Second Amendment - Topic 3

 2nd Amendment, Militias - Topic 3

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 post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Topic 3 is today's subject, the meaning of the word "Militia."

Was the use of the term "Militia" in reference to (1) the need some day to fight off a foreign attack (keeping the War of Independence in mind); (2) the right of each of the (United) states to do the same against each other; or (3) the need for state(s) to rebel against Federal government?

(1) One of the backbones of America and one of its greatest points of pride is how disparate people banded together to free themselves from British oppression. Despite the superior British experience, they lost as we all know and America was born. That was almost 250 years ago. Since then The United States of America has shown her strength to the world by uniting those very peoples whenever needed especially to go to other countries and fight with allies against common enemies. The notion of having to fight off an intruder on a moments notice with self-armed militias is not realistic today.

In fact if America were to have another internal or civil war there is a very good chance other great nations like China or Russia would take advantage while she is down to attack if they were ever going to do so. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" is a fact of history.

Since that War of Independence the need for the ultimate armed forces has become even more important but not using whatever you have in your basement, garage, or pickup truck. Therefore it seems at least to me that state militias to defend America are an obsolete notion. Maintaining superior national armed forces is surely the best defense.

(2) and (3) If the "Militia" was to permit one state to wage actual war with another or to overthrow a central government (with a weaker militia?) then again I say in today's world America would be doomed. This could have happened on January 6, 2021. Thank God Federal and loyal state forces ("militias" if you prefer) fended off an internal attack - and that is exactly what it was.

Therefore any use of militias in any of the scenarios mentioned above would likely spell doom for the country. Is this why the amendment was created? I hardly think so.

One more observation: where in The Constitution does it say or was it ever intended that if one group or another in the world's model democracy disliked the result of an election or what any politician stood for, the unhappy party should grab some "arms" and proceed to hang or shoot those politicians? Is THAT what the amendment was for? Once again - NOT!

So ironically, this leaves the most popular argument in favor of Americans owning guns - personal protection. When your read the amendment (See 1st paragraph, above) personal protection is not even mentioned nor can I see how it is implied.

It is difficult to come up with a good analogy. Perhaps this is like forming a group of volunteer firefighters for a remote area. If they are granted the right to use a flashing light and a siren on their private vehicle it would be for the occasional need to rush to very rare fires. It would never be intended to get to your regular job on time if you were late. This would be like using firearms for personal use, not that of being a member of a militia.

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment - Topic 2

 

 2nd Amendment, Federal or State - Topic 2

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 post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Topic 2 is today's subject, the nature and purpose of the arms themselves.

In dictionaries I consulted arms and weapons reference each other. They appear to be synonyms. Both can include objects or devices used to fight, harm, overpower or even kill another being or living thing. In that sense even other species possess weapons. Weapons evolved over time from natural sticks and stones to those shaped or rendered to be more effective. We have all heard of arrows, knives, slingshots, spears, swords, lances, clubs, and even other tools like axes and pitchforks being used in both defensive and offensive manners. Humans alone have continually perfected our weapons and the means to mass-produce them. We are discussing human weapons today.

During the times of the second amendment common weapons were single shot flintlocks, muskets and cannons. In battle there were also swords, knives, and spears. Nobody could have possibly anticipated modern weaponry including tanks, machine guns, automatic pistols and assault weapons capable of tearing a body to pieces in mere seconds.

In any calm rational setting, it seems to most outside America and many inside, that these kinds of weapons were never intended for personal protection of family and property. For purposes of international war and defending ones country - with arms and militias, the opposite is true.

Many argue that the second amendment does not list arms that you can't possess or things you can not do with them - therefore anything goes. I do not subscribe to this. It is not stated that five year old kids can't bear arms and shoot their friends but similar things have happened. Also not prohibited is the ownership of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead parked in your drive - ditto for an F18 or other fighter jet.

I am being pedantic because the authors of the 2nd Amendment assumed a certain degree of common sense on the part of governments and citizens. To many of us that appears to have been a false assumption. If anything in the previous paragraph seems to be "obvious", then where do you draw the line between what the authors intended and what not?

In the American system of government the courts are the final decision makers but on major issues associated with this topic they have opted out.

