Hollywood and Weinstein

DR Radio: Harvey, Hefner, and Las Vegas

In this edition of DR Radio, Jay, Brian, and Hadley look at the moral “superiority” of Hollywood and the Weinstein fiasco, the latest Trump controversies, and what the Las Vegas shooting means.

To listen in, you can watch via the video player above or you can subscribe to our podcast on iTunes or Android.

‘Outsiders on the Inside’ | Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas’ 1st Congressional District

Our fourth guest for “Outsiders on the Inside” is Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas’ First Congressional District. Although he has served in the House of Representatives for over a decade, Rep. Gohmert has proven to be a foe of the establishment. We discussed the Las Vegas shooting/pushes for gun control, the SAVES Act, and what’s challenging about being an outsider here in the nation’s capital.

Below is a teaser:

Below is the full clip:

Facebook Version:

YouTube Version:

NRA to Fox News Sunday: “Bans Don’t Work”

After issuing a statement calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to review the legality of bump stocks, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has affirmed that further bans on guns or gun parts don’t stop crime.

NRA’s Chris Cox went on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to discuss their statement in wake of the Las Vegas massacre.  Cox said, “We don’t believe bans ever worked on anything.”

“There were NRA members who were shot [in Las Vegas]. There were members who were murdered,” Cox said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“What we’re getting from NRA members is grief and fear, the same way other Americans are grieving.”

Cox added, “What we saw last week was pure evil. … We don’t believe that bans have ever worked on anything.” But he added that ATF should look to review bump stocks if they indeed converted semi-automatic firearms into automatic ones in the case of the Las Vegas shooting. While many have interpreted this as a call-to-action (CTA) to regulate bump stocks, it isn’t a blatant call for banning them. Just a review. Nevertheless, we can all agree that banning bump stocks won’t prevent future mass shootings.

This came in wake of the NRA issuing a joint statement by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, which read:

“In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented.  Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control.  Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks.  This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world.  In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.  The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.  In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.  To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”

As a result of the alleged use of bump stocks by mass murderer Stephen Paddock, nine Republican Senators have called on the ATF to review bump stocks. Interestingly enough, one of the U.S. Senate’s top gun control proponents — Senator Dianne Feinstein of California–admitted that no new gun control measures would have prevented the Las Vegas massacre.

Experts say bump stocks decrease accuracy when firing firearms. Here’s more on bump stocks:

bump stock is a sliding stock that speeds up a rifle’s rate of fire by harnessing recoil energy to reset the trigger. Instead of squeezing the trigger, the shooter holds his trigger finger steady while pushing the barrel forward with his other hand, thereby firing a round. The recoil repositions the trigger, and continuing to exert forward pressure on the barrel makes the rifle fire repeatedly. The gun still fires just once per trigger pull, so it is still a semiautomatic (and therefore legal), but it fires faster than it would if the shooter had to bend his trigger finger each time.


Whether or not bump stocks will be regulated detracts from the greater issue at hand: no gun control measures would have stopped the crazed Vegas shooter from perpetrating the evil act he did. It’s time to hold individuals, not tools, accountable for their criminal behavior.

If you wish to help the Las Vegas shooting victims, donate to the official fund here.

Evidence Suggests There’s Much More to the Las Vegas Story, and a Possible Accomplice

We are learning, in drips and drabs, more about what went on in rooms 32-134/135 at the Mandalay Bay. And it’s troubling as hell.

Las Vegas Metro Police Sheriff Joseph Lombardo came right out and said it:

“Do you think this was all accomplished on his own?” Lombardo said to reporters on Wednesday. “Self value, face value, you got to make the assumption that he had to have had some help at some point. And we want to ensure that that’s the answer. Maybe he’s a super guy … [he] was working out all of this on his own. But it’d be hard for me to believe that.”

One thing seems more and more certain: the “lone wolf” narrative is falling apart.

That would mean there’s someone at large, someone who helped Paddock. His girlfriend Marilou Danley lawyered up and said she had no clue about the shooting, though she claimed through her lawyer she is cooperating with investigators. She was in the Philippines so her alibi is fairly strong (maybe too strong).

