On Guns in America, Part 2.....

I am using this blog entry to highlight my delight over something I read recently which should (but probably won't) put to rest the definition of "well regulated", as in "well regulated militia" in the 2nd 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.

For those in opposition to the natural right for you and me to keep and bear arms for any reason we see fit, particularly for purposes of defense of self, defense of family, defense of community, etc., the #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 excuses used to prevent the possession of any firearm often comes down to the perceived definition behind "well regulated". In today's environment, "well regulated" tends to elicit thoughts of a governmental body at any level imposing a preventative measure of some kind (legislative, regulatory, judicial, etc.) to the ownership of, operation of, ingestion of, etc. anything the body deems necessary to reduce or eliminate said ownership of, operation of, ingestion of, etc.

These measures are maybe best exemplified by soda taxes, plastic bag bans, cigarette taxes among countless more. Perhaps those seeking to impose a preventative measure on gun ownership in America most often attempt to use the "well regulated" qualification when debating why the Founders supposedly meant only those trained by the state, or local municipality, in which they live with the state/municipality providing not only official military maneuvers training but especially the weaponry associated with it; basically what we might label an organized militia, of course.

On the surface, using the contemporary definition of "regulated", and inserting "well" before it, understandably evokes the belief the Founders must have meant a governmental body of some sort imposing a restriction on the ownership/use of firearms outside official militia use in the defense of, or training for the defense of, a US state or municipality. Herein lies the problem(s) with such a belief:

First: since the Bill of Rights, in which the 2nd Amendment exists, expressly prohibits the Federal government from exercising any power over the States, counties, cities, towns, hamlets and individuals NOT specifically enumerated in the first ten amendments, with the 10th Amendment making this stipulation abundantly clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", how logical is it for the Founders to have empowered the Federal government, even state and local governments, to enact limits on the ownership of the very items the Founders expected all able-bodied citizens of the country to use in defense against a possible domestic tyranny, let alone the defense against a foreign armed threat? The aforementioned "items" I reference can include none other than firearms!

The second problem with the misinterpretation of "well regulated" is, in my opinion, the most enlightening example of the definition of a word or phrase changing over time. I use the following text to highlight the contextual use of "well regulated" abundantly surrounding the time frame of our Constitution's writing:

Finally, The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." (other docs say “Major”) 
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." 
.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Logical comprehension of the text above requires any and all efforts to insist "well regulated militia" means anything close to the restrictive explanation anti-2A advocates regularly employ is a white-hot lie, to put it plainly. There can be no alternative outcome upon reading these historically contextual examples. To further strengthen the case against the anti-2A movement, the historical record, by way of the words of the Founders and others of the day, make undeniably clear the intention of the 2nd Amendment and who was expected to possess and bear arms and why:

• "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
• "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
• The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)
• "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
• "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
• "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
• "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

In summary, the more I research the historical context of the 2nd Amendment, the more it becomes clear those who played a part in its drafting, debating, final inclusion and ratification meant for all able-bodied citizens of the country to not only posses but also physically bear firearms as they saw fit.

The ultimate "What if...?" in American history

I love, love, love history, even more than Nine Inch Nails. It fascinates me to no end, especially American history. I am not sure if somebody favoring the left side of American politics (especially the further left they lean) can truly be as enamored of American history as somebody who leans right. I say this because, as I see it, our early American history is solidly built upon modern conservative values and traditions whereas modern liberalism/progressivism/statism/leftism poo-poos what our Founders valued as necessary for a successful early formation of our country. I will actually expand on those thoughts in a future post but the purpose of this one is to highlight a date in history which hardly anybody would think to name as crucial to the existence of the United States as the world knows her today. That date is July 28, 1588. See why it is crucially important below:

Born to Hate.... but opened his eyes

I absolutely adore the vast majority of the dozens of Prager University videos and will be posting numerous ones over time but this is certainly one of my favorites. It highlights a British man of Pakistani descent who was conditioned to hate only Jews and anybody who might support them, wherever they may be. As he developed into a mature Muslim, he felt his devotion to Islam and his teachings meant he needed to travel to Pakistan to join a jihadist group in order to prove his deep hatred for all things non-Muslim. Before his departure, he stumbled upon a pro-Israel book and was intellectually curious enough to read it with at least a somewhat open mind. Still full of hate, he was determined to travel to Israel to prove Jews were everything he was trained to believe. What he found was anything but a nation full of hateful, intolerant and divisive people dedicated to world dominance, but especially the eternally oppressed Palestinians. He found what he had been taught for over two decades was patently false and is now an outspoken advocate for Israel and Jews worldwide.

