Philosophy Politics Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

A Response in Refutation of the Cited Story On The Second Amendment

I’d just like to say that this person’s arguments in the listed article, are the very definition of clueless for the most part.

By way of example, they talk about the idea of “well regulated” as though it was intended to discuss gun ownership, not the militia. Well regulated was intended to describe the militia, not the ownership of guns. The fact is, many of the founders lived in places where things like hunting game were standard activities that allow for their very survival. That being true, they saw not one reason to talk about that in the amendment in question. Had they done so, would that have weakened or strengthened arguments for gun ownership? The answer seems to me obvious.

The second obvious error never occurs to most folks who make it, because they refuse to read anything but The U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

That would be that the idea of the Second Amendment was somehow related to things like personal protection against thieves and murderers or hunting. That’s not to say the Founders would have been against such things, just that they intentionally chose not to talk about the in the Second Amendment.

Looking at other writings made by the U.S. Founders and others, it was put in place for no such thing. Rather, it was to protect individuals from government.

As to the idea that such an intent means that no definition of treason could or should exist. I can scarcely imagine a more ridiculous argument. Why? No country doesn’t have a definition of treason. To be clear, the United States could be said (and would have been said at the time) to have been started by men committing treason against “Crown and Country” of England.

The Declaration of Independence lays out with clear intent, the types of infractions committed by the king at the time, that made the “break” necessary and intentional.

Further, you have to assume the Founders were schizophrenic to say this was not the case. As has been said, they intentionally and with aforethought, penned statements to this effect (as to to the purpose of the Second Amendment).

One of the things that makes that insignificant to big government folks, is that they LIKE government being in control of things. For those of us that support small government–particularly on a federal level, but in general as well–part of the reason is that government tends to run roughshod over the people for whom it is intended to work, the bigger and more powerful it becomes.

Another error would be the assumption that the reason more subsequent amendments have not been passed in recent years is related to the number of folks in Congress or anything of that sort. Anyone thinking about this for just a moment would realize that as a document matures, the likelihood is high that it will need less and less modification. This is particularly the case when a document is well crafted.

You think the quartering of soldiers in private domiciles is “not a big deal?” You might change your mind, had that amendment not “changed the rules” to make it impermissible. That it stands is a sign that it was so significant that the founders wanted it there–to keep that from EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.

One of the more amazing things about The U.S. Constitution is how very short it is. Was that an accident? By no means! It was entirely intentional. Many would argue that many subsequent amendments were actually a bad idea.

Looking for a good example? Look no further than the 17th Amendment!

Just as with the Electoral College, the Constitution’s initial and well considered intent, was a bicameral Congress in which the people and the individual states would “share power.” It was never intended that the people would elect all representatives. This is—as I’ve said—a similar measure to Electoral College, which makes it so electors have the final say in a presidential election, not the people. This too, was an intentional and considered act, making it so states with large populations would not be able to dictate to states with smaller populations how they would “do business.”

Had the U.S. Federal Government stayed small (as was intended by a large part of the Founders), this would not have been an issue. States would have been able to decide for themselves on many issues, since the Federal Government would have had little to no say in those matters.

Okay, don’t want to get caught up in that ridiculousness. On to the next false premise. The idea that if murder were legal, it would result in a hugely greater numbers of murders is equally (and equally hilariously) false. And before you ask, no, I cannot “prove it.” I can tell you that when you have a society with strong moral standards, laws mean little to them, but that doesn’t prove the aforesaid is the case.

What we can show though, is that the vast majority of gun crime in the United States, is committed by people who are otherwise criminal in their behavior, and mostly with illegal weapons. When people legally possess weapons, they tend to be careful to ensure they are not used in criminal acts. More often than not, if a tragedy happens as a result of somebody legally owning a weapon, it is the result of a toddler or someone with mental incapacity finding and accidentally discharging that weapon. In some cases, at the very least, it would be entirely reasonable in many folks’ eyes, to charge a person leaving such a weapon in a place where such folks could get at it with negligence (if not something more serious). The only reason this doesn’t happen more, is that the person is generally devastated by the effects of his or her mistake.

As to discussion of the age of the Bill of Rights being a “tricky thing”, that would be like arguing that nobody could have enough foresight, nor intentionally refuse to discuss things about which changes matter in a document as well laid out (by the article writer’s admission) as the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Let’s be clear about something. At this point in my life, if a blanket prohibition on guns in the U.S. were to magically occur, I would have zero to worry about. Why? Because I own no guns. As such, it could easily be argued that I have, “No dog in the fight.” Even so, I staunchly support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Third, I might add).

As a final thought, permit me to say that absolutely nothing said in the article referenced is outside the realm of easy answers.

Okay, as with pretty much all of my blog posts, this one is beginning to run long.  As such, permit me to wish you a good day, and thank you for reading.

