Outlaw the jerks!

I just want everyone to take a moment for a little mental exercise after listening to the brain deadening news coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech. Everyone has heard the anti gun rhetoric some of you may even spout it religiously. Now for the exercise. Substitute the word jerk for gun. A 9mm jerk was used in the VT killings. This jerk had no business being on a college campus. In fact, there are laws in place forbidding jerks on school property.
I think that puts the problem into better perspective. Right wingers would be the ones on the bandwagon trying to push legislation through for stricter jerk control. While the leftists would be yelling and screaming about how you can't send out the stormtroopers to gather up people because someone reported that they were a jerk or maybe they were just hiding a jerk in their home. Could you imagine some Boulder hippie type out there chanting: "If you outlaw jerks then only outlaws will be jerks!" ?
Something gun cotrol advocates need to consider is that we live in a real world where there are jerks and guns. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of the jerks or the guns. What it will do has been illustrated in almost every school shooting, innocent, law abiding people will be killed at will by jerks with guns.
To both sides I would like to remind you that America is supposed to be a free society. Like anything else there are good points and bad points. This country represents unlimited opportunity and any thing that changes our basic rights affects that. We have to accept that the amazing benefits we get from living in a free society come at a cost. Sometimes that cost must be paid in blood.

Why is Congree acting like Homer Simpson?

Come on and say it with me, NUCULAR. Admit it, its a guilty pleasure to know that you can pronounce a word that our President can't get right. Unfortunately, even though most of Congress can pronounce nuclear properly, it doesn't stop them from messing it up too. We have American and world leaders yelling from the rooftops about how we (which convienently doesn't include them) desperately need to stop using fossil fuels. Now I want to take a quick moment to remind you the Congress didn't need to subsidize Henry Fords production of the Model T in order to alleviate the high numbers of horse buggies in use at the turn of the century. Likewise, if Congress hadn't already placed so many barriers in the way of American business by the end of the century we wouldn't be talking about our addiction to Middle East oil. Its not like the US is lacking in technology and intellect, at least outside of Congress, but with out a literal act of Congress America cannot bring our considerable brainpower to bear on what is being touted as our single biggest problem. Every American should feel at least a little shame when told that France has better nuclear technology in place than the US does. There are currently designs for nuclear reactors that pose no possibility of a meltdown and produce many times the energy that an equivalent weight of coal produces. The Europeans have devised a method for reducing radioactive waste to ash that when used to create glass ingots completely eliminates the possibility of release of isotops into groundwater. So, what is Congress doing to help America harness the answer to our energy dilema? You guessed it! They are not only not helping us, they are standing firmly in our way. I don't want to explore the miriad excuses that the burrocrats may come up with for their gross negligence of science, lets leave it that unless someone actually harms someone else, the government has no business in our business or science for that matter.

What is government?

Why does humanity need government? Simply put, animals kill each other for territory, food, mates. Government should be an understanding among humans that no person can initiate force against another person. Government provides people with a rule of law that provides a clear outline of what is not allowed and what the consequences are for violating the law. Ideally, government should set the rule of law as clearly as possible and then walk away and let the courts provide for the exceptions. Jury nullification should be part of the basic jury instructions for any court. Once the rules are clear the courts can provide for justice, even if justice includes ignoring the rules. The meddling, busy-body mentality of a legislature to set law for every little contingency is micromanaging at its worst and in most cases defeats the rule of law by making the rules too muddled to be enforced. Likewise, forcing courts and juries to use certain standards defeats the use of courts to provide justice. In courts it’s not what is true, it’s what you can prove. Setting barriers in legal procedure means that even less truth can make it into what can be proven.
What does the Constitution need to be?
The Constitution was intended to be the set of rules by which the country was governed. With proper concern for individual rights the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. For whatever reasons, the Founders were not able to set a clear set of rules. What the Constitution needs to be is a clear set of what is legal for the Government and what is illegal for citizens. This clarity is important because what the government should be allowed to do needs to be inclusive while what the citizens are allowed to do needs to be only exclusive.