Law/Second Amendment

Obama ‘limited’ on executive order power for gun control?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently news hit the airwaves from Vice President Biden that the President was considering executive orders for gun control. In reply to this Examiner.com said:

Still, there are limits on executive orders that would keep President Obama from taking many steps on gun control, and these limits would certainly prevent the kind of dictatorship the Drudge Report implicitly warns about on their website.

While true that the President is still quite limited on what he can do, in that the implied executive order power is not a legislative or lawmaking power, he can still do quite a bit of damage and create a lot of setbacks with regard to gun rights. The President is the presiding officer of the Executive Branch, and one key department with two key bureaus falls under the purview of the Executive Branch: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, both under the Department of Justice. As such the President can issue executive orders with regard to these two agencies.

What kind of executive orders?

How about an executive order that interrupts the 4473 process? I’m referring, of course, to ATF form 4473, which is the form that is filled out whenever there is a transfer (sale) of a firearm by an FFL-licensed firearms dealer to a customer. This would, in a heartbeat, halt most sales of firearms in the United States. It would, also, instantly create a giant black market supporting what would be a booming illegal firearms trade.

He could also issue an executive order directing the BATFE to not issue any new or renew any existing Federal firearms licenses, which are necessary to operate a gun shop. He could also direct the BATFE to not process any NFA applications. NFA refers to the National Firearms Act, and NFA applications are processed when we’re talking about the higher-end stuff such as suppressors and full-auto firearms (i.e. machine guns). By the way, it would be under the NFA authority that Dianne Feinstein would like all existing firearms owners to register under her proposed bill.

These three executive directives would halt legal firearms sales in the United States overnight. But with all of the firearms still sitting on store shelves, it would create one hell of a black market overnight as well. Crime in the US would surge, reversing all of the crime reduction trends this country has been seeing for the last two decades.

And all of this without outright banning firearms or calling for the seizure of firearms already in the hands of private individuals. But again the ramifications of such a move are likely enough to keep the President from seriously considering such an idea, or so I hope.

So the President still has a lot of authority and capability to do a lot of damage to Second Amendment rights in this country. Now as the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" necessarily requires the ability to acquire those arms, such an executive order would find itself challenged in Court on emergency filings in Court moves that would make Bush v. Gore look like it took a decade to adjudicate.

Letters to politicians/Term limits

Message to Representative Serrano [D-NY(15)]

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In my previous article I said that I might contact Representative Serrano regarding his recent resolution calling for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. I decided to actually contact him. And in keeping with my practice of publicly posting messages I send to members of the House and Senate, I will reproduce my message here.

If I receive a response, I will also reproduce it publicly on my blog.

* * * * *

Mr Representative Serrano,

It is being widely reported that you have introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment. I know that you have been doing this at the start of every Congress since 1997, yet I don’t believe you’ve ever released a public statement as to why you’ve done this. I also know you’re not the first to attempt this.

If you have released such a statement explaining this move, please point me to where I can find it. If you have never made such a statement with regard to why you’d like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed, I would like you to make such a statement.

Term limits

Freaking out over nothing

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Jose Serrano is at it again. The Democrat in the House of Representatives has once again introduced into the House a resolution to amend the Constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment.

And everyone seems to be freaking out about it. For the uninitiated, there are two things to keep in mind.

1. Serrano has been doing this since 1997

In 1997, when Clinton had started his second term in office, Serrano introduced his resolution for the first time. And at the start of every new Congress, he’s introduced it, so 2013 was to be no surprise.

Now why he’s wanting to see the 22nd Amendment repealed is beyond me. He’s never released a statement to explain this, to the best of my knowledge. And if I were to attempt to contact him, as I’m not one of his constituents, he’d likely give me the “I only have time to answer my constituents” kind of e-mail, similar to what I received from Senator Lieberman when I contacted him about the Terrorist Expatriation Act of 2010.

If I do attempt to contact Representative Serrano for comment or statement, I’ll post the message to this blog. (Update: I’ve since contacted Rep. Serrano for comment.)

But to those who think that Serrano is trying to pave the way for Obama to become “Emperor” or something like that — one commenter to my previous article on this said “Next comes martial law, one world union, one world currency, the chip, the temple and Obama going inside and claiming to be God!” — then I think you’re seriously mistaken and need to get your head out of the clouds and come back and visit the rest of us in Realityland.