One tactic which I suggest is to approach the USE of arms covered by the amendment. As stated above this is also not defined so no rights would be infringed upon. Some laws address this such as robbing a bank using a weapon especially when people are injured or killed. Surely this can be expanded for other personal use of firearms. Associated with this would be prohibiting criminals who have been found guilty of previous crimes using weapons and those with known mental disabilities (to be defined). Would the authors of the amendment have objected?

How can anyone say it is OK for someone who knocks on a door for directions or who enters a house by mistake to be shot dead? In some states all the owner has to do is say they felt threatened or that they felt that their space was invaded. I don't have the answer but many people are elected and paid big bucks to come up with such answers or compromises. There is one of the biggest problems. Gun owners don't want to compromise.

Once again this will be discussed further in my final post on the Second Amendment. Please feel free to leave comments.

#thebrewsterblock

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

Pardon Me Mr. President

Time to Reconsider Presidential Pardons

Isn't it time for the whole idea of Presidential pardons to be re-examined? The alleged request from Matt Gaetz for a blanket pardon from Donald Trump is just the most recent example of the potential abuse of such a tradition. Thankfully it was not granted. Look at Trump's other pardons for more examples. 

His approach to pardons resembled his tossing MAGA hats out to a crowd. He pardoned friends and allies. Thankfully he did not attempt one for himself. He is not the first President to abuse this power - far from it.

There is certainly a place for such a last chance option in the system. The problem is giving this absolute power to one person. It was intended to right what were generally accepted as injustices, especially when a party had served a substantial percentage of their sentence. The idea is to give an otherwise deserving or remorseful person a second chance at some form of normal life again, when many years have already been lost.

So what constitutes an abuse of this power by a President? Here are some examples in my opinion. Pardons for:

1. Himself/herself
2. Members of his/her own family (to be defined) 
3. Cases in which he/she or any party, group, company, or association stands to benefit financially or in any other material way from the pardon
4. Cases where it can be proven that the President already received a benefit as outlined in 2, above.
5. Cases which have not yet been tried in a court of law. 

Here are some recommendations, even if changes to the Constitution are required:

1. The pardon is invalid and can be reversed when it is proven that a President only agreed to the pardon because of physical threat or duress
2. At present a list is compiled for the President's consideration which would remain. The President may add to or remove from the list. 
3. This list must then be reviewed by a small, special committee of current congressional representatives or senators from any official party. There must be at least one member from each party and its representatives are appointed by Congress. There would be an even number of people on this committee and a simple majority would be needed. The President could only vote to break a tie. 
4. The granting of such pardons would occur every two years. There would be a maximum number on each list (10? 20?). This allows those who might have been waiting a long time more opportunities for consideration
5. A list of the most egregious crimes (updateable) would not ever qualify for pardons. This list would have to pass in both Congress and the Senate.
6. If for any reason a President has to be replaced then any existing list must remain in place before the new President acts on any other new pardon list.
7. If the pardon involves an entire class of people such as draft dodgers then it would only count as one pardon
8. A guilty verdict must have been found before any pardon can be granted. Accusations do not qualify

These changes will not be easy. At present the process can make a mockery out of an otherwise decent system of government and justice.

Pardon me for bringing up the issue. I'm sure many others brought up after DJT's long list. Some of his predecessors' lists were shorter but just as wrong.

#thebrewsterblock

Easter Parade in America

Sing like Bing (Crosby)

This time of year you are liable to hear a classic oldie which - perhaps - even young folk know. This is the White Christmas of Easter - Easter Parade (written by Irving Berlin). Someone changed the original lyrics to a be more suitable for the current political environment.

In my red Trump bonnet, with "MAGA" written on it,

I thought I'd be The Lady of the Easter Parade.

Who's that wench in navy? With that blonde hair so wavy?

And what does "BBB" mean in my Easter Parade?

On the avenue, Penn' Avenue, when photographers do snap us

That brat will scat when I show her my Uzi

I believe The Big Lie, so where is Trump our Big Guy?

And why are all these guardsmen in my Easter Parade?

In the next election, there'll be a big correction,

We'll whoop these left wing Commies and their social charade.

Look around you lady. Your own State votes are shady.

And soon there'll be just whites folks at the Easter Parade.

Not so fast lass. Hold your ass. Voters Rights Act will trump Trump

And you'll find that you're up the creek in manure.

