to another person must register the transfer to the courts, as one registers an automobile when it is sold.

Once a gun is manufactured, it shall have a serial number.

Ban ghost guns;  that is, any gun that does not have a serial number that can’t be traced.

Initiate gun buyback programs.  They do work!

The above mentioned proposals will not be popular with the NRA.

Even if these laws are passed, one single package of gun laws will not solve the problem.  This is what the Republican Party and the NRA are counting on to continue to vote against them.  There will be potential mass murderers who will find a loophole and take advantage of it, so there will be more killings.  It will be less then before, but they will still occur.  

Pass gun control laws to eradicate the plague of killings will have to be an ongoing thing, a matter of trial and error.  The way to deal with this is that when another does occur, examine the way it happened and take the necessary precautions on how to prevent it from happening again, and they may range from more security to passing more gun control laws.  

The killings will decrease, but it will take a while, and the passing of laws before we can perfect the prevention of mass killings completely.  This will take years, but it is possible.

All this is NOT a violation of the Second Amendment.  The right to keep and bear arms needs to apply to those who have the knowledge and responsibility of handling them.  It does not mean one has the right to keep, to quote the military, “weapons of mass destruction,” and that is exactly what assault rifles are.

The NRA will no doubt object to this because this will result in them losing both their wealth and power.  The loss will be in the millions of dollars.

Politicians who depend on the NRA for support, and being re-elected time and time again will lose a valuable source of income.

This is WHY nothing ever gets done after a massacre.  Any politician support by the NRA has a chance of losing money and their office.  Instead, they cry crocodile tears, extend their “thoughts and prayers,” and then comes up with an excuse on why they can’t support any bills proposing new gun control laws.  They simply don’t want to lose their money or their livelihood.

There were 45,222 gun deaths in the United States in 2020.  More children are killed by guns than by any other cause.  More children are killed by guns than American soldiers in recent wars.  This means nothing to the NRA, or their supporters.

The killer at Robb Elementary School purchased two assault rifles on his 18th birthday, days before he committed this atrocity.

Last, notice that the rest of the world has guns, but not as many gun deaths (except in war zones, but that is a different story).

Why is that?

The U.S. is the only country in the world where the number of guns owned by civilians is greater than the entire population of that country.

There are 120 guns for every 100 Americans, according to the Switzerland based Small Arms survey.

First, this is how Canada requires each individual on purchasing a firearm (from CNN).

Obtain a Firearm License (Mandatory 28 day waiting period).

Submit a photo and signature of photo guarantor.

Complete a Multi-day Gun Safety Course and pass written and practical tests.

Complete background check that considers criminal record, mental health history, domestic violence history, and whether applicant poses risk of harm to anyone.

Provide two references.

Provide signature of conjugal partners with the last two years.

Because of this, mass shootings are an extreme rarity.  One did occur at the University of Toronto in 1989, and another in 2020 in Nova Scotia.  These explain the requirements just listed.

These requirements are stricter than the United States, but looser than most other countries.  

Homicides still occur in Canada.

In response to the mass shooting in Buffalo, Uvalde, and now Tulsa, the Canadian government imposed new regulations requiring owners of military style weapons to turn in these weapons in a new “buy back” program starting in December 2022.

The Canadian government are also considering banning handguns, forbidding their sale, purchase, importation, and transfer from one owner to another.

Owners of 1500 models of semi-automatic weapons, originally to be banned, were allowed to keep them but not use them.  

Prime Minister Trudeau, in 2020, did impose a list of military style rifles to be banned, and the RCMPs (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) continues to evaluate any new rifle that comes on the market to decide whether or not to put it on the banned list.  (Austen, Ian and Vjosa Isai;  “Canada Might Force Buyback of Assault Guns,” The New York Times, May 31, 2022, p. A7.)

Note that there have been gun buybacks in the U.S., and they worked.  Many, in the thousands, have responded to it.

In Britain, in 1987 in what is known as the Hungerford massacre, a 27 year old local man used two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun, which he legally owned, to kill 16 people.  Britain responded by banning all semi-automatic weapons.  There were no more mass shooting until 1997, where a school shooting in Scotland by a local man occurred killing 15 students and a teacher.  Most handguns were then banned.  It worked.  Britain now has one of the lowest gun-related deaths in the developed world.

In Australia, in 1996, in the town of Port Arthur, a gunman killed 35 people.  Sweeping new restrictions were imposed.  Would-be gun buyers now face a 28 day waiting period and a licensing process in which the gun buyer has to give a valid reason why he wants to own a gun.