Oh, and one other thing: every time Serrano has introduced this amendment, it has never left committee. Why is everyone freaking out about this?

2. Repealing the 22nd Amendment requires amending the Constitution

This is the one part of this whole ordeal that no one seems to be considering. Amending the Constitution is an intentionally difficult process. There’s a good reason why the Constitution has been amended only 27 times since its ratification: amending the Constitution of the United States affects all 50 States!

For this proposed amendment to see the light of day beyond the House committee to which it was assigned requires the bill to be recommended by the committee for a floor vote. And then the House of Representatives must vote on that amendment, and the Constitution has defined a successful passage as 2/3rds of a quorum. This is far beyond the typical simple majority that is required for all other bills.

Once it passes the House, the Senate sends the proposed amendment through their parliamentary procedure. On the Senate floor, the Constitution again requires 2/3rds of a quorum voting ‘yea’ for the bill to pass.

Then once it crosses that hurdle in Congress, it isn’t the President that sees it. No the proposed Amendment is sent to the State legislatures for ratification. And 38 of the 50 States must ratify the Amendment for it to take affect.

Conclusion: The 22nd Amendment is not in danger

Attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been taken not just by Serrano, but also by former-Representatives Barney Frank [D-MA(4)] and Howard Berman [D-CA(28)], and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). No attempt has even left the committee. Even if the Amendment were to be proposed, what is the likelihood that such an Amendment would be ratified by the States? I’d say it is highly, highly unlikely.

After President Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945, while Truman was still finishing out that term in office, Congress moved relatively quickly to draft and propose an Amendment to the Constitution to limit the number of terms a person can serve as President. Prior to FDR, there was an implied or ceremonial term limit of 2 terms, as that is the most that George Washington served, though it was actually Thomas Jefferson who established the ceremonial practice. Few have attempted to go beyond that, and, until FDR, all those that attempted failed.

So when FDR managed to get elected to not just 3, but 4 terms in office, Congress moved quickly to enshrine in the Constitution the ceremonial limit Jefferson established.

And as such, the 22nd Amendment is not going anywhere. There is no reason for anyone to freak out about Serrano and his introduction of his resolution.

Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

Message to Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO)

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In light of the legislation that Senator Feinstein intends to introduce to the Senate in coming days (the record currently shows no bills introduced into the Senate), it is imperative that we contact those who represent us in the Senate to see to it that bill does not leave committee. Here is the message I sent to Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri — you will note it is similar to the letter I sent to Senator McCaskill. Again feel free to adapt this to send to your own Senator if you desire.

* * * * *

Mister Senator Blunt,

As you know times in the United States are currently bleak. A major event that occurred in Connecticut has pitted American against American, neighbor against neighbor. At the same time the government to which you were recently re-elected is considering restrictions on the liberties of all Americans as punishment for the actions of a few.

I am, of course, talking about firearms.

Now I’m not writing this message to give you information you’ve likely already heard from thousands of other constituents, nor will I be threatening to not vote for you in 2016, presuming you seek re-election. And as you enjoy an A rating by the National Rifle Association, I’m not going to waste your time telling you things you already know with regard to firearms and the Second Amendment.

Instead my purpose with writing to you today is to hopefully give you another angle with which to hopefully argue against any new firearms legislation by appealing to your sense of fairness, justice, and most importantly liberty. My hope is that the angle I am providing herein is one you’ve already considered, and that I will either be reinforcing that idea or persuading you to consider it with more seriousness.

All Americans pay for all actions of the Federal government. If taxes are increased, we pay with our wallets. If new laws are enacted that do not protect the liberties of other citizens, we pay with our liberties and freedoms. New firearms legislation means all Americans lose more of their firearms liberties. I’m sure to you this is not a novel concept.

It is no secret the views many Democrats hold on firearms. Senator Feinstein said in 1994 that if she could have gotten the votes, she would’ve gone for a bill calling for a blanket ban and confiscation of all firearms, completely in violation of the Second Amendment. Recent events play right into her desires as the United States is currently alight with anti-gun sentiment. Emotion reigns and reason and rationality have taken a back seat.

And following that vein, members of the government of the United States seek to punish every law-abiding firearms owner. I’ve called it “punishing the innocent”. And I feel it is a perfect description. And Feinstein’s intended legislation will do just that, punish the millions of law-abiding gun owners, treating all of us like common criminals even though we have done nothing wrong.