When The Donald's locked up, we'll see how bad he screwed up,

Then red and blue can hold hands at the Easter Parade.

#thebrewsterblock

Somewhere Over the American Rainbow

The Dreams That You Care To Dream Really Don't Come True

Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

There's a land that was once so free before the Big Lie.

It was served by two parties, red and blue,

And the dreams that they all did dream now will not come true.

Won't waste my wish upon a star 

Up where ideals and truth are far behind me. 

Where honor melts and pledges drop

And lies are broadcast from the top

That's where I find me.

There's a Statue of Freedom, way up high

And The Statue of Liberty both now wear a sigh.

They once stood tall and made us strong

Now there's no rainbow, what_the_hell_went_wrong??

#thebrewsterblock

 

Georgia on my Mind - and Everyone Else's

Georgia Not So Sweet After All

There is no logical or reasonable explanation for Georgia and its governor signing SB202. He says it will make it easier to vote and hard to cheat - RIGHT (extreme right)! If you believe that I am not parking my sleigh on YOUR roof next year.

Replacing the secretary of state as chair of the state election board? Remove and replace ANY election official for poor performance? Photo ID in order to vote is reasonable except you can bet your bottom dollar that if you are black or not white enough, hell will freeze over before you get that ID for the next election. What is next? Even with a valid ID your name is conveniently not present on the local voting list when you do show up to cast your ballot? That would be easy to do - clerical error naturally but still delay your vote until it is too late.

Since it is now published, just read the first page. If an election is not going the way they want it to go, the government can effectively replace, terminate, introduce, restrict etc., etc. anything and anyone they want. They say that they are fixing problems. The word is correct - FIX. The FIX is now in for sure.

Amazing! After spreading the Big Lie about the last election being rigged, they are now trying to publicly rig all future elections in Georgia. This is like all of the umpires calling a time out, and meeting in center field during a ball game to change the rules themselves in favour of the home team.

As some have already said, this is the GOP choosing the electorate it wants to vote instead of the citizens choosing who they want to run their government. It must be overturned.

It is time to call in world bodies to monitor and oversee American Presidential elections. Perhaps it should be Russia, China, or The Philippines.

#thebrewsterblock

I Love You - is it Overused?

I Love You, a Much Diluted Phrase

Many people will disagree with me on this but that is what writing opinions is all about. Take "I love you". Love in its true sense is not yet taxable or forbidden (but who knows what the future holds?) and that is to be celebrated for sure. But what does LOVE really mean? THAT is the question.

Is it really just me and my generation - baby boomers - or has the phrase "I love you" or the more common "Love you" become just an automatic and almost compulsory utterance? In my family none of us felt unloved (2 brothers and a sister) while at home. The hard work and sacrifice on the part of my parents to give us a decent life - the best they could - went hand in hand with family love. I don't recall any frequent "I love yous"  but also didn't feel deprived since my friends' families were similar.

Today I hear the phrase everywhere and every day from almost everyone. People can't leave home or hang up the phone without saying it. Preponderance of phones is probably a factor here adding to the frequency but it seems now like nothing more than "See you"; "Bye". Just like "How's it going?" and "How are you?" - you don't really want to hear someone tell you how they are for ten minutes. It is simply a traditional greeting. In the same way "I love you" has become both traditional and expected.

I am not criticizing here - if those who follow the practice feel that their family is better off for it so be it. Good for them.

To me however, it begs the question what is left for expressing special feelings for that very special person - often your physical partner - if you say the same thing to everybody else? Do they merit "I really love you?" "Double love you?" As well the word is used in everyday language way too often. My wife watches many designer / renovation shows. Every day I overhear "I just love that colour!"; "I love that lampshade!"; "I just love that toilet!"

In the heat of passion with the speaker if I were to hear "I love you" or "I love it when you do that" I would have to wonder "Yeah but more than the toilet" I heard you admiring this morning?

I think we need new expressions for those moments. Keep the "I love you" for departures and hang-ups but let's have something better for the warm glow of cuddling after lovemaking. Any suggestions?

Maybe you should just say "Oh by the way, I bought you that lamp!" and hand it over while you are both still in the mood! Save the toilet for something REALLY special!

#thebrewsterblock