The Second Amendment Myth: But You Didn't Say I Couldn't

The question remains: what rights do we have when it comes to firearms?

Just because the Second Amendment doesn't implicitly protect an individual's right to posses a slingshot, does that mean we can't have a revolver or even an M60?

My father fought for justice and truth his whole life. He is the greatest example of a libertarian I know. He sacrificed his family, life, career, and spiritual future for what he felt was right. He believed in the rights of the individual. He believed that we didn't need a right to bear Arms. He was of the mindset that if the Constitution didn't expressly prohibit it, it was fair-game. To say he hated the Bill of Rights was an understatement. The very problem with the Bill of Rights is that by expressing them in writing, you limit them to what is written. He felt that all of us had every single right not expressly prohibited by the Constitution and to express any right was to limit that right to a convoluted definition. So according to my old man, unless legal decree or precedence limits the rights of an individual to possess an Abrams tank, one has the right to said vehicle, of course only in light of one being able to lawfully obtain one. And that's the rub.

Even in this current malaise of a Second-Amendment miscue, one does not have the right to an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) but one does have the right to an assault-rifle, endless ammo, body armor, and plenty of chemicals to make many bombs of many types. The threat isn't about the instrument but the degree. What level of access to what kinds of weaponry do we, as the People, want to prohibit and permit to whom and why? Do we want to live in a society like Australia where only the police are entrusted with weapons more deadly than a rifles? Are we ready to end this horrific violence and get real? Listen to Australia; they are a wonderful example of getting it right, right after the tragedy. They didn't wait for another. Of course, they didn't have the NRA to deal with either.

Why does the NRA fight this? Why else? Cash. It's pathetic. There is no Constitutional reason why hunters and sportsman cannot enjoy their tiny hand-cannons but the NRA makes their mint pretending the myth is under threat. Laws exist to regulate dangerous situations. Not everyone can simply build a skyscraper. There are permits and certifications required to erect a structure that might collapse on people. And as we regulate the privilege of driving a metal box at speeds and forces capable of creating significant destruction, guns will eventual be regulated to the point they no longer pose this crippling threat. Why? It's Constitutional. My old man constantly reiterated the language's clarity: Militias are a body of the State, not the definition of an individual. 

Second Amendment Myth: The Made Myth

No one hunts with a Ruger or a MAC-10. So what changed the NRA into this toxic advocate for increasing availability of the killing-wand? Manufacturing invaded this loose network of enthusiasts. Today, they insure access by the unwashed-masses to the weapons of mass-murder remains at an insane level. They have become a serious domestic threat to the US by reinforcing this common, Constitutional misconception. Their myth kills people, many suicidal. There is nothing wrong with the idea that not everyone can be entrusted to operate a car, let alone a Desert Eagle.

The Second Amendment is very short and difficult to understand. I had the privilege of a lawyer for a father who argued before a state supreme court. He helped me understand that the phrase, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,' means States have the sovereign right to defend their land by creating a fighting-force, forged from the populace without interference from the Federal Government. So far, it doesn't appear any State's right to create said Militia has been infringed upon in any way, shape, or form. The National Guard expresses the State's right to a well-regulated Militia. As far as I can see, that particular institution is under no Constitutional threat.

My father taught me: the idea that the Founders intended access to military-style weapons by the Citizenry is ridiculous. Unless you're an active member of (let me say this again) the State's well-regulated Militia, the only thing the Founders had in mind was the basic idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (originally property, as in the right to own what you create). If you needed to hunt in order to eat and make a living, by all means, use the tool of the rifle. If you feel threatened, there are many measures short of a semi-automatic. One has the right to privacy and protection but one has no Constitutional Right to a Glock-19.

On the other hand, no on has a Constitutional Right to a Ferrari either but some of us have one because some of us can. So get over it. You, mister or lady American, have no Constitutional Right to a device, capable of launching a projectile beyond the speed of sound into any unsuspecting, darling, little girl anymore than anyone has the right to rip rubber in a fine machine. The Supreme Court has often got the big issues wrong before it gets them right. My father's words are clear: the myth of an individual’s Constitutional Right to bear Arms will fade with passing generations.

Second Amendment Myth: The Myth Maker

The individual right of the Second Amendment Myth spawns from a single, deadly, resourceful, political source: the river of funding that is the NRA. It has misconstrued the meaning by chopping off the first thirteen words, leaving the final fourteen,

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Originally, the NRA (National Rifle Association) existed to raise awareness of gun safety and general sportsmanship among the common folk. It's not the NGA (Gun) or the NWA (Weapon) for a reason. We're talking rifles. It started with a bunch of concerned hunters. They'd teach some basic skills to the uneducated masses, tramping a noisy, messy path through their prized, pristine forests. The seed of their intention was the simple notion of not getting shot by some idiot, recklessly sporting their first rifle. The NRA was a grassroots, educational program sponsored by real people. Why was the NRA created? Because rifles are deadly in the hands of the ignorant.

They were once safety advocates; but now?

The most powerful industry lobby in the world;

they own the GOP;

they're a cooperation

with the proverbial finger on the trigger.

