Unconstitutional Action Vs Justice Garland

“The Senate shall advise and consent…”

Elections create change. When we change something, it’s not the same. The Senate has a Constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent when the President fulfills the duty of the Executive Office by proposing a Supreme Court Justice Nominee. There’s no mention of when they must act, only that they must act (that pesky legal term ‘shall’). The President nominates and the Senate votes. The coming election changes the Senate. Without a timely hearing and vote, Mitch sets precedent by intentionally violating his Constitutional directive to advise and consent. Mitch’s power over the Senate (his ability to violate the Constitution, AKA a high crime– in the vernacular, a crime from on-high) is a direct result of the very election (2014) he invalidates by requiring another (2016) before the Constitutional duty of the Senate is preformed, a duty he may not be privileged to oversee in his current capacity.

Why is hypocrisy not among the seven deadly sins? Remember Mitch, Karma’s a bitch.

The GOP’s in a self-destructive spiral. Their chaotic Presidential field illuminates their prejudice, stemming from a single, specific, point of view. Women, atheists, climate change, the LGBT community, minorities, inequality, immigrants, and everyone not like them are not only the “other” but the enemy. This narrow-minded, grossly inefficient, horribly costly, and ultimately unsustainable methodology holds on for dear life. This limbic, reptilian, devout culture faces extinction. The GOP is in denial over the death of a renowned standard-bearer, their late Supreme Court Justice.

After the elections, it’ll be no different. They’ll be angry. Then they’ll bargain. But depression and acceptance? Come on, this is the GOP. Not gonna’ happen. Their pathology is their inflexibility. They burrow like a tick, sucking the blood of the fat American– now infected with Rocky Mountain Fever. Replacing this Justice is about the future, about change and growth, adaptation and evolution– fundamental concepts they refuse to face. The GOP shatters because it will not budge– something it’s quite proud of.

“There are no atheists in foxholes.”

They love to say things like this. Elections illuminate the truth of how things work; we’re moving forward with or without them. When reason and humanity prevail, ignorance and bigotry loose value. They will find themselves in that foxhole and have yet another “coming to Jesus moment.” After Hillary’s elected, they’ll come-a-running because Obama stands by his nominee.

Will this Senate act Unconstitutionally?

Not likely.

So, I’ll warm to the idea of

Supreme Court Justice Garland.

Second Ammendment Myth: Busting the Line

Ultimately, what is the NRA peddling? Fear of the other. There is no ration reason anyone should have a weapon capable of mass-murder; there aren’t that many ‘others.’ Why a semi-automatic with tens of rounds per clip and not a small bomb? Does the method really mater? Where’s the line? The maverick, the self-contained, self-made man lies at the root of America's grotesque fascination with its past. No one is an island. What did you eat today? Did you slaughter that pig and collect those chicken's eggs? Society is about interactions. It’s human nature. Think about it. By definition, the purely independent man’s story is never heard, never known and therefore wasted. To function as a whole, individuals must care sufficiently for one another, at least on average.

We must consider the question of the line between that R in the NRA and the AK of this modern-day. What weapon is appropriate for anyone to wield? Is a taser sufficient? Should we treat this like drivers licenses with classifications? Just because there is no Constitutional Right for an individual to keep and bear arms doesn't mean guns should be removed from homes. Assault rifles, large caliber sniper rifles, explosive devices, etc. are examples of overkill. Creating well-regulated militias will allow passionate people to not only safely experience the dream of firing some of the most powerful weapons on Earth, currently beyond the reach of the common man, but will also support the common defense in a real way.

Is it the guns or the sick individuals responsible for all this tragedy? Fact: healthy people do not commit mass-murder. Fact: societies without guns do not suffer these events. It's both. Maybe the solution is both. Maybe we must allow the Citizenry to embrace weaponry to their liking but in a “well-regulated” manner. By opening up the concept of a militia, we can mix the satisfaction of blowing stuff up with the dream of being a hero, all while supporting the real heroes. By limiting the supply of deadly weapons like the AR15 and the AK47 to the military and these Constitutional militias, we drain the pool of deadly weapons, thereby forever limiting access to criminals. Eventually, remaining models will be far too expensive for casual use. Seriously, handguns and shotguns are more than enough to protect the average home; and pepper-spray is a sensible precaution for any outing. Fact: the Second Amendment is not about a well-armed populace.

That's what this is all about: arms are for armies and well-regulated militias. It's not about the government taking away one's ability to defend their property. It's about taking away that crazy couple's ability to kill a bunch of people, no matter what that phone might contain.

Tim, thanks for holding the line.

Second Amendment Myth: Constitutional Compromise

The NRA is the most successful lobby in history. But what's it all for? Moreover, is it possible to curve popular support for this radically unregulated industry by creating a new governmental program, capable of not only satisfying the populace but also exceeding their expectations? What changes might affect the breaking-news? In so many words, how can we slow things down? How can we compromise with honor?

Why do some Americans believe it's okay to live in the twenty-first century while sporting twentieth century equipment designed to kill people? One cannot own a SAW but it's okay that everyone can have the civilian-equivalent of the M16. Both are serious infantry weapons of war: arms. For now, the NRA's core issue is maintaining the sale of firearms, aka guns. But even they will not dispute the logic of denying an F-22 Raptor or a M60 to just anyone who can afford one.

For those who wish to fire a fully-automatic BAR, why not an M4 or an Abrams Tank? Here's a radical idea: let's simply give the crazies what they want; let's arm these 'freedom-fighters' with real weapons of war. How does that even make sense? A Constitutional compromise, aka well-regulated militias for everyone!

What if states create real militias with real guys and gals who are passionate about all this stuff? Imagine blasting a round from a real tank, triggering a battleship cannon, or even initiating the detonation of a large, remote bomb? Of course, only with government approval– background checked, tested proficient, and clearly labeled competent without mental compromise; like halfway joining the military (all the benefits, none of the commitment, but at a real cost).

Allowing the population formal training and regulated access to the toys of war fulfills the Founders' intent. Originally, the Second Amendment was established to create a defensive, engaged, capable, impenetrable, and vetted force of the People. Imagine if every Tom, Deshaun, Hernandez, and Fahad where invited to be trained, qualified, and allowed limited access to the experience of firing these fun-canons.

Real-life, down-to-earth, well-regulated militias help in two ways.

One: providing an outlet for all that pent-up, animal rage, stemming from the modern-day, sedentary lifestyle. Imagine the typical, human, engaged in a semi-productive, community/governmental-based activity while simultaneously venting accumulated, civilian stress via literal explosions and vigorous exercise. This will not only relieve America's waistline but focus and filter many volatile components of America's character. Think war-camps for adults; or, amazing weekends playing games with the coolest gear. All those 'enthusiasts' will explore their fantasies in new ways while sharpening their skills, experiencing discipline, mastering team communication, and feeling a sense of ownership for their freedom; in short, becoming better citizens.

Two: support for the real troops via pay to play. Want to shoot the big gun? Want to be a part-time hero? Want to bond with actual heroes? Instead of a years-long commitment to the National Guard, a minimum donation or fee to support the military assures these less-than-weekend warriors' fun not only pays for itself but also funds our Nation's defense directly, financially. Furthermore, participants will treasure their many memories of enjoying all the greatest guns America has to offer. Plus, they will have a deep and abiding knowledge that if their country every needs them to fire these weapons towards the invaders, they might actually do a good job– because after all, this won't be their first rodeo.

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.