Category Archives: 2nd Amendment
SEGMENT – “WE MUST DO SOMETHING…”
In the aftermath of Vegas, et al, the call once again becomes “We must do something.” The problem is, what is something to one person may be nothing to another, and everything to yet another. It all comes down to an understanding of what “reasonable” is. Because what is reasonable to you, may not be to me, and vice versa.
In short, other nations have gone so far as to confiscate guns from citizens. But here in the United States, that would be… problematic at best. So. for the moment, let’s play the “What If?” game. If there were a law which banned all guns, how would those who pass such a law go about enforcing it?
Reference to Constitution Thursday The Saturday Podcast Episode “I Don’t Like Monday’s”
SEGMENT – GERRYMANDERING
In Wisconsin, the State Legislature stands accused of deciding to gerrymander the whole State to favor one Political Party. Now look, this is nothing new. But it is new to have the Supreme Court take up the case and look at whether or not Gerrymandering is in the “best interests of democracy.”
Putting aside the whole “we’re not a democracy” argument for the moment, there actually is a solution to the problem that would make it more challenging (not impossible) to gerrymander, but there is no way on this green planet that the Donkeys and Elephants will ever allow it to happen…
SEGMENT – FRIENDS
A voicemail reminds me of why I love doing these podcasts and shows so very much.
This week the 4th Circuit Court, ruling en banc, ruled that a Maryland State law banning “assault weapons” is Constitutional. The Court ruled that those weapons were “military” in nature and therefore they are not covered by the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment.
Conservatives are outraged. Progressives are ecstatic. Who is correct? Is it as simple as “I am conservative therefore the Court is wrong” or “I am progressive so the Court is right?” Did the 4th really ignore the precedents of Heller and other cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment?
In order to understand the issue, one has to consider two competing syllogism and their underlying axioms:
(A) All guns are military weapons.
Ownership of military guns should be restricted to the military.
Therefore the individual ownership of all guns should be restricted.
(B) All guns are military weapons.
The Militia is a military unit.
Individual ownership of all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Remember that in order to reach a valid conclusion, the basic assumptions of the axiom must be true. If the underlying presumption is false, the logic, regardless of how brilliant, will reach an invalid conclusion.
Did the Court base its ruling in a good axiom or upon a flawed presumption?
From Cracked today, an interesting and instructive article that confirms much of what I have come to believe.
This is something that I have come to understand through my study on the ratification of the Constitution. The “real” divide in this nation isn’t rich v poor, left v right, black v white. It never has been.
It has ALWAYS been Country v City.
Even in 1788, the South Carolina State Legislature felt that they needed to “explain” the proposed Constitution to the “Country” folk, or else they would vote against ratification.
The key to really understanding this is to know that it is not about intelligence. Although it’s easy to get the impression that City folk consider Country folk to be dumb old bumpkins. Deep down, they know better, but when playing the man and not the ball, it pays to make base assumptions about the other side and then stick to those generalities, alá Bill Clinton and his “rednecks” or even Hillary and her “basket of deplorables.”
It’s just the City Elite way of saying, “those stupid people who disagree with me because they aren’t smart enough to understand.”
But keep in mind one simple fact – the Bill of Rights was put into place because of the demands of the Country folk. People who didn’t like or trust the political elites and their new-fangled Constitution. They were willing to work with it, but only if some rather remarkable and proper changes were made.
In today’s world, how often are the City Elites willing to accept those changes to protect what matters to the Country folks? Or is the attitude of today even more one of “We’ll make them understand?” Or even, as happened in 1788, just making sure that the political process ignores or bypasses those who don’t agree with the City Political Elites?
Remember as you read the article, it is written from the City Elite perspective. The author grasps the difference between the two, but is outright dismissive of the Country mindset.
You know, the mindset that produced the Bill of Rights… #thinkaboutit