There was also a mandatory gun buyback program, and from it, one million guns were melted into slag.

Norway has banned semi-automatic weapons and requires mandatory gun safety classes and an involved licensing process.

Germany and New Zealand have both tightened their restrictions after a mass shooting, also.  (Fisher, Max;  “After Mass Shootings, Other Countries Acted to Change Direction;”  The New York Times, May 26, 2022, p. A15.

Even though mass shootings have occurred world-wide, they are an American phenomenon because of their frequency.  

The reason for this is that in other countries, action is taken after one occurs.  Laws are passed restricting the sale of firearms, automatic weapons are outright banned, background checks are intense, the buyer has to obtain a license, and attend classes on how to handle a gun.  As a result, killings go way down, and this includes murders, suicides, and accidental killings.

Problem here in America is that many similar bills have been proposed in Congress, but those who vote against them alway come up with the same excuses and justifications.

“We don’t want to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

“Nothing will change.”

“Background bill seems a little out of place based on what happened in Uvalde.”

“Expanding background checks would not be acceptable for the state of Wyoming.”

“I’m a Second Amendment person, period.”

“Guns are not the problem.  People are the problem.”

“We cannot violate one’s Constitutional rights.”

I am leaving out the names of those who made these quotes.  ALL of these quotes have been disproven, from what I have written in this essay.

The truth is, these politicians receive money from the NRA, and they don’t want this source to end, regardless of how many mass killings there are, regardless of how many people die.

They just don’t care!

Passing strict gun laws, without violating the Second Amendment, can be done.  Also, as previously explained, the Second Amendment isn’t what the NRA or most gun owners think it is.  It doesn’t apply to weapons of war, nor does it apply to those who have the potential to commit mass murder with them.  Many of these people who support the Second Amendment have never even read it.  Yes, this is a proven fact.

In gun control, there is a fine line between having a gun for protection and possessing high powered automatic weapons that could fall in to the hands of potential killers.  We must recognize both sides of the story, and we have to know the difference.

It is all right to keep a gun to protect one’s family or business.  It does not mean risking the lives of the American public, and that is the point of this essay.

Alastair Browne

BACKLASH By Alastair Browne

Preface:

Note:  The following essay is a continuation of my previous essays:

1. The Republican Party is the Greatest Threat to American Democracy Today
2. What are Republicans for?  An Answer and a Rebuttal
3. The New Era of Prohibition:  A New Abortion Cartel

Many references will be made to these three essays.  Read them first.

You can access them on:  www.foundationandstate.blogspot.com

In my last essay, I have written about the rise, or reemergence, of the criminal element stepping in and acquiring a new market, this time in abortions.  

I have described the consequences of organized crime taking over back alley abortions, of which women with unwanted pregnancies will no doubt go.

Senator Mitch McConnell recently stated that if Roe v. Wade gets overturned by the Court, he will work to have a nationwide ban on abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

In this case, not only will the criminal element step in, but riots and demonstrations, many times worse than what is happening now (May 2022), and will break out nationwide.  Stricter laws imposing on other people’s rights will be passed.  For example, interracial and same sex marriages will be banned.

It is the thoughtlessness of Republican politicians and conservative judges on the Supreme Court nominated by these politicians that will be the cause of whatever horrific activities will result.

It will not end there, and organized crime will be but one element.  There will be many other adverse reactions from many other bans, of different categories, that will result.

There will no doubt be many more bans on our rights that we as Americans that we have worked decades, even centuries to achieve.  

It is feared that once abortion is outlawed, Radical Neoconservatives will turn to voter suppression, making it difficult for women and minorities to vote.  Other rights will be denied them (note: the Texas legislation wants to make it illegal for women to leave the state.  This is REAL) and both women and minorities will once again be reduced to second class citizens.

Any member of the Republican Party charged with a crime, any crime, will be pardoned.  Investigations into the rioting at the capitol on January 6, 2021 will be terminated, with the guilty parties getting off scot free.

Republicans will attempt to deny any Democrat, along with members of other parties, an office, even if they win it.  They will simply overturn the election and put in any Republican they like.  Laws like this ARE being proposed in Tennessee and other states.

The Republican Party will attempt to become the single ruling party in the U.S., being able to disregard the U.S. Constitution for their own ends, denying anyone, any ethic group, and any and all women their rights.  They will be able to do anything they want to whomever they want.