And they keep pulling it.

Ironically the hero of the GOP, Ronald Reagan, was a victim of this very instrument, lying at the base of this party's foundation. A member of the GOP cannot hold office without a favorable NRA rating. This lobby has twisted the fundamental right of self-preservation into the Constitutional Right of a Militia. People don't have the right to carry a gun because the NRA or the Second Amendment says so. People have the right to carry a gun because the States decide they will allow the Citizenry to arm themselves with guns because guns are an effective tool. But are they always useful? Statistically, they do more harm than good. It's hypocritical that pro-life people so often support death with such fervor. Fact: no Citizen has the right to bear Arms; Arms are for armies.

There is no Constitutional prohibition of acquiring the implements to protect one's family. The government's not coming for your guns. No one's saying you can't have an alarm-system or even a shotgun. The sacrosanct boarder of the household is a Constitutional Right. This amendment addresses the sacrosanct boarder of the State. But neither the NRA nor the individual has the right to decide AK-47s are on the list of approved weaponry; only States do. Why not a claymore or a sound-cannon? There's a line. As a society, we must face the limits of access. Surly, no one believes I have a the right to an Apache helicopter. We must answer the question: what is reasonable? Do we the People set terms or will we still stomach NRA profits leading our way? If the GOP cannot take the initiative to return the NRA to it's roots, eventually the rising death-toll will.

We will change.

The only remaining question:

How many of us must die to make it so?

Second Amendment Myth: The Myth

The Second Amendment:

'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.'

Note: the CDC (Center for Disease Control) is legally barred from studying the effects of firearms upon the American population– really GOP? This means the US Government has no more idea of the mental health implications of gun violence than anyone else. There are no numbers. No one knows exactly how many people were shot dead last year in the US. There's no precise database, no standard– only estimates. Beyond working towards a day when the numbers are finally seen and studied, we have no other choice but to look outside of the US for clues.

“It's not access to guns; it's an issue of mental health.”

Every time I hear this, I cringe. It's both. Generally in countries with restrictive guns rights (at the very least on par with driving a car), gun-related mass-murder by the populace is not the daily occurrence it's becoming in the US. In modern societies with the most limited rights like Japan, these events are rare if ever. Australia is a wonderful example of how removing weapons of useless violence after one of these incidences drastically reduces these incidences. It is not about removing tools that happen to be guns but addressing access to weapons of mass-murder and mental health. How much of an arsenal does one require to protect one's self from lunatics?

Access to Arms by the US Citizenry as a Constitutional Right is a lie, in fact a very lucrative myth. Nowhere in the Constitution are individuals given the right have a gun. It is the right of the people (everyone in every State) that the States are given an implied directive to create a well regulated Militia (the words are capitalized for a reason; although this is not the ratified version of the amendment, it exists in the National Archives as the original version passed by Congress, handwritten by William Lambert). The Second Amendment gives this and only this Militia the right to keep and bear Arms because a well regulated body (and I'm going to hammer the point here: only the Militia is bestowed with the right to keep and bear Arms) is 'necessary to the security of a free State.'

And when it comes to regulation, 'regulated' is the third word of the amendment. Furthermore, the word 'gun' or 'rifle' or the phrase, 'just enough explosive to blow this tree-root apart,' cannot be found in any corner of the Constitution. Arms are strictly tools of war, created to defend the State from enemies, both foreign and domestic. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with Cousin Skeeter duck hunting with a hunting rifle. The Second Amendment is about securing a free State. Arms include everything from a knife to a Cruise missile. Just about everyone can have a knife but no one can have a Cruise missile. Missiles are for governments; States are governments with a Constitutional right to keep and bear Arms. The term 'Arms' clearly applies to States, not individuals like you and me.

Why does the Constitution create Militias? Think about it: they're the touchstone of American freedom. The Revolution was a bunch of independent, community-based actors coming together to win. When this document was written, America had no cash to finance a standing army. But we had skills and an effective model. We succeeded in the face of an overwhelming invasion by stitching together a cluster of militias into an effective army at a moments notice.

The Second Amendment's sole purpose insures a ready-force, willing to act in the face of an external threat to the freedom of any State; the only individual here is the State. This amendment does not provide citizens ready-access to an arsenal of mass-murder. Only the State's Militia has the right to these instruments of destruction. In truth, this amendment's brevity is matched only by its genius: it provided our newborn country with a relatively affordable, standing army, comprised of people like you and me, supplied, and trained by the State to bear these Arms for our collective security.   

$ Strategies: the Keep

I plug every hole I see but sometimes there are holes I cannot; so, I take the extreme measure of building a credit-keep: an impenetrable fortress of security, buried deep in my fortified city.

Credit-rating agencies are the keepers of the rivers of commerce; credit flows. By default, our credit is open. With the right information, signatures, verifications, and paperwork credit lines are established through these three agencies. What does Identity Theft really mean? Money. I define Identity Theft as the moment someone has convinced these agencies that they are me. If someone is slick enough to slide the right information past the right sentinels of commerce, these agencies will have no choice but to accept the debt on our behalf. The trick is to dismiss the guards and close the gate.

