Tricky wording

       In the Constitution of the United States of America, there are many times when the term "The people" is used.  This usage was selected to represent "the people" as opposed to "the state" for the reservation of certain individual rights, powers etc.  This usage has always been interpreted to mean "an individual" or "a person".  It means this in the bill of rights, certainly.

       Consider the usage in the fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

       Clearly this does not suggest a collective right to be secure in a collective home, collective personage (wut?) or collective papers, against unreasonable search and seizure.  This, quite clearly, states an individual right, as guaranteed to "the people" as opposed to "the state"

       No other usage of the phrase "the people" however, has proven more problematic than in the second amendment.  While the meaning is perfectly clear, matches the other uses, and in fact has been ruled by the Supreme Court to explicitly mean an "individual" right; there are still those who contest that meaning.  While I do not believe for a single second that any of the people saying this actually think it is true, so much as wish it were true; they do still claim it.  To that end I believe we either need a ruling by the Supreme Court, or better yet, an amendment to the Constitution; that clearly states the following:

       "Wherever the phrase "the people" appears in the Constitution of the United States of America, it will be construed to mean "an individual".

       This should clear up any "confusion" on the part of any who think otherwise.  I wish only that I had a way to get a message back to the Founders, to let them know that their choice of using "a person" and "the people" synonymously would lead to much, unnecessary, legal wrangling.

Free speech culture

       In order to shine a light on a certain brand of hypocrisy; I will be writing a paragraph from the perspective of an outraged liberal.  I have read several such articles explaining to all the "Sheeple" that "American Gun Culture" is the reason why we still have gun rights, which should, due to the actions of a few be taken away.  (By the way, if you ever want people to immediately tune you out, use the word "Sheeple")  Instead of using the term "Gun-Culture" however, I will be using the term "Free Speech Culture.  (the only differences will be a lack of spelling errors, and a lack of egregious grammatical errors).  I hope that this will show just how flimsy, and frankly how Anti-American, those arguments are.

       Well, here we go again.  Another day another incident of someone causing pain and suffering because the Free Speech Culture wont allow the government to protect us by taking away these idiot's right to disagree.  As long as people have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, this will keep happening.  Certain places are not even safe anymore because these sociopaths get to spread their idiocy wherever they choose.  How many lives have to be lost, just because someone wants their individual freedom preserved.  How many children need be injured or die, just because a selfish few, feel a need to speak freely.  Distracting billboards, political speech on the radio.  I can't even concentrate on driving!  People protesting gets in the way of emergency vehicles and causes economic disruption!  By disagreeing with necessary policy choices, children won't have access to free services.  By speaking out against these things, children die.  Think of the children.  And how dare they impose this disease of theirs on the rest of us.  I'm not saying that these people can't practice their free speech in appropriate places, like designated lounges, but they should not be allowed to shove their beliefs in our faces.  I should not have to feel threatened by their disagreement.  When can we just ignore this Free speech culture and do what is best for society?  We should really just round up all the transmitters and printing presses and take them away so no one would have them.  Free speech is not a guaranteed right when children get hurt.  

       Now I hope I don't need to point out that the above paragraph is farcical in nature.  But this is how the arguments against the second amendment go.  It cannot be said enough: My rights should never be curtailed due to someone else's actions.  That isn't gun culture.  That is one of the founding principals of our country.  To say that my firearms pose a threat to someone, because an illegally obtained pistol in Chicago was used in a crime, is erroneous thinking.  There is no gun culture in America.  We have a culture of being at liberty.  We have a culture that allows divergent viewpoints to peacefully coexist.  When my rights are eroded because someone else committed a crime, we have a fundamental violation of civil liberties.  

To put things another way, when someone is arrested the 15th time for drunk driving, or road rage, no one hesitates to blame the local DA for not keeping them in prison.  No one blames the car, or the road, or sues GM; no matter how many people this person killed.  They blame the person.  To do otherwise is ridiculous.  Why then, do we blame an inert piece of machinery when there is a shooting.

Bonus, in case you missed it: Bloomberg admits his racism, and that the problem is the shooter, not the gun.  Of course he is asking the press not to distribute the video of him saying it.  (Not that he controls a significant potion of the press)  Bloomberg's Hypocrisy

A violation of civil rights.

       The constitution, as it was originally worded, left allowances for slaves, chattel, and indentured servants. Not too long after this was corrected, but not before many lives were made worse, by being treated as second class citizens.  Slavery was abolished but wrong-headed practices endured.  People were denied rights based on their ethnicity, country of origin, and sometimes even religion.
       Much later many brave souls stood up and declared that they would no longer tolerate this.  Such treatment was a violation of their civil rights.  They complained that whole classes, races, ethnicites, and even religions were being pre-judged as dangerous, or criminal, based on the actions of a few, with whom they were in no way connected.  Their civil rights were being violated.
       Apply this logic to what we see today.  The rights of an entire group of people, representing just about half of all Americans, depending who's chart you believe, are being told that rights guaranteed to them by our constitution, will be curtailed, or for lack of a better word, infringed upon.  This group is nearly equally represented by men and women, Democrat and Republican, young and old.
       Based on the actions of a infinitesimally small amount of people, and to combat a problem that represents 0.16% the number of drunk driving fatalities, some in Washington are seeking to ban a popular type of repeating rifle.  (FBI crime statistics.  18 fatalities from so called "Assault weapons", 10,839 drunk driving fatalities.)
       That's right.  The patent office recognizes semi-automatic firearms as a type of repeating firearm.  This means one trigger pull equals one bullet fired.  Semi-automatic is a bit of a misnomer, because it in no way can match the function of a fully automatic weapon.  The other thing to consider here is that to ban any type of firearm is a violation of every single American's civil rights.  The same as if they decided on a state religion, or to preemptively arrest all persons of African and Hispanic ancestry, because of statistical findings.  If reading that infuriates you, good.  Because it is no different.
       The numbers show we don't actually have any type of problem with those rifles.  Crime statistics show that there is absolutely no reason to act against any particular type of gun, but least of all what they are incorrectly terming "assault weapons".  Of all firearms used in the commission of homicides, let alone general crimes, those are used least, and by a huge margin.  The numbers are 92.73% of homicides committed with handguns, 6.99% with rifles, and 0.27% with what they call an "assault weapon".
       Stop solving a problem we don't have, and solve the ones we do.  You may have noticed that as a country, we are nearing insolvency.  Taking action against the law-abiding gun-owners is a violation of their civil rights.  The question here is why is the ACLU not involved?  Why are they not being called out for their hypocrisy in this?  Why are we allowing Washington to waste money we don't have, to solve a problem we don't have, and distract us from the real issues?