This Party, at the present moment, are passing laws based on the own religious beliefs, usually centered around evangelical Christians.  The walls between Church and State will come down, propelling the U.S. into a theocracy.

The Constitution will be abolished, and the United States will become a tyranny.

This is not an exaggeration, nor a made up story from a wild imagination.  If you read the newspapers, you will see that we are heading in this direction right now.  

How will the American people react?  Note the title of this essay, BACKLASH, and there WILL be a backlash!

With all these rights taken away from the majority of the American people, rights they have become accustomed to, especially their right to vote, do you think the majority of Americans will tolerate this?

Referring back to Roe v. Wade, which started all this, CNN news polled that 69% of the American people want Roe v. Wade to remain as is, the law of the land.  Only 30% of Americans want it banned, yet the 30% minority seem to want to rule the country, regardless of what everyone else thinks.

Again, how will the American people react?

It will get ugly.  First, rioting will break out, from pro-choice to minorities.  All Americans affected by these new laws will demand their rights to be restored, from protection from domestic violence (we are not doing a good job of this even now, but it will get worse) to police brutality.  There will be protests for gay rights, which will no doubt be taken away because of church doctrine.  The right to same-sex and interracial marriages with be protested.  Everyone will protest for the right to vote in free and fair elections, with easy access to the polls and short waiting times, where every vote counts.

The reason why voter suppression is on the rise is that in 2020, Joe Biden won the presidency over Donald Trump, in a FREE AND FAIR election.  

Donald Trump, being the sore loser and spoiled child that he is, says he was cheated, but only because he lost.  Trump had multiple recounts, but he still lost, and has been screaming about it ever since. 

What’s really amazing is that many Republicans believe him.

So they’re making it so that the Republican will never lose another election, and can overturn any election where they do lose and replace the winning candidate with someone of their own choosing.

This is tyranny, and the American people will not stand for it.

After the riots begin, is will continue to demonstrators picketing at the homes of these officials.  It is happening right now in front of the homes of Supreme Court judges protesting the end of Roe v. Wade, but it will get worse.  Both elected officials and court judges who condone these new and oppressing laws, of all categories, will be targeted in very violent ways.  Their homes will be vandalized and possibly burned down.  

In the extreme, where Americans will be driven, it is possible that many of these officials will be assassinated, killed even in front of their home.

Whole neighborhoods will be targeted and set on fire.

Remember when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated.  There were riots all over the country.

How about Rodney King, when his police assailants were found not guilty and freed?  There were riots, and looting, all over Los Angeles.

Many African-Americans are being killed by policemen today, the many of these police are getting of scot free; and riots are resulting.

There is the saying, “No Justice, No Peace.”

Injustice breeds anger, and ANY person, no matter who they are, will be angry when they experience it.

I know, I’ve suffered it myself.  So have you, the reader of this essay, I’m sure.

No justice really means, “we don’t care about you!”

The worst thing that can happen is that the U.S. can erupt into a new civil war, with much of the South and Midwest fighting the East and West coasts and the Great Lakes Regions.  These would be Republican fighting Democratic strongholds, respectively.  

What would happen then?  What would the military do?  Whose side would they choose?

What would become of the U.S.?  Would it break apart into two or three separate countries?  Would one of these countries be a theocracy?

Where will be our standing in the world then?  What will happen to the rest of the world?  

Will anybody care?

In my previous essays, along with this one, it all sounds Orwellian, with me preaching impending doom.

I don’t want it to be this way!

The purposes of my writings is to prevent any of this from happening.  Is this possible?  Can we save ourselves?  

The answer, believe it or not, is a resounding YES!

The first thing we need to do is to get rid of Donald Trump and his followers one and for all.  Americans have to realize that Trump and his cronies don’t care about anyone who follows them, at all.  They only care about themselves.  Trump is using them, for his own ends.  They are simply telling them what they want to hear and running with it.  

Second, get rid of the radical Neoconservatives who want to change voting laws and take away ALL your rights just so they can stay in office, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to do this.  

Third, the U.S Constitution must be observed, to the letter.

Officials must not ignore the Constitution if other officials of their own party commit crimes.

Richard Nixon, a Republican, has been forced out of office by Republicans (when Republicans still had morals) as well as Democrats, and rightfully so.  Nixon broke the law and had to be punished.

A sense of decency must be restored.

