5024 Gun control blather

Monday, October 12, 2015

I don't understand why there's so much talk about gun control at a federal level.  That's absolutely unconstitutional, but not for the reasons people think. 

When the second amendment was written, the states very much considered themselves individual entities.  You know, that "states' rights" thing?  They each had their own government.  They were jealous of any power another state might have, and that's why the District of Columbia was created.  They didn't want to be completely subservient to a federal government, and that's why many of them insisted on the first ten amendments before they would ratify the new constitution.  It was to be a union of states for purposes of defense, trade, major projects and the like, not a homogeneous country with counties or departments, like England or France or whatever.  That's why the name is The United States, not just Columbia or something.

The individual states figured they had a right to self-defense, defense from any internal or external threat, whether it be natives, another land-grabbing state, another country, or even the federal government, so they had a right to maintain their own defenders.  States had their own militias.  Look at the military companies fighting in the Civil War.  They fought under the union or confederate banner, but each company carried the name of their state.  They were members of their state militias.

So a state is constitutionally allowed to have and maintain their own "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".  That's what it says.  It's plain English and doesn't even need interpretation.  It refers to a state (not referring to the federal "state", but to a state as understood then) and its need for defense.  A state can define a militia in any way they want.  I don't understand why so many people are confused by the "well regulated militia" words in the amendment.  It simply means that states are allowed to arm themselves, the federal government can't mess with that, and the states are allowed to define who makes up that militia and how it's regulated.  The militia  can even consist of every person in the state capable of wielding a club, and at one time, in many states, it was.  And the state can regulate that militia any way its people decide.

That means if a state decides everyone in the state with a gun is a member of the militia, they can regulate it any way the people of that state decide.

So gun control is a states' issue, not a federal issue.  And the states have every right to regulate guns.

Now that's all well and good and pretty clear.  But after the Civil War, in a series of confusing and contradictory decisions, the SCOTUS redefined it as an individual right that even the states can't infringe upon, and that's when it got all messed up.

The Feds were pretty bummed by the whole Civil War thing.  The general consensus was that this "states' rights" stuff was a load of crap and had to be stomped a bit.  Maybe the states needed to be reminded who's boss.

Sigh.

I also hold an unpopular opinion on the Civil War.  

My opinion is that the southern states had every right to secede from the union.  The federal government was dead wrong to use force to stop them.  That doesn't mean I in any way agree with their reasons for secession, just that I believe they had every right to leave the club if they wanted to.  I don't believe the original intent of forming a union was to create a national homeowners' association where the only way to get out is to emigrate or die.  Do you suppose that if the northeastern states knew that once they joined the union, they could never ever get out, that they would have joined?  Nah.  We'd have a country called New England up there in that corner.  Those folks were fiercely independent.  They'd want the right to take their ball and go home if they had to, to maintain that independence. 

The states need some way to control the arrogance of the federal government.  Threat of secession is the most drastic option, but other means are built in.  Note that it's not the people who elect federal officials, it's the states.  The state legislatures actually control who gets elected to federal offices, and it was designed that way.  The Electoral College, for example, is very unpopular, but getting rid of it will weaken states' rights and give more power to the Federal government.  States are (or perhaps were) not even required to hold general elections for federal offices.  They just do it to gauge the preferences of their populace so they don't have a mob burning down the state capitol buildings.

You can take this all as blather, but I hope maybe someone will think about it.
.

3663 Civics Test

Friday, November 16, 2012

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see."

--  Arthur Schopenhauer  --

------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a civics test.  It's not supposed to be easy.  There are 33 multiple-choice questions, and it should take maybe 10 minutes or less, depending on how long you think. Some answers can be figured out by logic, even if you are unfamiliar with the topic.

The website reports that average score is 49% and college professors average about 55%.  People who had been elected to public office scored lower than average, but it was a small sample and they hadn't asked what public office, so there's no information as to whether they were U.S. senators or local dogcatchers.

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3B47-9675-41E0-9CF3-072BB31E2692

Please take it, leave a comment with your score, and note which question(s) you missed.

DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS ON THIS POST BEFORE TAKING THE TEST!
.

3320 A cure for poverty?

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
-- Archilochus --

-------------------------------------------------------

Low income families eat high fat, high sugar foods because they're cheaper than fresh, more healthy foods. A lot cheaper.

So some lawmakers have come up with a solution - a way to wean people off the bad stuff and force people to eat healthier foods. They want to tax the hell out of fast foods, sodas, junk food. Make them so expensive that poor people can't afford to eat bad stuff, can't take that choice as the easy way to save money. Save the state lots of money in health care costs. One guy on the news this morning was actually comparing it to the war on tobacco - that ridiculous taxes got people to quit when they couldn't afford it any more.

Uh, I don't understand.

Isn't the theory that they can't afford the healthy stuff, so that's why they eat the bad stuff? No to mention that when you have two jobs, there isn't a lot of time for shopping, chopping, and cooking. So the solution is to ensure that they can't afford any food? If it works like the tobacco thing, will they quit eating?

Actually, I suspect the lawmakers don't understand.

(Although if all the low income families starve to death, yeah, I guess that would save on medical costs.... Maybe this is the new "War on Poverty".)
.