I am no investigator, but the FBI and local police have got to have their neck hairs standing up at every detail.

Yes, there was some note paper in the hotel room, but no suicide note, according to Lombardo. Yet Paddock killed himself despite evidence suggesting he planned to escape. I don’t normally cite ZeroHedge, but in this case, the “16 questions” are actually fairly good (most of them). Much of it goes to motive. Why that particular event? How did Paddock get all those guns, 50 lbs of Tannerite, several thousand rounds of ammunition, various electronic devices and cameras up to his room?

How did he buy more than 30 firearms, some very expensive and customized, in a year without anyone raising suspicion? Maybe his cover story was that he’s just a gun enthusiast and collector. But where are his shooting buddies? Who saw him at the range?

If he was a collector and enthusiast, but never went to the range or practiced, how did he have the stamina to fire up to four or more “bump stock” equipped AR-15s on bipods, emptying magazine after magazine. It’s not like a video game “pew pew.” Shooting at that pace with those weapons would challenge anyone’s shoulder and arm muscles. And Paddock didn’t appear to be a muscular guy.

There’s more.

Why did Paddock shoot out of two windows facing two different directions, when only one gave him a clear field of fire to the festival? He apparently requested a specific room, or did he? Based on reports, he was well-known in the hotel as a gambler and a very particular guest with specific requirements regarding allergens and cleaning products.

Why are there reports he shot at a jet fuel tank (and hit it) at McCarran International Airport across Las Vegas Boulevard? Did Paddock actually video record himself during the massacre?

As a small army of investigators (Lombardo said more than a hundred) follows up these details, it seems that more questions are being generated than we have answers for. Or maybe the police and FBI have answers, but aren’t saying until they can make some arrests.

But one thing seems more and more certain: the “lone wolf” narrative is falling apart.

Maybe Paddock was a sick and dangerous man. Obviously, to do what he did, he had to have some kind of mental break or total lack of conscience. But if he had help that would indicate more than just a mental break. People don’t talk others into helping with their murderous fantasies–there has to be a different motive.

Or is it all just speculation at a very confusing and contradictory pile of evidence?

This story is deeper than we ever thought and it could be a while before we have any real answers. Unfortunately, the longer we go without them, the more conspiracy and crackpot theories wind their way through the Internet.

And more chilling: the more some copycat might decide to act on a deadly fantasy.

Trying to Comprehend Liberal Reactions to Las Vegas

A liberal Facebook “friend” thought it would be funny to post this extremely tasteless attempt at a joke:

Imagine being in a hotel room and having to listen to 3 days of country music…

I didn’t bother trying to hide my disgust at his callous remark. However, I wasn’t terribly surprised to discover that’s what this particular friend thought might be amusing, in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in American history. This same person had deliberately attracted my attention by coming to my Facebook wall to propose that the solution to the massacre in Las Vegas was “gun control.” His comment irritated me because it has become the mantra and theme of liberal politics, and I know it just isn’t true.

As this Washington Post editorial explains, gun control is not the solution — not when the problem is that someone wants to commit mass murder. If guns are illegal, the mass murderer will just use illegal guns. Or bombs. Or a truck.

Naturally, as I realized that as liberals were trying to provoke me, I needed to consider the source. Even though we’ve never met in person or even spoken to each other on the phone, I happened to know this particular person isn’t an American citizen. His politics are liberal, and he’s an atheist. All three of those factors helped form the toxic output from his mind.

Usually, I try to cut this particular guy a little slack because he’s an atheist with whom I can sometimes have a halfway decent conversation, but when the joke is at the expense of 58 victims dead so far, with over 500 more people wounded, I could find nothing to laugh about.

Well, except maybe the guy who was probably drunk and caught on camera making an obscene gesture known as “flipping the bird” in the direction of the shooter provided a brief moment of levity in an otherwise grim, very depressing story.

Usually, when my liberal friends post something on Facebook that annoys me, I’ll just change the subject to an interest we might share in common. Like music, for example. But not today. I wasn’t in the mood to be a conduit used to spread partisan liberal political talking points on social media, but reinforcements were on the way.

Several others that matched the same basic profile (liberal, atheist, and a foreigner, not an American citizen) swooped in like vultures ready to feast on raw emotions. One person even had the audacity to suggest that we have no right to complain about gun violence after 28 children had been murdered at Sandy Hook elementary school, and yet no new gun laws were passed. The problem with that argument is that Adam Lanza was mentally ill, and the guns used in the crime didn’t belong to him. I believe that’s about when I asked these people if any of them had even a shred of human decency. I politely asked them to take their conversation somewhere else, before I really lost my temper. I was sad, appalled, and growing more angry by the minute. Disturbingly, these people are not isolated exceptions. The lame stream media and Democrat politicians were insisting that this is no time to score political points, as they feverishly tried to score a political point.

A vice president for CBS was deservedly fired the day after the Las Vegas massacre (the most horrific case of terrorism since 9/11) for announcing on social media that she felt absolutely no sympathy for the victims, because they were probably Republicans who voted for Donald Trump. Does this woman lack even a shred of human decency? How could anyone think of celebrating, gloating, or taunting their perceived political enemy at one of the darkest moments in modern American history?

In his effort to twist the story narrative to a conversation about gun control,  CNN reporter Jeff Zeleny speculated the victims probably were Trump supporters for some strange reason, as if their political preferences might have factored in the attack, or in the response from the President. He seemed to be implying the President would naturally care more about the crowd in Las Vegas than the people in Puerto Rico suffering from hurricane damage, presumably because the people in Las Vegas probably voted for him.

Hillary Clinton felt the need to go on Twitter and lecture Americans that we should put politics aside while our nation mourns…for a moment that apparently lasted all of about two seconds.

With her very next tweet, Hillary blamed the deaths in Las Vegas on the NRA, even trying to make some weird connection between the massacre and the political debate over “silencers” (technically known as sound suppressors), even though gunshots can clearly be heard on audio recordings of the attack. The problem was that people initially mistook the popping sounds for firecrackers going off during a loud concert.

There have been no reports of the assassin using a sound suppressor, but we all know that won’t stop a politician from trying to score a political point or push an agenda. It should, but it never does. As we continue to seek knowledge of the killer’s potential motives for this heinous crime, perhaps we should learn about situations where the unthinkable didn’t happen — what could possibly explain the so-called Miracle at Cokeville?

The killers in that horrific incident built a bomb, planning to deliberately murder every child in the school. The bomb exploded, as they intended.

Yet inexplicably, only the killers died. The murders at Sandy Hook would have paled in comparison to Cokeville, had the plan succeeded to wipe out an entire generation in a small rural community with a homemade weapon of mass destruction. But not many know the story of Cokeville, because the children were somehow spared by a miracle.

The atheists perpetually struggle with the problem of theodicy, which begs the question, why God allows evil in this world? I don’t know if mine is the right answer, but my reply is always “free will.”

In my opinion, the second greatest gift we have from God, after the gift of life itself, is the gift of free will. We are not slaves. We aren’t forced to conform to God’s will. We are free to choose between good and evil.

The real question is, why do so many humans choose to commit despicable acts of virtually incomprehensible evil? The real problem isn’t that an evil or insane person managed to get a gun. The problem is that an evil person wants to commit evil deeds. A gun itself isn’t inherently evil, no more than a knife or a hammer is evil. It all depends on how the gun, knife, or hammer is used.

The only real and permanent solution to this problem is to beg for God’s forgiveness, ask for His mercy, and resist temptation to become evil ourselves. We can’t pretend that evil doesn’t exist anymore, because it keeps getting prevalent every day.

This reminds me of the infamous quote from longtime Democrat political operative (and current major of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel:

“You never want a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that, is that it’s an opportunity to do things that you did not think you could do before.”

Maybe you shouldn’t do them because it’s wrong to just do as you please.