We must never tolerate a man like Mitch McConnell saying, “I know it’s written in the Constitution, but I don’t care!  Make me!”  This was when he refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee by President Obama.

Okay, make him!  Try him for treason, both Republicans and Democrats.  This is one attitude that should NEVER be tolerated.

Fourth, go back to working across the aisle.  Once an election has ended and the proper officials have been instated, leave the election behind and work together to govern the country.  Everyone’s input is needed, and the government has no place for hate.

We were like this once, up to very recent times.  We need to go back to this again.  It is possible, but will take a lot of hard work, from everybody.

The New Era of Prohibition: A New Abortion Cartel (or Mafia) By Alastair Browne

This is not a debate on whether or not abortion should be outlawed, nor is this a debate on the moral implications of it.  The genie is out of the bottle, and the medical technology to perform this procedure will continue to exist…forever.

No, this is an essay on what will happen if and when abortion is outlawed, and it looks like 26 states will either outlaw it completely, or ban it after six to 15 weeks of pregnancy, depending on where you live.

Senator Mitch McConnell vowed that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, he will try and have abortion outlawed nationally.

I once asked a young woman, a devout Catholic, how she felt about abortion,  to which she was opposed, but then she stated “…but I don’t think it should be outlawed because they (pregnant women seeking abortions) will go to the back alleys.

There’s the rub.

Whether or not you favor abortion, that is exactly what will happen, and there WILL be back alley abortion providers, just like there are drug dealers now.

Texas has passed abortion laws so strict that they will not only punish those who provide them, but will encourage people to inform on anyone seeking an abortion - and as a result, Texas will become a very violent place, equalling the drug cartels in Mexico.  

Before going any further on this, I would like to give two examples.  

Remember Prohibition back in the 1930s?  They outlawed liquor nationwide, even adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It didn’t work.  The Mafia stepped in and smuggled liquor in from Canada.  They also sponsored speakeasies, private clubs in cities where one can go, in secret, and drink.  There were busts, but the criminal element fought back.  Al Capone, Mafia kingpin from Chicago, was one such example, killing any cop and informer that got in his way.  (Al Capone was eventually brought down by Eliot Ness on tax evasion charges.)

Eventually, it got to be too much and Prohibition was lifted.

Today’s example is the drug cartel in Mexico.  Drug smuggling rings and rival gangs are striking fear not only in Mexican citizens but also officials.  If one cartel is struck down, another will take its place;  and the drug wars continue.

In Greek mythology, there was a nine headed snake named Hydra, where each head had lethal venom.  If one head was cut off, two more would sprout in its place.

This is the way of the drug cartel, and that’s just how it will be with the new abortion cartel, should it be outlawed.  This is my prediction, and it will apply to any and every state where it is illegal.

First, abortion will no doubt return to the back allies.  This will happen everywhere, no matter how strict or stringent these laws will be.

This will only be the beginning.

Even if there are not enough doctors, there will be plenty of “technicians” professing to use the abortion apparatus to perform the procedure.  Some women will die, but to them, it won’t matter.

There will be raids by law enforcement, and people will go to jail, but this will not stop those in the back alleys.  Like the snake Hydra, more back alley clinics will replace them, and those running them will become a lot smarter.

There is where the criminal element will come in;  a new “Abortion Mafia” or “Abortion Cartel.”

There will be protection rackets.  Even in a state as strict as Texas, police officers and government officials will be paid to look the other way.  Those who resist will be killed.

As for informers, they will be sought out and executed.

This will instill enough fear for people to keep quiet and mind their own business.  People like that will not be harmed.

Does the public want to crack down and “take back their neighborhood?”  This will not be as easy as driving out drug dealers.  They can call the F.B.I., shut down an illegal abortion clinic, but two more will come and take its place.  (This is in comparison to the snake Hydra.)

Would there be big money in abortion if the clients are poor?  Aside from being paid for the procedure, the providers could also use the aborted fetuses, or parts such as stem cells, and sell them to hospitals and research laboratories on the black market.

Abortion pills, where a patient can take during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and have the fetus aborted, already exist, but they will be the next on the list to be outlawed.  

There will be smuggling rings formed, possibly from states where they are legal, if not from other countries.  Again, it will be like interstate smuggling by criminal gangs, and it will be a lot easier.

You might think that the contents of this essay came from the wild imagination of a child, but this is exactly what will happen should abortion be outlawed.  It will not be a case where “A wrong has been righted and society will be blessed by God.”  Far from it.

