The Argument to Retire the Second Amendment

My friends and critics might say that I am wasting my time by calling for the Second Amendment's repeal and the Right to Bear Arms. I am not naive and know well that many of my fellow Americans unknowledgeable about this argument's facts. They know little about their democracy and Constitution and lack competence in selecting elected representatives. Democracy is fragile, and some say that government by the people is hyperbole. 

I am forging ahead with my argument because it is one of the issues to be settled to achieve a safe republic. One of the government's principal responsibilities is to ensure citizen safety. If it isn't doing that and is failing, then the nation is on the verge of collapse. That is where America stands today because many of the gun advocates are Republicans who are on the record as being aligned with insurgency and insurrection. That political group and its followers have become the enemy within.

Gun holders and advocates want to stay armed and stocked with ammunition because they fear that their government and many citizens are out to get them. Conspiracy theories and fear of being under siege by a diverse population make many white people vulnerable to political exploitation by the wealthy elite whose numbers can never win a national election. That small sector of the population has exploited bigotry and ignorance to attract a following that harbors domestic terrorists, thugs, and criminals.

Civil society and competent government mitigate criminal and violent behavior through the justice system and homeland security. It is a system that begins with local police, state police, National Guard militias, and then the Federal system. The justice system replaced the need for people to themselves bear arms. Only when the system is deficient might there be a need to augment it with armed and deputized citizens. Invariably, people with guns must be regulated and supervised under the law.

Needed are guns for self-defense in the home is the latest argument used by advocates. That presumes:

1. The threat by home-intruders is imminent and pressing.
2. Police protection is insufficient to prevent and respond to the threat.
3. Criminals are armed, and people are vulnerable without a counterforce.

Otherwise, we must be a nation at war from within. Is that a reasonable argument? Is it one-size-fits-all?

Consider the Second Amendment's history and the context in which it was passed as a part of the Constitution.

"The framers of the U.S. Constitution undoubtedly had in mind the English allowance to "have arms" when drafting the Second Amendment. The constitutional significance of a "well regulated Militia" is well documented in English and American history from the late 17th century through the American Revolution; it was included in the Articles of Confederation (1781), the country's first Constitution, and was even noted at the Constitutional Convention that drafted the new U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. 

The right to "keep and bear Arms" was thus included as a means to accomplish the objective of a "well-regulated Militia"—to provide for the defense of the nation, to provide a well-trained and disciplined force to check federal tyranny, and to bring constitutional balance by distributing the power of the sword equally among the people, the states, and the federal government."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment/Origins-and-historical-antecedents

Children's Defense Fund

Senator Tom Cotton Questions FBI Director Wray

The principal purpose of Director Wray's appearance before the Senate today was to address last summer's violence, the January 6th insurrection, and domestic terrorism.

Radical right-wing Republican Senator Tom Cotton used much of his time today to criticize President Biden's lifting of travel restrictions on citizens from several nations on which Trump imposed a travel ban.

Under the Covid Pandemic, it makes sense to manage international travel carefully to screen for terrorists and criminals. However, Trump's motivation incorporated his biases that precluded Human Rights and people's right to flee violence for safety and freedom. 

President Biden lifted some of the restrictions for humanitarian reasons. However, Senator Cotton couched criticism, implying that President Biden's policy decision was wrong. Cotton tried to get the FBI director to join his politically motivated criticism. The director refused.

What was apparent is Senator Cotton's transparent racism, implying that refugees from Myanmar and Burma might include terrorists and spies. 

Here is what might get confusing. Biden reinstated restrictions that Trump lifted.

"This move will reinstate the restrictions that former President Donald Trump lifted last week, and includes non-US citizens who have been in Brazil, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, as well as the new addition of South Africa."

Biden lifted restrictions that were discriminatory as imposed by Trump.

"President Joe Biden this week reversed a controversial travel ban on certain countries with majority Muslim populations in one of his first efforts to overturn actions taken by his predecessor, Donald Trump.