Here is a 2012 article about Kasim Hafeez which sheds more light on his experience.

Gender Pay Gap, Really?

From President Obama on down to grade-school students, there is a narrative flourishing across the country (primarily on the left side of the political aisle) which posits a gender pay gap exists on the order of about 23% or so.

If true, the obvious question becomes: Why would employers hire any men if women were available to fulfill any given position if it meant saving 20+% of what is often the greatest business expense employers have? Which CEO would not embrace that hiring practice?

Here is an awesome video showing just how bogus the "pay gap" truly is and why anybody who insists there is rampant economic sexism in the workplace is not to be trusted, especially after researching the facts.

Voter ID: Who favors it, and why?

I can only speak for myself on this issue and this is what my argument comes down to:

Besides the physical act of voting, what other action can any human perform which is of greater consequence for your future, your family's future, your neighbor's future, your community's future, your city's future, your state's future and your nation's future?

With your vote being such a powerfully and uniquely consequential act, why should you not have to prove you are the one and only human on the planet allowed to cast a vote in your name for who/whatever candidate, proposition, initiative, judge, etc. you alone feel is most beneficial for you, your family, your neighborhood, your city, your state and/or your nation? How better to prove you are you than presenting a valid state-issued photo ID at a polling station? This deeply personal and consequential decision could have repercussions for many years, decades/lifetime even, so why should this most obvious of obvious reasons be debated?

On a wider scale, Gallup conducted a 2016 poll on voting preferences (early voting, ID requirements and automatic voter registration) and the results certainly speak volumes:

I was focusing on the photo ID requirement angle in this post and even large majorities of Democrats and non-whites favor this sensible action but an important question posed by Gallup dealt with early voting. In my research, I found as many as 13 states either do not allow early voting at all or only allow valid in-person absentee excuses for early voting. What I find most interesting about this is the fury unleashed by Democrats against states who do allow early voting but decide to reduce either the number of early voting locations, number of days to early vote and/or the times of day a given early polling location is left open. Normally, the excuses given for any of these adjustments is financially driven but said fury is directed at accusations of voter suppression and all the other usual complaints by Democrats. My point is this: where is the fury against the 13 states which only allow specific reasons for voting early or, more importantly, do not allow any early voting whatsoever?

Here is a video I like to share with anybody who believes blacks cannot be allowed to be inconvenienced under the guise of voter suppression:

Unintended Consequences

If there was ever a situation where political "unintended consequences" played out, perhaps this takes the cake..... I wondered for years what might be the most consequential outcome for the Democratic Party's decades of increasingly intolerant and rabid support for abortion and I guess Trump's win was the most demonstrable outcome yet to materialize.

Since Hillary lost her second (and last?) chance at the White House due to a relative handful of votes going for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, this article's author did some number-crunching and found it quite possibly came down to the aborted babies making the difference between a Hillary win and a Trump win. Of course, this is impossible to prove but it sure is an interesting take on why/how Trump won.

The Left's Own Goal

Applied to Wisconsin, that means that in the 25 years under consideration, abortion providers can be projected to have eliminated 151,740 black, 80,085 Hispanic, and 155,955 white potential voters.

If they had shown up at the polls in November and followed national polling averages regarding candidates and racial preferences, 88% of the blacks would have voted for Hillary and 8% for Trump, 65% of the Hispanics would have voted for Hillary and 29% for Trump, and 58% of the whites would have voted for Trump compared to 37% for Hillary.

In other words, had those babies been protected rather than aborted, had they all shown up to vote (admittedly a stretch) and if national patterns of abortion by race and voting by race held true, Trump would have netted an additional total of about 125,000 black, white and Hispanic voters to add to his 2016 total. Hillary would have gained a net of just shy of 243,000 additional black, white and Hispanic voters.

Added to their respective vote totals of November (1,409,467 Trump vs. 1,382,210 Hillary) Clinton would have carried Wisconsin by a total of 1,625,201 to 1,534,467, or more than 90,000 votes.

If the same scenario is applied to Trump’s narrow wins in states like Michigan or Pennsylvania, where the percentage of black and Hispanic voters is considerably higher than in Wisconsin, the conclusion is inescapable: The Democrats themselves, in their role as the obedient legislative lapdogs of Planned Parenthood, pursued policies that aborted Hillary out of ‘her shot’ at the White House. By successfully producing in the United States one of the world’s most inhumane and unregulated systems of abortion law, they ensured the success of their opponents.

New NIN - This Isn't the Place

Here is my favorite cut from NIN's latest release: