Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Gun rights and the constitution. #MakeAmericaSmartAgain
It was written in September 1787, and wasn't ratified (ie adopted by the states via a vote) until almost a year later, in June 1788.
And then they set about amending it. The first set of 12 amendments were submitted in September of 1789 (a year after the constitution was ratified), and 10 of them made it through the process to become the "bill of rights;" these were finally ratified around 2 years later in December 1791.
The thing is that the founding fathers knew that the document would need to evolve, and they'd have to adjust it to keep up with the times via the amendment process. Hence why the first group was a bill of rights - they wanted to set forth the guidelines for how the citizens of the nation would be treated.
Those 10 amendments in short are:
1. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press. - the idea was to allow free expression so all would be welcome to take part and we could essentially keep ourselves in check.
2. Bearing arms. - this is the most debated amendment. Essentially it allowed for militiamen (those serving the country before there was a standing army) to be able to defend it, owing to the British still very much interested in the America's. And perhaps more importantly, it was a nod to slave owners in the south; they would be able to use arms as a means to protect their "investments"
3. Ensuring that private residences wouldn't be commandeered by the government - this happened at times during the revolution and was a legitimate concern
4. Illegal search and seizure. - another way to be sure that individuals have a right to privacy, and prevents against the government overreaching
5. Certain legalities like double jeopardy, grand juries, due process and so forth. - and more about how citizens were to be treated.
6. Right to a fair and speedy trial - another way to bestow on citizens the ability to not be treated unfairly.
7. Trial by jury - yet more legal information to ensure blind justice.
8. Fines, bail, and cruel & unusual punishment. - this aims to protect citizens from their government doing anything to cause undue expenses.
9. Unenumerated; Ensures that other rights are bestowed on the citizens.
And 10. Federalism so that the federal government works for the people and ensures states maintain some power.
Since that time, 11,500 amendments have been proposed. But only 17 more actually were ratified.
The large number of possible changes reflect that this country can and should evolve its document over time. And the fact that only 17 were ratified shows just how hard it is. Let's take a peek at the others.
11. States can't be sued by someone from out of state (1795)
12. President & VP elected together (1804)
13. Abolition (1865)
14. Citizenship, equal protection (states treated equally) (1868)
15. Allows blacks the right to vote (1870)
16. Income tax and apportionment (1913)
17. Senator election by popular vote (1913)
18. Prohibition (1919)
19. Suffragette (women's right to vote) (1920)
20. Presidential terms (1933)
21. Prohibition repeal (1933)
22. Presidential term limits (1951)
23. DC receives electoral votes (1961)
24. Prohibiting poll tax (1964)
25. Presidential succession (1967)
26. 18 year old voting age (1971)
And 27. Congressional salary (1992 though to be fair it was in effect starting in 1789, it was never ratified)
So there you have it. A living and breathing document that has evolved with the times. It was altered to eliminate slavery, allow people to vote, not allow a president to serve 4 terms after teddy roosevelt, change succession after Kennedy's assassination, and to prohibit alcohol and reinstate it.
So anyone who tells you the constitution can't be changed is lying.
And that brings us back to the 2nd amendment. It's so stuck in time. We have a standing army. We don't have slavery. And surely not even the most forward thinking person could have ever imagined a weapon like an assault rifle.
It's time to consider a 28th amendment that more clearly defines what weapons may be owned and perhaps that it need to be registered and the owner has specific requirements to keep it.
C'mon man. Do you really think a few guns would fend off an actual army? That's just folly. So why do you need to protect yourself against *that*?
I'm sure folks in 1919 never in their wildest dreams would have thought they couldn't have beer or whiskey. Yet congress did it anyway. And then they changed it again.
Monday, February 26, 2018
What America is getting wrong about three important words in the Second Amendment – Quartz
On Wednesday night, CNN hosted a town hall about gun violence with members of the community of Parkland, Florida, which only a week earlier had experienced a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Seventeen students and teachers lost their lives.
The town hall was remarkable in many ways, not least for a question asked by the school's history teacher, Diane Wolk Rogers, about a portion of the US Constitution's Second Amendment from 1791, which 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."
"What is your definition of a 'well-regulated militia,' as stated in the Second Amendment?" Rogers asked Dana Loesch, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association (NRA). "And using supporting detail, explain to me how an 18-year-old with a military rifle is well-regulated? And the world, our country, our nation, is going to grade your answer."
Loesch responded: "George Mason was one of the founding fathers, and he said 'The militia is the whole of the people.' It's every man, it's every woman, that is who the militia is. In the context of the time, a well-regulated militia meant an American man, an American woman, a citizen of the United States of America, who could operate and service their firearm."
If she were taking a history exam, Loesch's response would likely have scored an F.