These activities will occur in every state that outlaws abortion, no matter how righteous its citizens claim to be.  

There will always be corruption, and it’s happening right now with other outlawed activities.  It will not be any different with abortion.

If all this sounds like a horror story you don’t want to see happen, there is one way to prevent it.

Leave Roe v. Wade alone.  It was passed by the Supreme Court back in 1973, and it has worked ever since.  Leave it be.

I believe it is a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, and what she does with her body is nobody’s business but her own.  To put it bluntly, mind your own business.

If you are against abortion, don’t have one, but don’t prevent other women from getting one if they so choose.

Why the Russian-Ukrainian War was Completely Unnecessary

When the Soviet Union broke up land Russia shed its Communistic past, I was ecstatic.  I began writing essays on how the U.S. could help Russia become  a free and prosperous country by using its resources.  

I have written to then President George H.W. Bush, along with other politicians, advertised organizations (AmeriCares) on a campus church (University of North Dakota), published two letters in the Dakota Student, the university newspaper, and had a letter published in Time magazine, urging the U.S., Europe, and Japan to seize this opportunity to help Russia.  

“The choice is clear - pay now or pay later.”

I was right, and we are paying right now for what we neglected to do when we had the chance.

Regardless of our own mistakes back in the 1990s, none of this justifies Putin’s actions in the invasion of Ukraine today.  

As it is right now, Russia, under the tyranny of Vladimir Putin, made an unprovoked attack on Ukraine for the purpose of annexing it to Russia.  All of these other excuses are simply that, excuses.  Ukraine was not under Nazi rule, nor was it about to join NATO.  NATO didn’t want Ukraine.

Putin has acted in this manner before for the past 15 years or so.  In 2004, Russia invaded Georgia, and the world did nothing.  In 2014, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine, the Donbass region, and annexed Crimea.  Again, the U.S. and the West did nothing.

So now, in 2022, Russia decided to invade, and annex all of Ukraine, thinking that the U.S. and the West would react in the same manner.  They thought the Ukrainians would turn and run, and that other Ukrainians would welcome them with open arms.  They thought the whole invasion would be a cakewalk.  Only it didn’t turn out that way.

Instead, the Ukrainians fought back, fiercely, killing or wounding over 20,000 Russian soldiers and destroying their artillery.

The Russians then turned around and massacred civilians in Kyiv, Bucha and other  places, destroyed entire towns, but the world is condemning Russia and Ukraine fights on nonetheless.

The Russians sadly misjudged.  The Ukrainians continue to fight back, fiercely, even with Russia flattening their cities and killing off tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. 

On the other hand, the Ukrainians are killing Russian soldiers, 20,000 so far, wounding thousands more and causing many others to desert.  Russian artillery, including ships, planes, tanks, and helicopter are being destroyed, so Russia seems to have gotten more than they expected.

Many countries, including the U.S., are sending Ukraine weapons and the Ukrainians are using them, which accounts for so much success on their part.  Many volunteers from all over the world, including Russia and Belarus, and coming in giving the Ukrainians a helping hand in fight Russia.  It’s working.  So far, the Ukrainians, and their allies, have driven the Russian from the north, especially away from Kyiv, Ukraine’s capitol.  

At present, the Russians are regrouping, amassing troops to the Donbass region, in the eastern portions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Normally, this region mostly consisted of pro-Russian separatists.  Russia needs to have a victory, taking land that would provide a land bridge from Donbass to Crimea, which Russia took/“annexed” back in 2014.  Many of these separatists also suffered, having their homes destroyed, so many may be turning against the Russians.

There is another reason why Russia desperately wants this strip of land.  There are natural resources, being natural gas, possibly oil, and other minerals, all of which powers Ukraines industries, and Russia wants it.

It seems if any of Russia’s neighbors has any valuable resources, energy or otherwise, Russia wants to step in and grab them, and THIS is the real reason why Russia wants Ukraine, or Eastern Ukraine anyway.

Before the invasion, Ukraine was prospering from their mineral wealth, so well that it made Russia envious, and angry.

Russia, being a third world country with nuclear weapons, decided to make an unprovoked attack for these resources, even though Russia’s oligarchs, with Putin at the top, and profiting from Russia’s own mineral wealth - oil, natural gas, vast mineral resources, and THAT is the theme of this essay.

