I was not trying to argue against seeing the issue as significant by those affected by it or in denial to the level of toleration in living with it all those years. I was just objecting to the use of it to divert attention from what happened in that church and the ease with which the lives of nine people were taken by one person.    

I just want to know how did an issue of someone walking into a place and with all the convenience and ease kills nine people had changed itself to a discussion about flags? Talk about a resistance to face an issue!

DOUBLE THE CRAZINESS

And if one thinks he saw it all with the outrageousness of that empowerment to kill and little care about taken lives, he may gets shocked again by discovering that his vision probably reached only halfway of that path of craziness. That is because if instead of being a victim, a person was the one who, for sure, committed a killing or even a mass shooting, you would see the valuation for his life suddenly reverses course and reaches the high level of being over the value of not even just one or two but a big number of his victim lives. 

One normally expects that if there is disregard or less than sufficient care for life somewhere then it would at least apply equally to both the victim and the guilty. Here on the other hand, instead of just passive carelessness about the victim, the guilty gets empowered to very easily take the life of the victim then the life of the guilty gets treated as if it has much more value. 

    

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!

There can hardly be a situation deserving the question Dr Phil keeps repeating , "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!" than this. It needs to be screamed through bullhorns all over the country. They easily give that power to take life with just a small movement of a finger and do that repeatedly then wonder what went wrong every time a mass murder happens.

Although hate and/or discrimination seems to be the reason behind that mass killing in that church on its face, regardless of the question of right and wrong, does it look like that the "suspect" has that kind of depth in that believe? Or does it look more like a shallow thing strengthened by the power to act on it? Does it look like that absent the convenience of a gun he would still have attacked that church to make whatever point he supposedly wanted to make?

And the acting like being in a playful state was even clearer with that shooting in Colorado where the "suspect" suddenly substituted himself for an action movie, with a title stating that the main character "Rises", in a movie theater and started shooting the attendees. Even if we want to ignore that, for close to three years now, did anyone hear any reason for that attack?

So, we should be careful and not pretend that we confuse actions where belief makes use of power with actions where power makes use of apparent believe. 

Something about premeditation

In addition to already having difficulties accepting all these first and second and the like of murder classes, I just noticed this about the premeditation requirement for a first degree murder charge.

Is the absence of what fits the premeditation requirement always makes the crime deserves better response for the guilty? What if the reason for the absence of that legal premeditation was being in a careless state? Should the premeditation be taken into consideration when there is a proven absence of what could have caused a momentarily decision? Why would killing with careless/playful mind set deserves less than the maximum punishment? Is there not enough signs for the system being abused because of not taking account of that?

It already was very far from justice to punish a killer with less than being killed just because he killed his victim in anger. So what does doing that for killing with a careless/playful state of mind take things?

How can things get better with these kind of laws that allow escaping responsibility for one's own action and shifting it on the victim instead. Why do laws here compensate the guilty and punish the victim?  

  

I spoke about this earlier. From the beginning solutions were not necessarily all or nothing. For example, why should a firearm intended for home protection be small and light weight? In addition, current technology and science, could make a huge difference here. For example, firearms could be made or altered so that, with the use of satellite and/or a remote control technology, are operable only within a specific limited locality or make a warning sound and visual signal out of those localities. Or at least they can be made trackable by satellite so that appropriate devices installed at public or gathering areas like supermarkets, schools, churches, movie theaters and the like can detect them. 

But nothing of that can be done unless people are released from the bondage of the so so long ago expired second amendment. 

The Real Patriotism

Real patriotism shows itself not with the raising of flags but with someone throughout decades and decades ago looking at the consequences or potential consequences of this mess and says we need to get rid of this. To me letting the country I live in be in this mess is as repugnant as accepting to live with the content of the septic tank inside my home. 

One may think that people could fail to manage things properly and choose the right path only with matters that apply differently on them. But how could an obviously necessary path where the justice and the need are in a unity like this be ignored like this? The question of life and death is like that of winning or losing lottery for something that is entirely man made and superimposed in this country but still they seem to have no problem with that neither for themselves nor for their moral principles.