Affordable Protection Act Part 2. Implementation and Constitutionality.

       In part one we examined why the Affordable Protection Act is necessary and cost-effective.  Now we will examine how it could roll out, and why it is constitutional.  

       Implementation:  

       This would not require any major preparation, or pre-collection of taxes (which the Affordable Care Act did require), to work.  We simply make a law that every member of the militia, as defined previously, is required to own, and carry, a firearm.  I did not say pistol, and I did not say concealed.  Others may carry a firearm (insurance) on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise ineligible.  

       The legal reason given for the requirement for concealment is to not incite alarm or panic in the public.  If everyone is armed, then the sight of a gun will not incite anything.  (Except Hoplophobes, but we don't ban bridges or clowns just because of a few peoples' neuroses).  In fact seeing a firearm should never incite anything, unless it is pointed at you.  People who panic at the sight of a holstered weapon are the problem, not the person peacefully carrying it.

       If anyone in the militia decided they did not want to carry a firearm, they would not be forced.  But, due to the added strain they would be putting on the system, they would have to pay a penalty.  (Just like the Affordable Care act.) Unlike the Affordable Care Act however, I will allow for those of means, who do not wish to carry a firearm (insurance) to opt out if they can prove they have people in their employ for such a purpose.  (adequate money set aside for healthcare)  

       Constitutionality:

       In their landmark decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty, and in fact the insurance requirement itself, could be construed as a tax.  By that measure it is constitutional.  They are required, it was stated, in cases where there are multiple interpretations of a law, and one of them is constitutional; to use that interpretation in their decision, and disregard any other interpretation.  

       That same rationale would dictate that requiring the purchase, or proof of current ownership, of a firearm, and the penalty for non-compliance; would be a tax, and therefore within the scope of congressional authority to legally require.  

       Please forward this to your representatives in Washington D.C.

Starting the year with an economic boost.

       Just before the end of 2012, the President gave a speech that praised republicans for ceding ground in the negotiations prior to the dreaded "fiscal cliff".  The same speech "damned by faint praise" his own party, and made mention of the need of both, to work harder to compromise.  He also stated that , personally, he would have liked to address all of the issues in one broad sweeping agreement, but that this congress was not up to that task.
       Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
       A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed.  The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems.  (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want)  What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
       The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures.  The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
       Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy.  (which is exactly what has happened.)  The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms.  These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
       Small business owners profit.  Distributors profit.  American Manufacturing profits.  The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented.  A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs.  (for the second time, in many cases)
       Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban.  This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
       I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession.  But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.