"The United States was built on a foundation of religious freedom and tolerance, a principle enshrined in the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the previous administration enacted a number of Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations that prevented certain individuals from entering the United States — first from primarily Muslim countries, and later, from largely African countries," Biden wrote in his presidential action reversing the ban on Wednesday. "Those actions are a stain on our national conscience and are inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people of all faiths and no faith at all."

https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/biden-reverses-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries

"This decision, in November 2017, is a boost for Mr. Trump's policy against travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen - six mainly Muslim countries.

This move comes after the court in June ruled that parts of Donald Trump's ban could go ahead.

The President's plan to ban people from certain countries coming into the US, has faced various legal challenges since it was first announced.

The White House first placed travel restrictions on: Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia.

The travel ban was then extended to include people from three more countries: North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad.

This meant that visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be barred from entering the US. It also put a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the country."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/38794001

Senator Tom Cotton. alleged seditionist

Riot Ammunition

Trained as an Ohio National Guardsman for riot control and deployed as a Platoon Leader on active riot duty, I have direct knowledge and experience, albeit from the 1970s.

Here is what I learned:

1. With and without plastic shields, soldiers with rifles can effectively move rioters away from assets, buildings, and people that need protection in the proper formation.
2. With gas masks, soldiers can deploy gas grenades to subdue and discourage a crowd.
3. Gas grenades come in several types and are used effectively with minimal permanent harm or danger to most rioters except those with respiratory medical issues.
4. Soldiers armed with rubber bullets can subdue and disable rioters who intend to resist arrest and commit an assault on authorities.
5. Soldiers armed with dye bags, sandbags, and buckshot can stop the most aggressive leaders and disable them for arrest.
6. Guardsmen deployed for riot duty do not make arrests as that is the responsibility of local police.
   
   

Given that, what was missing in the deployment of Guardsmen at the Capitol? They did not have the proper ammunition and were not deployed with the appropriate tactics. That was poor planning resulting from deficient leadership and management. 

"In current usage a riot gun or less-lethal launcher is a type of firearm that is used to fire "non-lethal" or "less-lethal" ammunition for the purpose of suppressing riots. Less-lethal launchers may be special purpose firearms designed for riot control use, or standard firearms, usually shotguns and grenade launchers, adapted to riot control use with appropriate ammunition. The ammunition is most commonly found in 12 gauge (18.5 mm/.729 inches) shotguns and 37mm/40 mm (1.46 inches/1.57 inches) grenade launchers.

In the United States, the term riot gun more commonly refers to a riot shotgun."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_gun

Modern Riot Gun

Prosecuting Trump In Criminal Court

 Astonishing is how Donald Trump has consistently escaped laws and regulations, skating through them without impairment or constraint. Bullies can do that because they realize that they might wear down the opposition by imposing brute force and ignoring the rules. 

Trump and his disciple Republicans undermined the impeachment process by declaring the verdict in advance of the trial. They discredited the legitimacy of the process and then ignored the evidence—intent on protecting Donald J. Trump at the expense of the American Political System.

Rumors of alleged Trump crimes have persisted throughout his presidency and began before it. Sheltered from prosecution by protections afforded a sitting President, investigations and prosecution languished, incomplete. 

Trump successfully stonewalled the first impeachment, and the Republican Party ensured his "success" in escaping from the second.

As Senator Mitch McConnell said, there is always criminal prosecution as the next avenue in seeking justice.

Constrained are the Biden Administration and his Attorney General in pursuing Trump's crimes because they know that Republicans will allege political persecution and will use it as an excuse to block Biden's legislative agenda and appointments.

Today, the excellent news is that the NAACP and the House Homeland Security Committee's chairmen have initiated a lawsuit against Trump, Giuliani, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers for the alleged violent insurrection and treason committed against the United States of America on January 6, 2021.

It is most appropriate for the NAACP to lead the charge because it represents one prominent constituency victim of white supremacy.

