We Are The Government

I see all these posts about the government is out of control, the government is taking over, the government etc...

Thing is, we have EXACTLY what we voted for and it's been building since FDR.

WE are the government. The problem is, too few of us take our responsibilities seriously.

Voting is a pain, so we don't vote - or, we let it be done early, so we can make sure we get our naps in. As a result, we end up with a government that is amenable to the activists, not the People.

Jury duty is so inconvenient that we take great pains to get out of it. So, we end up with ignorant jurors who lacked the imagination to get out of serving. Also, too few realize that when they are on a jury, it is not only the defendant who's on trial; the LAW is, too.

When asked what the Constitutional Convention gave to the nation, Ben Franklin is said to have replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Well, maybe we can't. Maybe no one can. As Rome did, the US keeps its citizens in line with Bread and Circuses. Rome fell, we are probably falling. We could stop the fall, but that takes effort and - well, there's American Idol to watch or something neat is on YouTube.

In school, kids are taught that the Constitution is malleable, a "living" document, changing at the whim of society. I know; I was a teacher. They are not taught that it is the LAW.

But, even if they were, so what?

We have too many laws and far too many of what we have address piddling issues. As a result, we go ahead and justify breaking those little laws. By doing so, we train ourselves that the law is something to be broken and we find it far easier to ignore the bigger laws - like the Constitution.

Does anyone think that the laws we have in place today would have passed even a cursory review by the Founding Fathers? I don't think so. I think they would be offended and distressed by what we have done to their gift to us. Although, they had a far different attitude back then. People were, in general, nobler, I believe. The Founding Fathers had no idea what dregs their prodigy would be.

Democracy lasts until the People discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasuries. Then the slide to failure becomes almost unstoppable.

Bread and Circuses. The bane of societies.

Miller vs. Heller

No, not the latest UFC heavyweight bout.

But, an exploration of an interesting twist in the law...

In January 1939, the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas heard argument in US vs. Miller concerning a sawed-off shotgun found in the defendant's truck when a raid for a still failed to find anything. Defense argued that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed.

The USAG appealed to the supreme Court and in March 1939 the Court heard the case. They reversed the lower court's decision saying that there was no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun had any value as a militia weapon and so did not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. Essentially saying only military-style weapons are protected.

Now, fast forward almost 65 years to Feb of 2003.

A lawsuit is brought against the District of Columbia contesting the District's draconian gun laws. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit.

The case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals and they reversed the decision saying the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

Petition was made to advance the case to the supreme Court and they agreed in November of '07 (looks like things went a lot faster seven decades ago).

In June of '08, the Court decided and reversed the Circuit Court's finding. That the "District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The supreme Court also decided, "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

So, to give the Cliff's Notes version, Miller says the Second Amendment protects military-style weapons and, so, a sawed-off shotgun is not a protected firearm.

But, now we have Heller that has decided that the Second Amendment protects only non-military use firearms (actually, a silly decision - what non-military firearm is of any use to a militia?).

Heller has reversed the prohibition in Miller and given Second Amendment protections to the sawed-off shotgun.

I wonder how long before this sinks in...

More Proof Of The Effectiveness Of Gun Laws

I thought Texas was the stereotypical state for random shootings. After all, with our relatively lax gun laws we should be having high noon shootouts every second Thursday and random killings the rest of the time.

But, looks like California, that bastion of strict gun control, takes the award.

Like the article says, "Car-to-car shootings are not uncommon in the area." And, that's with strict gun-control. I wonder why in Texas, with very few gun laws, car-to-car shootings are uncommon.

Just in recent weeks;

• 110 off-ramp.
• I-10.
• US-101.
• San Diego County highway.
• San Francisco freeway.

Maybe gun laws don't do what their proponents think they do.

On Gun Control

I am struck by a conundrum.

Schools and Post Offices are Gun-Free Zones. Yet, we have Columbine, Virginia Tech and the events that gave us the catch phrase, "going postal."

Now, since these events occurred in Gun-Free Zones, what carnage must have happened at places where there are thousands of guns and hundreds are armed - a gun show.

I am not aware of a single shooting at a gun show. Is anyone?

Why is that?

I found this to be a good watch...--