Miah's testimony

June 9, 2022

[No audio version]

          The House Oversight Committee heard testimony from survivors and families of victims of the Uvalde and Buffalo mass shootings. The testimony of one survivor of the Uvalde massacre, Miah Cerrillo, is almost too much to bear. Her testimony is painful to read, but it is nothing compared to the terror, suffering, and death experienced by her classmates and teachers killed by the murderer. Nor does it compare to the lifelong trauma inflicted on every child of Uvalde who watched their fellow students and teachers being massacred. Her father’s description of the carnage he witnessed at the hospital is unspeakable.

          After the testimony concluded, Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona criticized Democrats for allowing the Miah to testify (by pre-recorded video), saying, “You just prolonged the agony of that little girl, and for what? Your own political purposes?”

          Yes, Rep. Biggs, Democrats used Miah’s testimony to show you the cruelty that your gun worship inflicted on Miah and her classmates. Is that a “political purpose”? Yes. But “politics” is not a dirty word. Politics is how a free people govern themselves. I hope that Miah’s testimony seared your soul with the images of bodies that were unidentifiable because of the military ammunition used by the killer—if you have a soul. If hearing about those images causes you a pang of conscience—if you have a conscience—then sharing them is the unavoidable cost of stopping your absolutist exaltation of gun rights above the right of all Americans to live in peace and safety.

          The absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment is a morally and intellectually bankrupt idea. In that regard, I urge you to read an article in The Atlantic by Thomas P. Crocker, Don’t Forget the First Half of the Second Amendment. Crocker’s article is the smartest analysis I have read about the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The sub-title of Crocker’s article describes his thesis: “The amendment doesn’t prohibit gun regulations; it demands them.”

          Crocker notes that gun right absolutists (and the Supreme Court) ignore the first half of the Second Amendment, which provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” Crocker writes, in part:

          The Second Amendment provides an answer [to claims of an absolute right to gun ownership]. The “security of a free State” matters. Our security is a constitutional value, one that outweighs absolutist gun-rights claims by NRA lobbyists . . . . The Second Amendment preserves a free state, not simply a security state.

          The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect a “the security of free state” by means of a “well-regulated militia”—not to guarantee a state of anarchy ruled by mobs with guns. The “absolutist interpretation” of the Second Amendment is the antithesis of what the Framers intended.

Man arrested for threatening to shoot Brett Kavanaugh.

          Gun violence is not the answer to political disagreements. But gun absolutists claim that their right to bear arms is meant to prevent the “tyranny of the state.” For example, a far-right conservative website currently hosts an article entitled, Second Amendment: Last Line of Defense Against Tyranny. (I am not linking to the article because I don’t want to drive traffic to the site.)

          The notion that the Second Amendment endows individuals with gun rights to prevent government tyranny is a romanticized and dangerous philosophy. It sounds like high-minded principle until someone takes the principle seriously. That happened today, when a man from California made plans to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh with a Glock handgun purchased for that specific purpose. The man apparently believed that Kavanaugh was impinging on his rights to be free from government interference—sometimes referred to as “tyranny” by people who disagree with that interference.

          Mitch McConnell was shocked, shocked (!) to learn that anyone would own a gun to protect themselves from perceived government overreach. Yes, Mitch, that is our point! It is unfortunate that the deaths of 19 children in Uvalde was not enough to make you see the folly of that argument.

If there was an earthquake in California, I missed it.

          I write the newsletter from California. According to many major news outlets, there was an “earthquake” in California on Tuesday. See, e.g., Axios, Political earthquake in California has the left on the run; CNN, California is about to experience a political earthquake. Here’s why; and NYTimes, California Sends Democrats and the Nation a Message on Crime.

          Tuesday’s primaries in California did include a seismic development—just not the one the media has decided is the “narrative.” The real story is the abysmal turnout. What was the media discussing instead? The fact that (a) neither Democrat in the LA mayoral race won a majority of the vote, and (b) the San Francisco District Attorney was recalled. That’s it. Out of more than 200 major elections in California, one recall and a “no-decision” constitute an ”earthquake” in the media narrative. It is not. Let’s look at how the media has decided to use the California primaries to pummel the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party—facts be damned!