Mason, a Virginia politician and anti-Federalist, was one of only three delegates to the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 to refuse to sign the Constitution. He authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which later served as an influence for the United States Bill of Rights—and it was during the debates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, where many of the ideas for the Bill of Rights would be generated, that he spoke the words Loesch used in her answer.
Loesch's intent, in using this particular quote, was likely to show that one of America's founding fathers, who provided inspiration for the Bill of Rights itself, believed that every person in the country had the right to own a gun, and that owning and operating a gun made them part of the militia. Therefore, as part of the militia, their right to own guns cannot be infringed.
But Mason's quote doesn't just mean something different "in the context of the time." It means something entirely different in the context of the actual, complete quote. Loesch's misreading, deliberate or otherwise, not only undermines the grounds on which she and the NRA base their definition of a "well-regulated militia" and who belongs to it, but subverts her authority to speak to what the Founding Fathers intention was in creating the Second Amendment.
Here is George Mason's quote in full, as recorded in the transcripts of the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people."
If this seems a tad different than what Loesch was trying to say—that the Second Amendment means that all gun owners are part of the "militia"—that's because it is.
Mason's statement at the Virginia Ratifying Convention was a criticism of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which gave Congress the power "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia." Mason's fear was that if Congress had this power, they would decide to only conscript the poor into service. Not an unreasonable fear, mind you, given the way most wars have gone. It is often the poor fighting and dying, while the rich enlist in champagne units or sit at home tending to their "bone spurs."
In this speech, Mason also voiced his concern that a government that is too small and too far away from the people it represents would result in representatives having no "fellow-feeling for the people." He feared that they would then inflict "ignominious punishments and heavy fines" on those who chose not to participate in the militia, or exempt people in their own class from service. He thus proposed a clause "exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature."
Given the fact that women were rarely permitted to serve in state militias in a fighting capacity at that time, it is also highly unlikely that Mason considered them part of it. No one was that progressive at the time.
Mason's speech was about class, it was about military service, it was about the power of the United States government to require military service. It had absolutely nothing to do with an individual right to own assault rifles simply because you feel like owning an assault rifle. Even if you believe in an individual right to own guns, even if you believe that is what the Second Amendment guarantees, it is clear that this particular quote was not about that.
Despite this, this quote has long been a favorite of the NRA and those advocating against gun control. The most common variation—one notably used by former US attorney general John Ashcroft in a letter to the NRA assuring them of his belief in an individual right to bear arms —is, in fact, an amalgamation of this quote and an entirely different thing Mason said two days before.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people… To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Mason's words, when read like this, seem like a perfect and romantic validation of everything the NRA believes in—that not only does the Constitution provide a bulwark against gun control, but that the very reason the Second Amendment gives them this right is for the purpose of keeping a tyrannical government at bay. This is why it shows up so often on message boards and lists of quotes meant to prove this point. When Loesch quoted Mason, she likely knew that many of her fellow gun enthusiasts would fill in the blanks with the rest of the "quote" themselves. It was meant to perk up the ears of those who believe that the true purpose of the Second Amendment is to give gun owners the ability to overthrow the government if necessary, that this is what the Founding Fathers intended.
The second part of the "quote," however, literally refers to a state militia, organized for the defense of the nation, not people owning guns for fun and sport:
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. […] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural armed strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use."
This, again, is very, very different from the way the cobbled-together "quote" used by Ashcroft and others makes it sound. Mason was not talking about taking guns that people purchased themselves away, but rather about not providing them with arms, training and discipline, as is necessary for a military unit to function. It is fair to say that, were the government to get involved with the "training and discipline" of everyone in the country who owns a gun, the NRA would have a pretty big problem with it.
Mason may well have believed in a personal right to arms outside the function of a militia, he may have even believed that the right to have arms in order to overthrow the government. That is not at all what he was talking about in either of these quotes—or, frankly, in anything else he wrote or has been quoted as saying.
It is important to know that, at the time the constitution was signed, there was significant opposition to having a standing army, and state militias were supposed to fill that gap. The state, in turn, was supposed to arm and train them. They were there to suppress insurrections—specifically slave insurrections and anti-tax insurrections like the Whiskey Rebellion, and to fight Native Americanswho, god forbid, wanted to continue living where they were living—not to start them. From the second Military Act of 1792 until the establishment of the National Guard in 1904, all "free, able-bodied white male citizens" were conscripted into state militias and were required to fight at the behest of the government. So yes—guns for certain individuals. But individuals that were trained and disciplined, and not all that free.
Dana Loesch is, of course, free to believe what she believes. She can believe everyone and their four-year-old child should have a gun. She can believe that all people should be considered part of the militia—hell, she can believe all people should be considered part of the cast of Beatlemania!, or the Olympic luge team. The NRA and John Ashcroft are entitled to believe what they believe. However, when you can't defend your belief without taking quotes entirely out of context, disregarding their original intent and history, you may want to consider how successful your argument is in the first place.
