The Right To Bear Arms

 Back when the Bill of Rights was written, the flint-lock muzzle-loaded musket was the deadliest weapon, after the cannon, around.  If Congress was willing to allow Americans to own and use the deadliest weapons of their age, then, from an originalist perspective, 21st Century Americans should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, F-22 fighter jets, Abrams tanks, nuclear submarines, ICBMs, cruise missiles, etc., as well as sawed-off shotguns, unmodified or modified AR-15s and Glock 19s.  All dangerous weapons, yes, but if we follow the Founders' original intent, the ownership or possession of these weapons should not be restricted; just as the ownership or possession of flint-locks and cannon was not restricted according to the Second Amendment.

But the Second Amendment has a clause which is preeminent to the "right to bear arms" clause, and that begins, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State....".

Article II, Section 2.  "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

 A land army had to be reauthorized every two years, but a standing navy was desired.

The only way to stop a bad man with a gun is to take away his gun.

Since all men a sinful, and therefore bad, all men should be disarmed.

Some Thoughts on the Thoughts About the Uvalde Elementary Mass Murder

Texas governor Gregg Abbott was urging Texans to buy more guns, because Texas was second to California in this.  After every mass shooting murder, people talk about gun control.  When people talk about  gun control, people start buying more guns.  Might we assume that Abbott instigated this mass murder in order to get Texans to buy more guns, and thereby win over California?

The Second Amendment is in the so-called Bill or Rights because the Constitution does not provide for a standing army (only a navy).  Thus the provision that, if the nascent nation were in need of an armed force to deal with a land invasion, it would need to draft its citizens as part of well organized militias to serve as its army.  The drafters of the Constitution knew, through their own experience, that you cannot simply gather together a bunch of armed men and expect them to constitute an effective fighting force.  To be an effective fighting force requires training to act as a group, thus the requirement of a "well organized militia".  They also knew that many communities had standing militias which were organized to fight the Native Americans who were trying to preserve their land from being expropriated by the settlers.  Neglecting to provide for a professional army -- a standing army -- was a cost saving move, as the country was almost bankrupt after the revolution against Great Britian.  In which case, a standing army was something they could do without if the community militias could be called up to serve as an army.  The rational of the Second Amendment, then is to use an already existing resource, the community militias, as a substitute for a standing army.  Thus, the "right to bear arms" is about militia members, under the control of the community, not some individual who has no interest in the welfare of the community.

To take the "originalist" perspective, what the drafters of the Bill or Rights visualized, or knew, as "arms" consisted of swords, knives, spears, and muzzle-loading flint-locks.  They had no idea what a Glock 19 or an AR-15 was.  In other words, whey the wrote "arms" they were thinking of swords and muzzle-loading flint-locks, so their original intent was to not "infringe" on keeping swords and muzzle-loading flint-locks which would be the arms borne by the citizens constitution a "well-regulated militia".

Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism

 "Why is it so hard to make progress when it comes to right-wing domestic terror?" asks an analyst in a CNN article.

 I should think the answer is obvious:  Right-wing domestic terrorism is a right, pretty much guaranteed by the Constitution.  Wannabee terrorists have the right to freely assemble; their hateful words and ideology freely spread through their right to free speech; they can own as many guns as they can afford because of our interpretation of the Second Amendment as well as form themselves in to what they call militias.

More than simply exercising their rights, right-wing domestic terrorists find companionship, support, resources, or at the very least, a sense of validation of their beliefs and justification of their actions in the free press of the dark web.

But why can't these tendencies be addressed through educational programs or counseling or deprogramming, the ask?  

But how effective can such largely voluntary efforts be, especially when such programs are basically trying to stop someone from exercising a Constitutionally protected right?  Also, trying to stop someone from exercising a Constitutionally protected right will meet with major opposition from both "liberals" and "conservatives"
who want to defend those rights, in principle, at the very least.  

And so, just as with gun violence, our society is based on the individual's right to express even their worst tendencies, because the rights of the individual have precedent over the rights of the community.

Unfortunately, we as a society, do not seem to have the maturity and wisdom to figure out how to protect our community, and as individuals, to understand and respect the fact that a community has rights that can be trampled upon by an individual.

It is not the law that is lacking it is that we do not believe in our Constitution's preamble and its vision, that we want "a more perfect union" and not just a collection of super-empowered individualists.

What I am Asking

The religious right is selective about what "values" it advocates.

The religious right advocates values it labels as "Christian" which are, in fact, antithetical to values expressed in the Bible.  This, then is on their part, either hypocricy, or a profound cynicism predicated on the belief that anything they may say or command will be done by believers, so long as they predicate their statement by saying that it has the approval of their god, channeling the power of the idol they worship.

It is just that it seems that many people in America who claim to be Christians know very little about what Christ actually said (in the Bible).