Trump Will Be ‘Talking About Gun Laws’

President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he is willing to talk about gun control. Willingness to talk about and possibly consider new gun control measures is unusual for a Republican president.

On his way to Puerto Rico, President Trump was asked about the Las Vegas shootings and the possibility of new gun laws. “What happened in Las Vegas is in many ways a miracle,” Trump said in Politico. “The police department has done such an incredible job, and we’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by.”

Reporters also asked the president about a Republican bill that would loosen restrictions on the purchase of silencers. Trump answered, “We’ll talk about that later.”

Separately, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) indicated that the silencer bill was delayed indefinitely in the wake of the shootings. The bill is “not scheduled right now. I don’t know when it will be scheduled,” Ryan said in the Chicago Tribune.

President Trump did not give any indication of what talks on gun control might entail or when they might take place. Often, Democratic politicians call for a “national conversation on gun control” in the wake of mass killings.

Prior to becoming a presidential candidate, Donald Trump supported “limited restrictions” on guns and was critical of the NRA.  In 2016, the NRA endorsed Trump for president.

Former Trump strategist, Steven Bannon had earlier told Axios that a shift on gun control was unlikely for Trump. “Impossible: will be the end of everything,” Bannon said via text.

Motive and Opportunity for the Las Vegas Massacre

The reason I am known as @WriterRocky on Twitter is because I write detective novels, when I’m not producing freelance articles for The Resurgent. Writing a novel is not as easy as it may sound — well, writing a good novel is difficult, for sure.

I’m always having to create plausible, interesting, and unusual criminal behavior in my mind, and thinking hard is hard work. However, it would be boring to have my heroes solve mundane robberies and murders. It would be tough for me to write an interesting novel where the killer was caught red-handed, at the scene of the crime, in the very first chapter.

So I have to do lots of research and think long and hard to dream up interesting and usual crimes, perpetrators, victims, heroes, and most importantly, motives for the crimes. Otherwise, my novels would be very boring. However, as the old expression goes, truth is even stranger than fiction. It’s certainly much easier to write. This is one of those rare occasions when my “other” job proves to be helpful in writing this article.

In this tragedy that just took place in Las Vegas, why did Stephen Paddock spray bullets into a crowd of people he didn’t even know? What possible motive could he have for committing mass murder? We always need to identify the most logical explanations, but we really can’t rule out any possibility until all the facts have been assembled.

My most recent novel involved illegal-arms dealers and drug smugglers, yet strangely enough, in all my research about military weapons, I’d never heard of this gadget called a “bump stock” until this morning, which just proves that you really can learn something new every day.

Predictably, less than 24 hours after the massacre in Las Vegas, liberals had already decided that the solution to the problem required tougher gun laws. A few even went as far as suggesting anyone who opposed gun control deserved to be killed. In their utopian view, all of our problems will be solved by “gun control” through amending the Constitution. The NRA are always blamed when people are shot, long before we know the real motive.

In her rush to score a political point, Hillary Clinton launched a bizarre attack the NRA over the issue of sound suppressors (which she apparently calls “silencers” because in the movies, guns make a barely audible “poof” sound), which are not exactly silent. Besides, the only gun related issue that might warrant legislation are these bump stock devices, which ought to be illegal if they aren’t already.

If you’re going to try to score a political point, make sure it’s a valid one.

Advocates for the preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights don’t see as an argument between people with the good intention of reducing violence, because removing guns won’t stop people from committing murder. It will just stop them from killing people with guns. After liberal Hollywood actor Kumail tweeted that “In Marseille a man with a knife killed 2 people. In Vegas a man with a gun killed 58. You don’t even have to do math.” conservative pundit Ben Shapiro came back with this reply:

Liberals tend to see guns and conservatives as the root cause of all evil.  Conservatives perceive liberalism and terrorism to be the main problems faced by modern society. They can’t both be right, of course.

The possible options of motive for a man willing and able to plan and execute the slaughter of dozens of people he’d never met would seem to be somewhat limited. Insanity is clearly one rather obvious possibility, and it would seem that anyone capable of doing such a thing would have to be at least a little bit crazy. But can we really assume that a person capable of committing such a callous act of violence is only crazy, and nothing more?

