Second Amendment - Topic 1

 2nd Amendment, Federal or State - Topic 1

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.

In my last post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to U.S. The Constitution. Topic 1 is today's subject

.

Does this amendment target the individual states, the Feds, or the citizen?

The purpose of this amendment and why it was proposed is open to interpretation. No-one is living who was around when it was written. It is perhaps deliberately vague - somewhat like The Bible or any religious book. 

One predominant thought is that it was intended to allow citizens of individual states to fight a tyrannical Federal government. Does "militia" mean only groups such as armies and national guards have the right to bear the arms or does each individual have this right either for personal protection or to form their own "militias?"

Another issue is whether the original intent was to prevent the Feds from banning or granting the right to bear arms. Many think it was to permit only the States to grant or restrict this right.

Looking at other countries it seems to make sense that the most powerful army should be a national one if it is the country that needs defending. National governments will generally have the most funding, international contacts, and be most aware of world events. In fact many other countries do not have provincial or state militias, just police forces to enforce municipal, state, and federal laws.

The notion of having a standing army complete with weapons at home might have had merit long ago but with today's communications and satellites it is hard to imagine a surprise attack on the USA. Having guns at home as a national defense strategy to counter such an attack is a stretch.

The idea of entrenching the right to form discreet militias precisely to overthrow their own national government seems contrary to any notion of a nation. That's like giving cigarettes to people but asking them not to light them. Similarly if the idea was that one state might want to go to war with another, what kind of nation is that?

Having the right to personal protection with a gun has some merit given the American gun culture mentioned in the first article. However protection as in your person and family does not justify weapons of war at home or on the streets.

I will return to these topics in my final post where some suggestions will be offered and solicited. This was just some food for thought.

The next in this series will address types of weaponry.

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment

 An Old Favorite with Every American and Many Others

Many people have waded into this swamp and been bitten by alligators or at least been astonished by the number and size of them! It is even more controversial for non-Americans to discuss. I am Canadian but just as those passionately in favour of gun ownership have their rights, the entire world population has a right to hold its own opinions including their experiences with no such right to "bear" arms.

So I will discuss this in a series of posts attempting the whole time to respect all opinions and not to "lecture". The fact remains there are many Americans who are actually against the current status quo and who want at lease reasonable change. There are also many who do not.

To begin with a Google search for Second Amendment produces the following:

"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."

Lawyers, politicians, and private citizens have written and shouted volumes on this topic. What I have read tends to fall into these areas of controversy:

1. Application at the Federal vs. State levels

2. The nature and purpose of the Arms themselves

3. Whether "Militia" was in reference to the need some day to fight off a foreign attack keeping the War of Independence in mind or the right of each of the (United) states to do the same against each other, or the Federal government

4. Whether there are any classes of citizens for whom such a right should be infringed upon or denied such as known criminals who have used guns to break the law, or those with mental problems

5. Whether the right should not apply to some areas such as The District of Columbia, other government buildings, schools, hospitals.

6. Who should have the right to sell arms and weapons and whether this right should be regulated

Those alone suggest how this can be so controversial. I am not a lawyer but neither are most of the citizens who argue their right to bear any and all types of arms.

In future posts I will address each of these. Today let's look at another phenomenon. The topic in America has morphed into a mentality - almost a religion.

Many protagonists argue quite correctly that this is such a part of American culture it will never change. The Dodge City shootout scenario is ingrained. Guns make the man. They have guns so I have to have guns. The biggest and best gun wins! It is sad but true. I can think of no other country where people think like this. To others, that does not make it right, just unique - extremely unique. How do citizens in other countries enjoy their peaceful environments without carrying guns?

Many other democracies experience violence between political parties and religions just mentioning two but seldom are guns involved. Italy comes to mind - they change governments like seasons but don't bring out the guns and battle it out in the streets. There is one exception. One group with Italian origins that now exists in many countries is the Mob or organized crime. Surely this is an example of what can go wrong with gun availability. The drug trade is another.

Only organized police and military forces have taken on such groups and succeeded - not individual citizens with guns. To me this is an argument in favour of proper authorities having the guns, not criminals.

So there is an introduction. I look forward to continuing the topic.

#thebrewsterblock

 

And the Presidential #Oscar goes to...

What traits would make the Best #President?

What do the people - ALL of the people - want in a president (or a Prime Minister or any state leader)? I can see why Trump appealed to many people and to the shock of many, beat Hillary Clinton. I have stated this many times. People wanted a change from predictable, political Washington - all talk and no action. Trump with all his insults and lofty claims appealed to those against status quo Washington. Donald J. was just the wrong agent of change.

Many pondered people like Oprah Winfrey or a well known sports person. Once upon a time it was Lee Iacocca - a respected business leader who had turned around the misfortunes of Chrysler and made the Ford Mustang famous. He would have been far better than Trump whose claims were all phony. The problem with all of these is lack of traditional public leadership - knowing your way around Washington. Shaking up the establishment did not go well for Trump in the end. It will take a while to retire the old guard but many of them must go.

How about these traits for starters and I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions as candidates:

1. Honesty. It is sad but in their personal lives not many people practice this although they want it in their leaders. Let's face it - they are paid by and spend the money of the taxpayers.
2. One of us. It would be nice to know that a President did indeed come from common folk and not from a privileged family. Many like Biden talk about their parents being commoners and hard workers - true but ideally the candidate himself/herself has gotten their own hands dirty and had to do without. Middle class is probably right.
3. Youth. Part of the problem with "the establishment" is age. Many young voters now want to be heard. They do not have any bias against minorities whatever the type. This is a fact of life today and the best leader has to accept it.
4. Transparency. This is always a fancy buzz word but the top gun needs to constantly let the people know what's going on.
5. Management skills. This is one that many of the past lawyer types lacked and most corporate executives should possess. However a corporate figure needs a well-known stellar reputation of being liked and respected by the firm's employees and the business community.
6. Sense of Humor. This is not vital but it certainly helps. They must be both firm and light hearted at the appropriate times.
7. Great speaking skills. This is very important. When speaking they must exude confidence. The language does not have to be eloquent - in fact speaking at the level of the majority of the electorate is key. Speaking clearly and without double speak or spin is a true skill. Obama was a great example.
8. Neutral. Another tough one but I believe a candidate who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat is just what the doctor ordered - independent. Politically it would be extremely unlikely given the rules are stacked against this but so were they against Obama. This would make existing parties shape up.
9. Tough. Always necessary. There will be times when this is needed both at home and abroad.
10. Pro-military. America has to be strong militarily or it is doomed. The latest weaponry both offensive and defensive are must haves. The leader must be known to support this but should never use it to strike first. Deterrence to others is the key.
11. Team Leadership. POTUS is just too big a job for one person - Trump is a good negative example. A great President has to delegate to trusted colleagues and be capable of letting them do their job. As well, such people must toe the line or be fired if they make huge mistakes or disobey.
12. Finally cool. Charisma is a winner. Obama was cool. Clinton was cool. Reagan at times, was cool. I am Canadian. Pierre Trudeau was cool. People who do not follow politics relate to cool.

Does such a person exist? Does anyone have at least the majority of these characteristics? I'd like to see some of your ideal candidates and traits in comments.

#thebrewsterblock