Rather, they behave more like Christ-idolaters, who may truly feel an attachment to their idol, and that attachment is the core of their belief or theology.  If professing the Nicene Creed is all that is needed to qualify as a Christian, then everything that Jesus taught or the Bible says is irrelevant to being a Christian.

The second commandment or the Muslim proscription against pictures of Muhammed recognize the threat of idolatry to their teachings.

Great Replacement Theory Fear

The Fear engendered in White Nationalists by the Great Replacement Theory is perhaps subconsciously justified in their minds by their subconscious knowledge of what was done to the Native Americans by the invading Whites.  White Nationalists believe that if non-White people become the political power in America, then those non-Whites will do to them, the White Nationalists, what they, the White Nationalists did to non-Whites under their (the White Nationalists) domination.

The Two Asian American Classes and Can They Work Together for Mutual Benefit and the Lions Club

One of these classes are the immigrants from Asia.

Another class is the english-speaking Asian Americans.

The english-speaking class can be further divided into immigrants who are english-speakers --  call them the first generation english-speakers, and those who were born in America as well as Asians immigrated at a very early age who basically grew up as english-speakers.  This group might also be know as the "Americanized" Asian Americans.

Thus starting a matrix of n-dimensions, which needs to be simplified for human action to be perceived as meaningful.

What is Rewarded?

 American society puts individual achievement as the primary good.  

A collective society would put community achievement above individual achievement.

That is to say that a collective society would reward an individual whose efforts improves the community more generously that it would reward an individual whose achievements, no matter how great, does nothing to improve the community.

But isn't this what a corporation does when it rewards it's CEO a huge salary, etc?  The compensation is reward for what the CEO, presumably, has done for the wealth of the corporation's stock holders.  In theory, the CEO's compensation should have a reasonable relationship to the wealth generated by the corporation.

One explanation for why some CEO's are over-compensated, paid for more than they are worth, over-paid, their actions lose stockholder value and yet are still paid the same as when the corporation did well; is that a group of the CEO's allies determines the CEO's salary, and not an impartial algorithm (also known as a law).

Who are shareholders?  There are two kinds, Shareholders who own stock shares in the corporation and who are compensated or credited for value above the purchase price of the share, and SHAREHOLDERS, who decide what the corporation is or is not going to do.  This latter group consists of the corporation's Board of Directors, and others who have influence funds which own stock in the names of investors who use the stock as money-making machines.  But this group is miniscule compared to the thousands or millions of other individual owners of the corporation's stock.

Since the corporation, to the stockholders is a money-making machine, the priority of the corporation is to make money for the stockholders.  Any condition that threatens the profitability of the corporation is a condition that threatens the well-being of the share holders. That is why a corporation can act against the interests of the majority of share-holders because the share-holders requires the corporation in this way to improve the condition of the stockholders.  

In other words, when employees participate in an investment fund whose holding include shares in the employees' corporation, those employees vote to require themselves to be exploited working off the book, or not being paid, or pressured or intimidated by management or other ways to increase their productivity. 

What Do They Want

 Liberals and Conservatives, both, seem to want a "fair" society.

The question then is, how is "fair" defined, what is meant by "fair", what does one see when a situation is "fair".

Generally, it seems that Liberals fairness consists of equal access and equal justice so that wealth or political power are not factors in deciding a dispute.  In other words, there is a structure of government and laws in which disputes operate and is defined by equality and collective justice.  By analogy, Liberal fairness consists of two baseball teams of approximately equal strength, competing within the rules of baseball.

For Conservatives, fairness consists of individuals freely disputing between each other, without the interference of third parties such as the law or government rules or institutions. By analogy, Conservatives would resolve a dispute as a boxing match with no limits and no rules, so that a large strong trained person fighting a small weak untrained person would be considered fair.  If rules are involved, then the fact that those rules favor one contestant over the other is fair, so long as the rules are followed.  For example, both contestants can have lawyers, but one side has experienced well-resourced lawyers and the other party has a poorly trained lawyer fresh out of law school.  Since both parties have lawyers, then the contest is fair.

On the term "race"

 Appending "race" is meaningless or redundant or adds no further precision to whatever the term refers, other than perhaps as a substitute for "species".

For example, "race" has been used to designate national groups, or people of varying hues, or species, as in the "Japanese race" or the "brown race" or the "race of dogs".  But if "race" means anything in these circumstances, then is should mean the same thing in all of these circumstances.  But if that is the case, then the term "race" in these circumstances simply means "group".

Using the term "race" when it comes to referring to homo sapiens, may be a way of avoiding granting humanity to a particular group of homo sapiens.  Thus, to refer to the "yellow race" is a way of separating people of a particular hue from the rest of humanity, thereby tacitly designating them as non-human, and thereby allowing the rest of humanity to treat them as we humans treat other non-humans: experimenting on them, eating them, killing them without remorse.

Saying the "human race" is like saying "tuna fish".