However, action by this organization also benefits all citizens by confronting the source of tyranny in the criminal court, where a conviction will result in imprisonment and fines. When the NAACP wins, it will be a win for all of America. 

Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against former President Donald J. Trump and others over the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.Credit...Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Will Republicans Convict Trump?

The question of the hour is will seventeen Republican Senators convict Donald Trump of inciting the insurrection against our Capitol? Will leaders emerge as statespersons to take back the party from radical right-wing racist extremists or not?

If they don't, what is next? If they convict him, the Republican party can begin a transformation to regain integrity as a viable institution. If they don't, Americans must accept on-going civil strife until a new equilibrium is achieved. Stay tuned.

Image Credit: NBC News

Impeaching the Republican Senate

I have been unusually quiet, watching the second Donald Trump Impeachment Trial where I am riveted and emotionally distraught over the former President's ghastly betrayal of his Oath. Seething inside is knowing that his disciples are sitting in the Senate where they were also victims as was Vice President Pence. This disgusting circumstance underscores the necessity for several actions:

1. Democrats and President Biden must continue with a laser focus on righting the economy and solving the pandemic crisis.
   
   
2. The Impeachment Managers must complete their argument for all Americans to see from which it will become apparent that many members of the House and Senate are complicit in the insurrection travesty.
   
   
3. Prosecutors in States must pick up the baton and prosecute Trump and his disciples as they can in State Court jurisdictions.
   
   
4. The US Department of Justice and FBI must continue to investigate legitimate charges stemming from investigations into sedition and insurrection including Trump and members of his administration as well as members of Congress.
   
   
5. The American people must continue to increase their vigilance over latent enemies in their districts and communities.
   
   
6. The American people must improve security among local police.

My conclusion, before the trial is complete, is that the American government is infiltrated by a political insurgency that is not Republican or Democrat. It is a brand of terrorism for which some call themselves Republicans.

Vulnerable Republicans, Image: The New York Times

Should Ohioans Have The Right To Vote?

One might think that the question, "Should Ohioans Have The Right To Vote? " is rhetorical. I believe there is a legitimate debate to consider because in my book, How to Select an American President (c) 2017 Archway Publishing, they should not. The possible reasons and answers include the following:

1. Uninformed and misinformed
2. Ignorant and deficiently educated
3. Unprepared and ill-prepared
4. Deficiently allegiant
5. Deficiently engaged
6. Violaters of laws and regulations
   
   

The list contains only six items because that is the maximum number of things most people can consider at once. My reference is Miller's Law: "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information" is one of the most highly cited papers in psychology. It was published in 1956 in Psychological Review by the cognitive psychologist George A. Miller of Harvard University's Department of Psychology. It is often interpreted to argue that the number of objects an average human can hold in short-term memory is 7 ± 2."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every citizen of age "The Right to Vote."

"U.S. election laws date back to Article 1 of the Constitution. This gave states the responsibility of overseeing federal elections. Many Constitutional amendments and federal laws to protect voting rights have been passed since then."

https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws

Throughout history, political parties and states' governments have sought to impose restrictions on defining voter qualifications beyond these requirements:

1. Living in the municipality, district, State, and Nation as a legal citizen
2. Being of voting age

Some have sought to require being English literate, for instance. Having disabled persons find a way up the stairs, imposing a poll tax, making people pay to vote. 

The idea is that the Right to Vote should not be denied to anyone for arbitrary and hurtful reasons. 

While I agree that a democratic society's goal is to maximize the number of citizen voters, I don't agree that voting rights should be without qualifications. Nor do I agree with slim requirements and standards for candidates to elected office.

The nation and world have become too complex to abide by the standards of 1776, for instance.

I believe people should earn the right to vote, beginning with primary education and requiring graduating high school students to pass a citizen-voting rights test based on a specific curriculum administered uniformly throughout the nation.

I submit that most of my fellow Ohioans have not earned the right to vote or whose skill, knowledge, and proficiency are disastrously impaired.