I am not going to bore you with Colorado's legalization of marijuana. I'm sure by now you've all made your jokes. I am going to analyse what I believe will happen, in the next year or so, in the form of several scenarios.
1. The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal. (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal. Colorado will not do this. The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents. This could:
A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.
2. The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force. This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely. This scenario is highly unlikely.
3. The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado. This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak. Ignoring it is one solution. And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
4. The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal. This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy. In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually. This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)
This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.
See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution. No one wants that. (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.
I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt. Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.
The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.
Showing posts with label constitution.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution.. Show all posts
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Firearms Education
While on an online forum (reddit) I ran across a user on the firearms sub that had an idea I would like to share.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
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?
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?
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Governor Quinn proposed assault weapons ban.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57484162/illinois-gov-proposes-state-assault-weapons-ban/ (1)
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)