Free Speech at the Capitol

I for one was troubled by the whole idea that you needed a permit to protest your government on public property.  I believe that this is unconstitutional, nowhere does it say that you need permits to peacefully assemble.  When the tea party rolled into town on Monday I thought that they of all groups would not get a permit.  No, I was totally wrong.  For all of complaining about government excesses and wanting to restore the constitution they are really all about law and order.  The first question I always ask is would they be ok with the rule if a guy they don't like did it.  Amazingly that becomes a different story.  But, some are consistent and as a person told me all of the protestors breaking the law should be in jail.  This person was all about maintaining civil society.  They would probably do well in a dictatorship.  The fact is that protest and the ability to protest is a key component to the country's founding as well as nearly any change that has taken place since.  There is no question that opponents of health care reform succeeded in watering down what was eventually passed.

If you want to look at protests another way compare the reaction of the Walker administration to unarmed protesters with the debate on gun regulation. The right to assembly does not mention permits, regulation, control,...  Whereas, the second amendment mentions a well regulated militia as being essential to defense as being the reason why gun possession shall not be infringed.  Does that mean that everyone needs to be in a militia that is regulated?  Then there is the argument that we no longer need militias since we have a large standing army.  This is where the above people who got a permit say that we need weapons to fight the government with.

I believe that both amendments shouldn't be curtailed but unfortunately that is not what is happening and only a minority seem to care about the first amendment.

Guns in School

So, a Wisconsin girl was arrested last week for bringing a concealed weapon to school. Why isn't the right in an uproar? Sure she broke the law, no permit. But that law is wrong, if you are going to allow open carry with no permit why require one for concealed? What about the expansive "castle doctrine" that is being debated now. Under this thinking there would be no way that guns could be banned from schools. This is an institution that causes many to fear for their lives. That is part of the point of the movie Bully, fortunately saner minds prevailed and the rating was reduced to PG-13 (and that might be too high). This girl was apparently being harassed and had hoped that just showing the gun would make people stop. No instead we are going to punish the victim. The bullies should be the ones going to jail. Hopefully she'll get off without having to go to jail. Of course, she'll never be able to attend that school again and given the press she might have a hard time finding another school. She'll probably be forced to go to either a private school or to an online school. Which I see as a problem if her parents do not have the means to pay for her education. We say that children are entitled to a public education but the reality is that due to the behavior of a minority of students with the tacit approval of other students and faculty many students are either outright denied this education or wind up with a poor education because they don't fit in which makes learning difficult. This bullying behavior can have long lasting effects on some of the bullied. Hopefully this girl can turn this around and become successful.

On the Road with Sarah

As candidate (personality) Sarah continues her vacation in the East she continues to mangle the Nation's history. Her latest gaff is on the ride of Paul Revere. Her telling is that he was warning the British that they were not going to come and get our guns but we were going to be free. Not exactly, he was riding to warn the colonists that the British were coming not to get your guns but to put down an armed rebellion and they were serious about it. This revisionist thinking that everything was about the right to be armed is non-sense. The revolutionary war is much more complex than that. Some colonists were angry that they weren't represented in the House of Commons, some were angry that the taxes were too high, and still others were angry that they were not making enough money in their businesses. The gun right didn't come until later and because they wrote 3 clauses into the amendment it has been hotly debated ever since. It says as we all know " A well regulated militia as being essential for the protection of the nation. The right to keep and bear arms. Shall not be infringed." The strict constructionists out there (Sarah) focus on the right to keep and bear arms. They don't talk much about the well regulated militia very much or the infringement. We have passed some type of concealed carry in nearly every State. But, nearly all of those require some type of license and or training. That is an infringement. Not talked about much by the NRA or the right wing. No one is out there saying that you need to be a member of a well regulated militia. Well regulated implies Government run and we know that Government is the problem. If not Government who has the power to regulate? The founders were not anarchists. They were businessmen, scholars (elitists), and farmers who recognized that Government played a role in regulating (leveling the playing field) and governing in order to maintain a civil society. This would be at odds with our current leadership which ignores the general welfare clause of the Constitution in favor of removing the safety net so that desperate people are on the streets. That scenario has not worked out well in history.

Concealed Carry

Wisconsin has begun debate on concealed carry again. But, unlike last time we now allow (or at least have ruled) extensive open carry. There are 2 competing bills. One would require a license the other would require nothing. As we all know there are 3 clauses in the 2nd Amendment and as far as I can tell the issue of licenses can't possibly be inferred from it. So, the correct bill is the one that allows concealed carry with no restrictions. One sheriff has gone on record as saying that we need licenses so that we now who is carrying. Doesn't that defeat one of the arguments that the NRA (who supports licenses, go figure) uses to fight gun control? The NRA believes that the Government can't know who has guns in case we start a revolution but yet they support allowing Government to know who is carrying a gun. I don't understand the sheriffs wanting to now who is carrying when these same sheriffs were all for open carry. If you are going to allow open carry without documentation why be restrictive on concealed carry? Of course, this gets us to the point of why do you need to concealed carry when you can open carry with no restrictions?

Open carry

So, some open carry supports were arrested at a Culver's.  Sounds like rights being trampled right?  Wrong.  The police responded to a call about guys with guns.  That establishes probable cause, which allows the police to ask for identification.  I think that they should have been charged with disorderly conduct instead of obstruction.  Other than that I'll side with the police on this one.