And there are many guards, many for-profit companies eager to provide the monitoring necessary to protect your open credit. For a monthly fee, they will scan the universe for intruders. But is this money well-spent? In a word, 'no.' You will pay these agencies to protect you from something that you can do much better for yourself at a minimal cost with a maximum benefit. For anyone willing to put a little effort into their financial health, credit-monitoring is a scam. How? Simple: a credit-lock.

Let me say that this solution is not for everyone, all of the time. That said, this solution is for anyone willing to fortify their credit. But it requires work and discipline. You must open and close your credit with planning and intention. It also costs money, not much but some. It's easy to use, and secures us against the greatest risk: unknown, unauthorized credit lines. The process is relatively simple. You sign up at each of the agencies. You request a lock on your credit, pay the fee, and create a password. Then, when you want to open your credit for some perspective creditor to view, you create a temporary lift of the lock and pay that same fee again. This means that if you want to open a new credit-card, buy a house, or a car, you will have to plan for it.

Although it takes effort, a credit-lock insures our exposure is vastly limited. Having to intentionally use our credit means we considered new lines more closely. I highly recommend it. Then again, if new lines of credit is critical to your long-term business strategy, maybe this isn't for you. In that case, you could do worse than to pay the right people to monitor your credit. But come on, if you're wealthy enough to be opening and closing accounts regularly, you've got people whose sole job is to take care of that. The effort it takes to live with a credit-lock is how the rest of us remain bulletproof.

Donald Chump Treasure

The basic question when it comes to 'The Donald' and his run is whether the Office fits. Please.

His candidacy has always been about the luxurious nature of his candidacy. His singular message encompasses many traditional GOP points of view, including the Putinesque strongman image of the 'Doer.' Doesn't matter the problem, he knows the guy. The Donald gets it done. For every question, he has no other answer: the Donald's a Doer. He loves everyone, everyone loves him, and he knows what's best. The shinny, golden, god-like level of the Chump's narcissism is not run-of-the-mill.

No, it's the best, most classy, luxurious, highest quality in Town. He sets the bar.

Although there would be no greater Democratic gift than his nomination, Donald's Treasure is for the GOP. His candidacy represents an opportunity to pivot. Over the next year, the bashing of the Chump's 19^th century's views will allow this party to redefine itself and finally join the 21^st century. The Donald raises many issues worth discussing: immigration, healthcare, women's rights, and the legitimacy of Obama's “official birth-certificate.” Okay, not the last one; that's more of an example of this pivot-point. The value of The Donald is the distance the GOP can run from him. This distance is directly proportional to their remaining relevance. Run Republicans run.

Why is he so popular right now? Because it's right now. Activists are the only ones engaged at this point and they love him. Let's hope more than the GOP candidates challenge his message. What would be really nice is if the other side seizes this opportunity for real dialogue. Then both sides can come together for a single purpose:

Pile-on the Chump!

May the truth of this Treasure be the moment the GOP has a real conversation with the American People.

Their failure insures their status as the inevitable third-party.

$ Strategies: The Fortified City of Wealth

The best financial defense is your effort: spend time; remain alert, proactive; monitor exposure. Keeping the avenues of commerce open while avoiding obstruction is a balancing act. As Sun-Tzu might say, 'though a general does not lose, it does not mean he wins.' Victory does not simply come from a good offense but requires a solid defense. Sun-Tzu warns the invader to consider the great cost when attacking a fortified city. Financially speaking, we can vastly limit our exposure and create that fortified city of wealth.

A simple example of a great defensive habit is to log-out. Why should I make the effort if the system will automatically deactivate access to my account after being idle for a specific interval? Fair point. For the most part, that protects most of us most of the time. If being secure most of the time is good enough for you, then why worry? For me, I'm concerned about those moments when automation fails. I close each secure session every time. The second a system is hacked sufficiently, all open accounts become targets. Anyone with the bad luck of being connected to a breached system's core runs the risk of exposure. During this time, the system's security will find it challenging to detect your absence when the hackers raid and manipulate your information. Because you did n

ot log-out, their activity appears as your activity. It takes so little effort to click the link. That's why it's there. Use it.

A tight ship does not leak. Any hard-copy with my personal data is stored or burned. Period. One thing we control is what comes out of our homes. We can toss our junk mail out; we can be lazy and fail to go through it. On the other hand, we can imagine the many pieces to the Identity Theft puzzle. Junk-mail constitutes a few. Credit-card offers are a prize, like a game-piece ready for play. Denying any single avenue makes theft difficult for thieves; denying all of them makes it impossible for anyone. I choose to burn; others prefer to shred. Ashes, when scattered, are not as easily reconstituted as bits of paper. Maybe some alien, quantum magic exist out there where spread ashes can be reincarnated. I guess I'll take my chances. What I am not willing to take a chance on is shredding.

Of course, large-scale shredding that is directly recycled is perfectly safe for industry. But it's different when it comes to my limited, personal information. I plug every hole I see.