This details of this crime that are currently known suggest some serious planning and forethought was involved. The killer chose an ideal location for his attack, from which a maximum number of targets could be easily mowed down with bullets. People didn’t realize they were under fire, because the venue was a loud concert.

Murdering innocent people you’ve never met and have never harmed you does seem like an act of a madman. Could an insane person execute such a crime after meticulous planning and forethought? It is possible. Remember the heavily-armed lunatic who riddled the audience of a Batman movie with bullets was sane enough to wear body armor, in case somebody shot back.

Insanity definitely cannot be ruled, but what are the other possibilities? Is insanity the only possibility? No, of course not. At least two other potential reasons deserve equal consideration.

The first of these other possibilities is the easier of the two to sell to the general public: terrorism. ISIS immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, asserting that Stephen Paddock had converted to Islam several months prior to the attack.

Months before the attack ISIS apparently released a video suggesting that Las Vegas and San Francisco were two designated targets for a future terrorist attack. Another obvious question: why anyone would want to take credit for something they didn’t do? Mass murder in the name of their evil god is frankly beyond my comprehension, but ISIS have taken credit for the Las Vegas massacre.

We also know that historically ISIS have a perfect track record when it comes to making claims about terrorist attacks that can ultimately be attributed to them. They might be ruthless, evil, murderous religious fanatics, but we have no reason to accuse them of lying about this.

Even though the FBI has already declared there isn’t a known motive or connection to ISIS, it makes no sense for them to rule out the possibility. It doesn’t seem prudent to rule out terrorism as a motive for the worst mass murder in American history less than 24 hours after it happened, as Rush Limbaugh noted on his show yesterday, especially since these same people haven’t been able to rule out Russian interference in the last presidential election after a full year of investigation without finding any evidence.

Some news articles have already tried to connect the dots, suggesting that Stephen Paddock was a former accountant and might have been bitter about his excessive gambling losses, but the biggest problem with that theory is that Paddock didn’t attack the casino. If you’re mad about losing all your money on foolish bets, why wouldn’t your anger be directed at the people who have your money? Instead, Paddock raked the crowd outside the hotel at the music festival with bullets.

Given the planning involved (ideal location, easy target, multiple weapons, shooting platforms, cameras, etc.) terrorism actually seems like a very smart bet, especially considering the fact that a terror attack had taken place in Canada only 24 hours earlier. It’s difficult to believe that the timing could be sheer coincidence. It also seems odd that a man not known for being a passionate gun owner or radical right-wing extremist is found 23 weapons in the hotel room with him. It’s suspicious that a man who allegedly knew very little about firearms knew enough to know that a “bump stock” converts a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic machine-gun that can spray a full magazine of bullets with one pull of the trigger. More guns and explosives were found in his home.

Eventually the police will be able sort out the details and determine whether all of the weapons involved were purchased legally, and from where they were bought. A third possible explanation for the Las Vegas massacre will be ridiculed by anyone who doesn’t believe in a supernatural God: demonic possession would also easily explain the behavior of Stephen Paddock. An evil, murderous rage seems to have possessed this man.

In an interview, a younger brother claimed that Stephen was neither religious nor motivated by politics, but his description of their relationship also suggested the two brothers weren’t particularly close and didn’t speak to each other very often. Maybe the only thing on which everyone might agree is that Stephen Paddock certainly didn’t love the people he gunned down in cold blood.

Here’s the weird thing — I don’t hate Stephen Paddock. In fact, I feel a twinge of sympathy for his soul, because I’m fairly sure he’s burning in hell right now. But I can’t really describe my feelings about Hitler or Osama bin Laden as hate, either. I pity them.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m glad Stephen Paddock, Hitler, and Osama bin Laden are dead. Had he been captured instead of killed, I would have supported the death penalty. But when you believe in hell and have a vague concept of eternity, it isn’t something you’d wish on anybody. A friend of mine claims he went to hell and came back after being shot in the head with an Uzi, and he was just an innocent bystander, minding his own business when he got shot. If hell is half as bad as he described, nobody will want to go there.