Original article inspiring this post:

Business For LinkedIn Health and Fitness Philosophy Politics Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

So this is Fifty Four

I hope it’s true for everybody, age aside, that they learn a little more—become a little wiser and a little bit more able to deal with their respective world—on a daily basis.

I’ve never been one to celebrate my own birthday, and I’m not intending to “break that trend” today. Rather than throwing confetti or worrying over cake and candles (I’ll leave the for others to “do for me” if they so choose), I would like to take a moment or two, to reflect on some of the things I’ve gleaned from my meager (in terms of time) existence on the Big Ball o’ Dirt.

Perhaps one of the most important things that has come out in my recent history, has been the recognition of the significance of tenacity. Don’t get me wrong, I have been telling people literally for years of the importance of being tenacious.

In fact, one of my favorite pearls of wisdom for younger folks is something along the lines of, “Where I prefer people who are both tenacious and intelligent, of the two, I count tenacity to be more weighty.” And I’m fully apprised that I’m by no means the first to express that sentiment (my eldest brother has said it himself—granted in different language).

This point has been driven home to me in a huge way, when dealing with my little boy.

I’ve been a parent for more than thirty years now, but nothing in my previous parenting experience prepared me for dealing with my youngest (five year old) son.

Don’t get me wrong, every child is a new experience with new facets and “features of landscape” to consider. That being said, my experience with Garrett (again, my youngest), has given me some twists and turns that I never could or would have expected. That’s not to say that I wasn’t aware they existed, just that I never thought I would have to deal with any of them directly.

You see, where I’ve never seen an “official diagnosis” on Garrett, it’s very obvious that he’s “not like other children” in some regards.

He started out much like any other baby boy, only to “veer off the standard trail” when he hit about eighteen months. I know a bunch of folks out there know pretty well what I’m saying here, having likely gone through similar situations and experiences.

Where he was “verbal,” it was seriously questionable what level of loquatiousness our little boy would ever attain. And that was just the beginning. Would he have an intelligence level past that which is considered rudimentary? What other concerns might there be?

My attitude was “keep trying,” and thankfully, those around me concurred.

We’re by no means “out of the woods.” It’s possible that Garrett may never get to the place of being able to  live on his own and take care of himself (though I think it highly likely he will do so at this point). This I can say with certainty though, we will never stop trying to get him to the best possible place.

The thing about all of this is, it reinforces in my mind the attitude that says, “keep at it!”

Funnily, that point of view has “spilled over into” other areas of my existence as well.

About four years ago, I found myself out of a job. How that all came about is a long story, and one for another time.

What I will tell you is that I had a wealth of experience that I didn’t know was “in my arsenal.” The result was that when folks approached me about a new position, I “undersold” myself.

That mistake ended up costing my a couple of year’s time. Don’t misunderstand, valuable things came out of that set of experiences. Even so, I found myself performing at a higher level than would have been expected based on the position I occupied.

As is often the case, the people for whom I was working “took advantage” of the situation, and kept me in a lower position, even though they could easily have hired me into one commensurate with my skill set.

I continued to work with them in good faith until somebody came along and offered me a position that felt like a “stretch” for me.

Looking at that position, the money was better, the title was a little more than I thought I could manage, the work site was way closer to home and there were some other benefits I won’t get into here.

I moved to that position with a great deal of trepidation.

It turns out that I needn’t have worried myself. I’m not saying no aspects of the job were challenging. I’m not telling you I didn’t have to stretch—to learn things that were new, different and difficult. What I am saying is that I was “up for the challenge.” And I like to think I managed pretty well at that position.

That job has since “finished.” The company I was supporting lost their contract, which put me out of work. So I went “on the hunt” yet again.

Well another opportunity presented itself and it “felt like” the “next level.” This time I realized that there will always be challenges to be dealt with, no matter where you are. So I jumped at the position.

Maybe I will find there are issues that make it needful or worthwhile for me to move on at some point, but I certainly don’t see that being the case at present.

Yet again, my point? My experience allowed me to move on both times. If anything was going to hold me back it would be a lack of tenacity. That’s an important realization.

A lot of life is about just living the day-to-day. A bunch of what we do is get up and get about the normal business of the day. Thing is, sometimes challenges arise, and we must decide how to handle them. Will I wrestle with the challenge and figure it out, or will I give up and let it defeat me?

As for me, I’m more likely every day to take the challenge and see where it leads. I may “win” I may “lose,” but if I lose, it won’t be for want of trying.

Okay, as is often the case, I have run out of time and overrun my self-imposed “word count limitation.” That being true, even though there was more I would have loved to take the time to discuss, it’ll have to wait for another day, and another article.

As usual, allow me to wish you the best of days and thank you—yet again, gentle reader—for taking the time to get this far.