Robyn Pennacchia is a freelance writer based in Chicago, IL. You can follow her on twitter at @RobynElyse.
#MakeAmericaSmartAgain - the earth is round, not flat!
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Russian influence...
Rosentsteins reading of the indictments was also interesting, because his words were measured and talked about *this* indictment, specifically.
A couple of quick thoughts:
* it was made clear that this was an effort to promote trump, and denigrate any opponent.
* in an effort to continually help trump, stein was promoted
* to further sow discord, there were rallies to both promote and oppose trump
* money changed hands to fund this effort
And that's where the one "common criminal" from the US comes in. This guy was facilitating the money transfers, setting up accounts, committing fraud against the banking industry. Was he a witting accomplice, or simply just making a buck? We don't know, and it kind of doesn't matter.
But he did help make this happen, and has already agreed to a plea deal...which also would lead one to believe there's more.
This, in and of itself, is not an indicator of collusion with the trump campaign. But it's weird how trump and his allies immediately seized on this to say they were vindicated. Which they were not.
There's a distinction between being exonerated or the evidence being exculpatory (meaning it favors the accused), and saying that this indictment in and of itself doesn't show collusion. It may sound the same, or at least similar, but words have a legal meaning.
Trump himself says that because this started in 2014, before he "decided to run," it means nothing. Except that there are tweets to and from trump that say he might run as early as 2012; and some from Russian nationals that are more specific in 2014. Oh, and by the way, trump trademarked "make America great again" in 2012. Seems that an astute lawyer could use that against him.
And then, I went down the rabbit hole. I decided to read more about all of this. I did discover that one thing most people can agree on is that mueller and team aren't done.
On the one hand, you have some liberal-leaning folks looking at the connections between trump and Russia which are essentially unrelated to this. Like Rybolovlev, one particular oligarch, who purchased property from trump way over market value, and who just happened to follow trump around during the campaign (and after) according to his flight logs. Or a host of others who invested in or were connected "as friends" to the trump family that seem to be more like business partners.
Naturally, most of them think trump will ultimately be swept up in this, and mueller is just building a case.
On the right-leaning side, the view is different. Vast conspiracy theories with "deep state" and a corrupt fbi component. They look back to Hillary and her ties to Russia as Secretary of State, and the uranium deal, along with donations to her charity....I read more than one post where they see it as Hillary having colluded with Russia, but it went awry because trump was just that awesome!
And for some, it will be Hillary who will be swept up in the probe because she was behind it all. And Obama too, because he was aware of it and complicit or did nothing....or....something.
As far as the election, the indictment points out that a part of the effort was to reach undecided voters and sway them to cast their vote for Jill Stein. And if you look at the vote totals in some of the "surprise" states that trump won, you see that he did win by around the same number of votes as the Stein voters. Coincidence? Could be. Or this could be an indicator of something.
As they say "if you want to get to the truth, follow the money" which seems to be exactly what mueller is doing.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Word soup, semantics, and terrorism
But the one that gets me is "terrorism." The latest school shooter, and really anyone should be labeled as a domestic terrorist. Full stop.
But the word police have a problem with that because the definition of terrorism literally is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
They ask what a persons political aim is if they are a white person, and a US citizen. Unlike some brown skinned foreigner boogeyman type who is set out to do harm.
Political aim is loosely defined as supporting ones ideology, and more specifically it relates to the state, government, the body politic, public administration, policy-making, etc.... involved in, or relating to government policy-making as distinguished from administration or law.
Isn't that what the "make America great again" Mantra all about? Then, isn't one who supports it trying to achieve a political aim?
Stop hiding behind words. Stop trying to downplay the shooter as a lone wolf, or a troubled youth. He was a terrorist bent on his own ideology. Who cares how he got there, where he came from, or what he looks like....he's a monster who murdered children.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
An open letter to Marco Rubio on gun control
And why? Because politicians like you seem to think its okay for everyone to have an assault rifle. Assault. It says what it is, and what its used for right in the name. How can there be any debate that these weapons are used for anything other than killing other humans?
Its absurd that you, and others like you, take money from the NRA and other groups to promote the gun culture. And that you stand there and say we need more border security, or immigration reform because the boogey man might come and get us from across the seas.
No this is a problem of our own making. We need to address the problem of home grown terrorism. Of people who want to harm fellow Americans. To harm our children.
We need to make this country a safer place for our kids and grandkids. We can't let these monsters win, and throw up our hands and say "nothing we can do, sorry second amendment." And then offer up stupid talking points and thoughts and prayers for those who were massacred. Stop using pejorative terms to describe these acts of violence.
It needs to stop. And it needs to stop now. More mental services. Some sensible legislation. Don't tell me there's nothing you can do. That's total garbage. While this one may not have directly impacted you, it surely impacted someone you know - since Parkland is part of South Florida.
Don't stand on the sidelines. Make this country better. Sensible gun control now.