My mind is clouded by doubts, and disturbing thoughts. The only words of wisdom that seem appropriate at the moment for us to ponder come from someone much smarter, more loving, and forgiving than I could ever be:

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Those were the last words of Jesus, just before he died on the cross. For our sins.

Las Vegas-Style Shootings Are Impossible To Prevent

A day after the Las Vegas massacre, pundits and political activists are out in force. Gun control activists are pushing their agenda while others are arguing for a hidden conspiracy. The one thing that most people have missed about the shooting is how easy it was to carry out and how difficult it would be to prevent similar attacks.

Stephen Paddock presents a problem for both sides of the gun debate. He purchased his guns legally in spite of waiting periods and background checks, but even stricter gun laws won’t prevent killers from getting weapons. Guns, both legal and illegal, are plentiful in the United States and relatively easy to obtain. Stephen Paddock had no criminal record and there was no reason to prevent him from legally purchasing a gun. The same cannot be said of the gangbangers of Chicago who, despite criminal records, also seem to have no trouble finding guns.

Paddock avoided security by avoiding the concert venue which likely had metal detectors and building a sniper’s nest in his hotel room at the Mandalay Bay casino across the street. Paddock likely smuggled his arsenal into the building in suitcases or golf bags. A frequent traveler myself, I have never seen a single hotel with metal detectors or luggage screening of any sort. Why would they? It isn’t illegal to have a legally owned gun in your hotel room (subject to state and local laws).

From the right, the traditional answer of more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits would not have made a difference in Las Vegas. Paddock was shooting with a high-powered rifle from across the street on the 32nd floor of a high-rise hotel. Pistols in the hands of concert-goers would have been useless.

From the left, no gun control laws under consideration would have prevented the massacre. Paddock passed background checks because he had no criminal record or history of mental illness. His large arsenal was accumulated over months or years at stores in several different states so waiting periods would not have made a difference. Gun-free zones just move the violence to other areas.

In fact, no law other than a total ban of guns in private hands would have prevented the shooting. The number of illegal guns used in crimes indicates that even a ban would not go far enough. Since thousands of guns that are already in private hands, confiscation would be required to prevent those guns from falling into the wrong hands. Such a policy is not only unconstitutional, it is politically impossible and unworkable from a practical standpoint, requiring the diversion of thousands of law enforcement officers from their current duties to tracking down and seizing guns from law-abiding citizens.

A total gun ban would not even necessarily have prevented Paddock from killing scores of people. In 2016, a man driving a stolen truck killed 85 people in Nice, France. In 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb.

Lone gunmen with no prior criminal history are notoriously difficult to defend against. I was working in the northern Virginia area in 2002 as the DC Sniper murders were taking place. The sniper, John Muhammad concealed himself in the trunk of Chevrolet Caprice and eventually killed 17 people and wounded 10. The entire Washington area was petrified. People were afraid to go outside for even long enough to pump gas.

Afterward, I thought that the strategy would be an easy one for Islamic terrorists or others to adopt. If Al Qaeda or Islamic State sent a few hundred followers across the country with locally purchased guns to shoot up shopping malls, concerts, movie theaters, parks and restaurants at random, the United States would be paralyzed in short order. Such attacks are impossible to prevent in a free society. The killer will ultimately be killed himself, but if suicide or martyrdom is the shooter’s ultimate goal, death is not a deterrent.

New laws and rules could make it more difficult for the Stephen Paddocks of the world to go on murderous rampages. The question is how many rights we are willing to surrender and how many inconveniences we are willing to endure. Do we, as a nation, want to scrap the Second Amendment and undergo TSA screenings every time we check into a hotel? For most of us, the answer is no.

The fundamental problem with mass killings is the existence of evil and the depravity of the human heart. Evil cannot be legislated out of existence no matter how hard we try. We just have to deal with the evil-doers as best we can.