I have written a lot leading up to this point, and the question I have, as in the title, was any of this necessary?  Did Russia HAVE to be our enemy?

Russia is vast country spanning 11 time zones, the biggest country in the world, having a vast amount of oil, gas, and mineral resources, and ample farmland, all more than any other European country, combined.

Even without any other former Soviet republic, and this includes Crimea, belonging to Ukraine, Russia, with its borders, could form an independent world within a world.  They have enough farmland and resources to not only provide for their entire population, in comfort, but an extreme surplus of food, resources, and manufactured goods to sell to the rest of the world, becoming one of the richest countries in the world.

Russia could work side by side with the West.  They can control their own resources, set their own rules, but still work prosperously with the West.

They could form their own alliances, anywhere on Earth, they can help the rest of the world in our present environmental crisis (climate change, for example), and culturally, they have a lot to offer.

All this without being a military threat to anyone.

Russia would have made a powerful ally, even forming a partnership with the U.S., not only militarily, but economically as well.  They would definitely be an asset to Europe, with all of Europe willingly cooperating.

Imagine NATO going out of existence because it would no longer be needed.  There would be nothing to fear from Russia.  Is that a possibility?  NATO still exists because they fear an aggressive and threatening Russia that would cross their borders and invade, like they did with Ukraine and Georgia.  

If only Russia would realize that if they did not threaten any other country, if they would respect their borders and their territorial integrity, and recognize all other countries, with no border disputes, including those in the former Soviet Union, there would be no need for a NATO.

As it is, Vladimir Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union and the former Soviet bloc into a new Russian Empire, starting with Ukraine.  He does not care what the people of these countries want, or don’t want.

If Putin succeeds with Ukraine, which, at present, isn’t very likely, he’ll target Georgia next, then Moldova. There is the Transnistria region, the very eastern strip of Moldova occupied by Russian troops.  Moldova is a weak country and not in NATO.  Romania, ethnically related to Moldova, is in NATO so if Moldova is willing to reunite with Romania, even without the Transnistria region, they would have automatic membership.  

All other former Soviet republics are either a part of NATO, Islamic, or, like Georgia and Armenia, very small countries.

The Soviet Union with never reunite.  Vladimir Putin is simply living in the past.  He is focusing on his enemies, on land that he wants, rather than focusing on his own country, where he should spend his time, energy, and resources on rebuilding.

The reality is, Russia is so vast and rich with resources that it literally does not need one more square meter of land, including Crimea.  Yes, Crimea is a tourist resort, but in 1954, Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine as a gift, and this should be considered a done deal.

Before the seizure, Ukraine did allow Russia to keep its Naval Base in Sevastopol.

So, as a vision, we have Russia proper, before it seized Crimea. 

Russia claimed that they were trying to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, but NATO had no plans, or interest, in admitting Ukraine, or Georgia, even though NATO “promised” they would back in 2014.  This was not about to happen anytime soon.  Therefore, this was simply an excuse on Russia’s part.

President Joseph Biden did talk with Putin personally, and warned that there will be severe consequences if Putin invades Ukraine.  He also stated that he will not send NATO troops in if Putin does.  This sounded like an easy go for Putin.  

Putin supposedly respects strength, but only if Putin is winning.  If he loses, Putin will throw a temper tantrum and will resort to chemical and nuclear arms.  He hasn’t done that yet, but he will.  Meanwhile, we are ignoring many of Putin’s warnings.  He threatened to ship warships to the Baltic Sea, possibly armed with nuclear weapons should NATO admit Sweden and Finland.  I believe NATO will nonetheless.  Does Putin respect strength in this case?  

Also, Putin is warning Biden of unintended consequences should he send any more arms to Ukraine.  Biden committed on sending $800 million more of arms.  Does Putin respect Biden’s strength here.  

Biden knows that if Putin is pushed too far, he will resort to nuclear and chemical warfare, which would be a disaster for the entire globe (World War III, and it CAN happen).  However, he is doing the NEXT BEST THING, by arming the Ukrainians, regardless of what any general from the Pentagon might say.  History will be the final judge in this matter.

Biden warned Putin of severe consequences for Russia should he invade Ukraine, and there were; more than Putin, or the West, could have imagined.