          First, for context, there were 165 primaries for federal and state legislative offices and 12 state executive offices on California ballots on Tuesday. If you live in LA, there were 13 additional elections for county and city offices. (And obviously hundreds more important elections across the state.) What happened in those 200+ elections that amounted to an “earthquake”? Who knows? The breathless media outlets did not bother to tell you—because it doesn’t fit their narrative. In fact, it was “business as usual” in California’s heavily Democratic primaries.

          What about the mayor’s race in LA? Well, according to the gob-smacked NYTimes account, “a Republican-turned-Democrat campaigning as a crime-fighter vaulted into a runoff in the mayoral primary.” Wow. “Vaulted into a runoff.” I hope he didn’t hurt himself. In truth, former Republican and billionaire Rick Caruso spent a gazillion dollars (okay, $40 million) in a mayoral primary! His opponent, Karen Bass, spent $3 million on her campaign.

Neither candidate received the 50% necessary to avoid a runoff—but Caruso beat Bass by only 3% of the vote! So, was the NYTimes justified in reporting that “California Sends Democrats and the Nation a Message on Crime” based on the LA mayoral race? I don’t think so. What I see is that a billionaire was unable to purchase the election despite outspending his opponent by a multiple of ten.

          As to the recall of the San Francisco District Attorney, the press can’t even keep its geography straight. NBCNews reports that California voters oust reformist DA in San Francisco as House battlegrounds take shape. NBCNews might be surprised to learn that the only voters who voted in the recall of the San Francisco District Attorney were from—wait for it—San Francisco! Now, San Francisco is a lovely city, but in no way can be said to represent the vast and diverse state of “California.”

          NBCNews might also be surprised to learn that San Francisco is a small city (as California cities go), ranking fourth behind San Diego and San Jose. Even so, San Francisco has 495,000 registered voters, which is a lot! Sadly, only 20% of them bothered to vote in the recall election, meaning that 12% of the voters (60,480) of the fourth-largest city in California voted to recall a controversial District Attorney. And to put a finer point on the analysis, California has 22 million registered voters, only 0.3% of whom voted to recall the San Francisco District Attorney.

          Is 0.3% an earthquake among “California voters” as reported by NBC? Maybe, maybe not. Extrapolation is a legitimate statistical tool. But if you are going to extrapolate an “earthquake” from a 0.3% sample size, you should be upfront with your readers about your sleight-of-hand.

          As I said, the real story is the abysmal turnout across California. In Los Angeles County, only 14.4% of registered voters voted!! Ouch! Shameful! Inexcusable! We need to talk! Democrats in California have a problem with enthusiasm. And, contrary to Axios, the results do not support the narrative that “the left is on the run.” Perhaps Axios and NBCNews should rely on reports from journalists who have actually visited California (and, no, a high-school trip with parents to Disneyland doesn’t count).

Concluding Thoughts.

          I still have limited internet, so apologies if there are more than the usual number of errors and typos. I spend my limited time researching and writing, not proofing. Will be back in civilization next week.

          This newsletter is almost a one-man operation. I do the research and writing, but my wife and partner in all things, Jill, serves as my sounding board and editorial advisor. Her advice is unerring—and I disregard her counsel at my peril! In truth, I could not publish the newsletter without her unending support, patience, and guidance. I am eternally grateful to her—and you should be, too!

          So, I have a favor to ask. June 9th is Jill’s birthday. I have limited ability to throw a birthday bash at our vacation hideaway, so you can help make the day more festive by sending an email to Jill wishing her a happy birthday at jpbickett@gmail.com. Thanks!

          I may delay sending Thursday evening’s newsletter so I can listen to the January 6th hearings—which means I may not be able to send it before Friday morning. If the next newsletter is delayed, do not worry! I will comment on the hearings!

          Talk to you soon!