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.

The Affordable Protection Act Part 1. History and justification of need.

       I am going to suggest a new law, based on the legal precedent set by the affordable care act.  But first, let's look at how we arrived at the need for each.  The current problems, and the laws allowing them, came about because of the political pull of special interest groups with very deep pockets.  The laws put in place by the politicians representing them allowed for the creation of two classes of people.
       While I could be talking about the insurance companies, and people who either do, or do not, have insurance; I am not.  I am talking about those allowed to carry firearms.  The special interest groups are the police unions, certain politicians, and the exceedingly rich fool from NY who I do not respect enough to name.  The classes I refer to; are those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.
       Before I continue I will state, for the record, that I do not believe everyone should be allowed guns.  If you are out on parole, for example.  Those who have been found, by a court, to be mentally incompetent are another example.  But the list is about that short.  Everyone else, using the same legal justification behind the Affordable Care Act, should be required to carry a weapon (insurance) or pay a penalty if they require the intervention of police (hospitals).  Government will subsidize the purchase of a firearm, (provide an affordable option) if you need it.
       Sounds funny?  Allow me to continue.  The need can be best illustrated by pointing out that jails (hospitals) are already full of people who are consuming vast amounts of government dollars, at the expense of those who are paying in to the system and not getting anything from it.
       Clearly it would be more cost effective if everyone could patrol their own neighborhoods, (take charge of their health) protect themselves and their families, (have insurance) and generally not require so much assistance from police (public aid)
       Protecting yourself (healthcare) is a basic human right.  Comically enough though, unlike those who claim that healthcare is a right; I can show you where protecting yourself is defined as a right in the Constitution.  We have all heard many arguments on the whole second amendment interpretation issue.  What we don't hear is historic context.  The reason for the "tricky" wording is that many of the founding fathers believed that we did not need a standing army.
       Many felt that it was better to simply have an armed citizenry.  A strategy that had just won us a war for our independence.  They felt that countries who have standing armies tend to exploit the world around them, and force their will on other sovereign nations.  Clearly that is something the newly formed United States of America, would never do.  (Go ahead, laugh.  It was meant as a joke)
       Thus we have the introductory first part, that clarifies the need for a "militia", which, if you want to read it, is damned near everyone.  (emphasis added)

(Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")
More in part 2.