All of Putin’s goals backfired on him.  Before, NATO was disorganized, now it is more organized than ever before, and is about to admit the formerly neutral countries and Sweden and Finland.  This will result in doubling in size the NATO - Russian border.  The U.S. and other countries are sending lethal weapons to Ukraine by the billions of dollars, and Ukraine is using them.  More and more countries are sanctioning Russia, costing the Russians money and people.  Many talented people are leaving Russia, in the form of a “brain drain.”  Worst of all, most of the world is turning against Russia and Vladimir Putin.  How long will Putin stay in power?  We don’t know.

When the Ukrainian War ends, and Ukraine emerges as a free country, they will apply to join NATO. Should Russia get some Ukrainian land, and they might, Ukraine will join NATO for sure, no matter what.  Ukraine WILL be in the European Union.

Georgia and Moldova are still questionable.  Moldova could join Romania, which is already in NATO.  There is still a matter of the Transnistria region, a Russian occupied sliver on the Ukrainian-Moldovan border.

Georgia may or may not be considered, that has yet to be seen.

It has been said that NATO should never have admitted eastern European and former Soviet countries to NATO, but I disagree.  I think this was a wise move, because if NATO didn’t, Putin would have invaded them, especially the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania by now, and would have been reabsorbed into Russia.

This is all the doing of Vladimir Putin.

None of this was necessary.  Putin did not have to invade Ukraine, at all, because Ukraine posed no threat to Russia.  Russia simply wanted Ukraine’s mineral wealth and land, thinking that the Ukrainians and the Russian are one people.  

The bottom line is GREED!

Greed for land, mineral wealth, power, for Putin and his oligarchs, those who own, who stole Russia’s industries when the Soviet Union dissolved, and they simply want more.

Ukraine, like Afghanistan, wasn’t going to give up their land, so they fought back, fiercely, and all of Russia is now paying the price.

Again, none of this was necessary.

Russia has all that land, spanning across eastern Europe, Asia, all the way to the Bering Strait.  True, Asiatic Russia is the coldest region on Earth, is you discount Antarctica, but hard core Russian live there and there is still industrial activity going on there.

Minerals are being mined, ports on the Arctic Ocean are opening up, there is a vast supply of oil and natural gas, and minerals, even vast amounts of farming in the southern regions.

Russia, as it is, does not need any more land.  

If there is a way for Russia to defeat NATO, it’s to respect the territorial integrity of all other countries, big or small.  Any country not threatened by Russia isn’t likely to have a military base on its borders.

Russia needs to realize that the past historical threats of invasion, from the Mongols up to Nazi Germany are gone.  The only threat Russia might have is China, but even China isn’t likely to invade.  They have their own internal affairs and the Siberian plain are too vast.

Russia can do much better with commerce, and up until the invasion, they were trading minerals, commodities, for manufactured goods.  

Putin is living in the past.  If he survives this war, he, or his successor, will need to get back to the present and focus on the future.

Alastair Browne 

The Final Treaty: Russia Gets Nothing, Ukraine Joins NATO

As I write this, Ukrainian forces are pushing back the Russians, regaining territories, towns, and cities captured by the Russians.  The Russians are now concentrating their forces on the Donbass region.

Once and for all, the myth of the invincible Russian Army has been dispelled.

True, U.S. President Joseph Biden and NATO did not send troops into Ukraine, but they did do the next best thing.  They sent arms to the Ukrainians, and they are using them to the fullest - shooting down Russian aircraft, destroying tanks and artillery, even Russian warships out at sea, and killing over 15,000 Russian troops, including seven Russian generals.

Of course, Russian missiles and bombers have literally leveled Ukrainian towns and cities to the ground, and have driven out five million refugees, but, like when the Americans bombed North Vietnam for 15 years, none of this has done any good for the Russians.

Should Putin decide to use nuclear and/or chemical warfare on Ukraine, the war may turn in Putin’s favor, but Russia will suffer a consequence beyond anything they can presently imagine.  The world will utterly condemn Putin and Russia and this condemnation will last for at least the rest of the century.

The Russians, all Russians, will be labeled bad people;  a label that may extend even beyond the Nazis.

As it is, Russia may have no choice but to end the war, but they also want to save face and look as it they won, or at least achieve their ends by getting some Ukrainian land.

At present (April 4, 2022), they are leaving the Kyiv region.  This is sensible because they were never able to capture Kyiv, and they are restating their mission, a la Orwell’s 1984.  They have stated that their only goal was to “liberate” Eastern Ukraine, or at least the Donbass region.

Ten years ago, I would have thought that they was a good idea.

A Russian general once said, quoted in Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, “Ukraine or rather Eastern Ukraine, will come back in five, ten, or fifteen years.  Western Ukraine can go to Hell.”

Ukraine is a cleft country, with pure ethnic Ukrainians in the West, being Catholic, and Eastern Ukraine, being Orthodox and Russian speaking.  Back then, it would have made perfect sense for Eastern Ukraine to rejoin Russia, at their approval, being the majority in the region.

I would have had no problem with that, then!

Today, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ALL of Ukraine, the game has changed, even beyond Putin’s expectations.  This proposal is still on the table, “dividing Ukraine like Korea.”

This is no longer an issue, because even in Eastern Ukraine, the Russian Ukrainians have suffered from the invasion just as much as the Western Ukrainians, and both sides have teamed up to both drive the Russians out and have a permanently united Ukraine.

Putin has united Ukraine like never before, and ALL Ukrainians are fiercely fighting the Russians.  

This proposal is now dead in the water - NO part of Ukraine must rejoin Russia.

There is the Donbass region.  There are Russian separatists there, supported by Russia since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

I’ve previously thought of having Ukraine letting Russia annex it, to save Ukraine a lot of trouble, but a friend of mine stated the alternative.  Take these Separatists and show them the Russian border, which they can cross, leaving all of Donbass to Ukraine.  I am now supportive of this proposal.  The families of these separatists have already crossed into Russia, and the Separatists can simply rejoin their families…in Russia.

That takes Donbass off the table.

There is Crimea, but that is in a unique position, and I consider Crimea a separate entity from both Ukraine and Russia.

Crimea has always been a part of Russia, at least since the 16th century.  

It was in 1954, when both Russia and Ukraine were a part of the Soviet Union, that Premier Khrushchev, at a function and probably drunk, where he decided to give Crimea to Ukraine on a whim.

Back then, it didn’t really matter, until 1991, when the Soviet Union broke up into the 15 states they are today.

It was in 2014, after the Presidential election in Ukraine, when Putin’s candidate lost, where Putin, in his anger, decided to invade Crimea and annex it - back to Russia.

In other words, he simply took it back.  It would have been better if Khrushchev never gave it away in the first place.

There is a Russian Naval Base in Sevastopol, and many, probably most, Crimeans rejoiced upon being a part of Russia again.

According to the Census, the ethnic composition is as follows: Russians: 1.49 million (65.3%), Ukrainians: 0.35 million (15.1%), Crimean Tatars: 0.24 million (12.0%).  

It has been stated that the Crimean Tartars prefer to be a part of Ukraine, but that is still 27.1% Ukrainian versus 65.3% Russian.  If a referendum was held, was international observers, on whether to rejoin Ukraine, stay in Russia, or become independent, the vast majority would vote to stay in Russia.

What’s to be done?  A referendum, a conference, or should Russia give Ukraine some compensation (this could be wishful thinking).

The final issue for the fate of Ukraine is whether is should be neutral, like Finland and Sweden after World War II.

Volodymyr Zelensky has said that he is will to settle for neutrality, but I disagree.

Sweden and Finland are now opting to join NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine.  

I feel that Ukraine, after the was, should now be entitled to join NATO, regardless of how Putin and Russia feels.

NATO originally did not want Ukraine to join, but the was has changed that.  Ukraine by not being in NATO was one reason why it was invaded, with Putin thinking that it would be an easy target.  Biden and NATO also stated that they would not send in troops, although they did send weapons, being the next best thing.

Now Ukraine, with their soldiers and citizens have fought bravely, is worthy to join NATO right away, and they would not only protect Ukraine from further invasions, but also make NATO more powerful.

The main reason is to insure that Russian never again invade, or even take more land from Ukraine.

Ukraine should also have immediate admission to the European Union.

In order to rebuild Ukraine, there will have to be a Marshall Plan, where various governments, corporations, and individuals, Russians included, would be willing to participate.

A prosperous Ukraine in both NATO and the E.U. would be no threat to Russia whatsoever.  Russia has never been invaded by NATO and never would be, even if NATO was on Russia’s borders.

NATO has never been a threat to Russia in the past.  The reason why NATO existed was because Russia was a threat to Europe, and Europe had to be protected.  It still does.

If Russia was not a threat to Europe, there would be no need for NATO to exist.

If only Russia would realize this.  

Before Putin, Russia was slowly becoming a fledging democracy.  Let’s hope that after Putin’s reign is over, it can be so again.

Alastair Browne