The United States enjoys millions of law-abiding firearms owners, most of whom cannot fathom the idea of taking even a single life, even if that life is taken in the defense of another. But if necessary, they will use their firearms to defend the lives of others against those intent on doing harm. Members of the Senate and House seek to strip them of that ability, which will leave us all at the mercy of those intent to do harm.

With all respect and courtesy, Mister Senator, I appeal to your sense of fairness and liberty. Please do not let the Congress of the United States pass legislation that only seeks to punish the millions of firearms owners who have done no wrong. Any legislation restricting firearms does just that, especially when it is enacted in the wake of a tragedy by those who think they have the answers. History has shown that gun restrictions do not do any good, and have done harm. And as has been demonstrated in 2012, “gun free zones” can be rendered anything but by someone seeking to do harm, and render helpless anyone in their path.

Again firearms restrictions punish the innocent millions for the actions of an insane individual. Please do not let Congress punish the millions of gun owners because one person flipped.

Due process/Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

My message to Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Punishing the innocent”

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

Note to readers: you have my full permission and blessing to adapt this message to be sent to your Senators and Representative if you desire.

* * * * *

Madam Senator McCaskill,

As you know times in the United States are currently bleak. A major event that occurred in Connecticut has pitted American against American, neighbor against neighbor. At the same time the government to which you were recently re-elected is considering restrictions on the liberties of all Americans as punishment for the actions of a few.

I am, of course, talking about firearms.

Now I’m not writing this message to give you information you’ve likely already heard from thousands of other constituents, nor will I be threatening to not vote for you in 2018, presuming you seek re-election. I’m not attempting to change your view on guns, whatever that view might be, as I’m likely to not have much success.

Instead I want to appeal to your sense of fairness, justice, and most importantly liberty.

It is not uncommon for laws and/or regulations to be enacted in the wake of tragedies. When the dust settles every speck is meticulously examined to piece together all of the details and devise ways of trying to prevent them in the future. Numerous ideas are offered, and they will be weighed typically on party lines — and by that I mean the party of the person who introduced a particular bill or amendment presenting a particular idea — and votes might go accordingly.

Typically these bills and laws have been about consumer protections. New regulations around the manufacture of various items has led to increased safety across the entirety of the marketplace. In the end, though, the consumer pays the price of new government regulation, through decreased selection or increased costs. These are the tradeoffs. But in the end, Madam Senator, the citizen over whom the government of the United States has jurisdiction pays the price of all government regulation and laws, regardless of whether that price is expressed in increased taxes, increased prices in the marketplace, or a reduction in liberty.

It is no secret the views many hold on firearms. Senator Feinstein said in 1994 that if she could have gotten the votes, she would’ve gone for a bill calling for a blanket ban and confiscation of all firearms, completely in violation of the Second Amendment. Recent events play right into her desires as the United States is currently alight with anti-gun sentiment. Emotion reigns and reason and rationality have taken a back seat.

And following that vein, members of the government of the United States seek to punish every law-abiding firearms owner. I’ve called it “punishing the innocent”. And I feel it’s a perfect description.

The United States enjoys millions of law-abiding firearms owners, most of whom cannot fathom the idea of taking even a single life, even if that life is taken in the defense of another. But if necessary, they will to use their firearms to defend the lives of others against those intent on doing harm. Members of the Senate and House seek to strip them of that ability, which will leave us all at the mercy of those intent to do harm.

With all respect and courtesy, Madam Senator, I appeal to your sense of fairness and liberty. Please do not let the Congress of the United States pass legislation that only seeks to punish the millions of firearms owners who have done no wrong. Any legislation restricting firearms does just that, especially when it is enacted in the wake of a tragedy by those who think they have the answers. History has shown that gun restrictions do not do any good, and have done harm. And as has been demonstrated in 2012, “gun free zones” can be rendered anything but by someone seeking to do harm, and render helpless anyone in their path.

Again firearms restrictions punish the innocent millions for the actions of an insane individual. Please do not let Congress punish the millions of gun owners because one person flipped.

Note: Read the reply I received (here) from her office, along with my reply to that (here).

Crime/Second Amendment

Regarding gun violence

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

My first experience that I can remember with regard to gun violence thankfully was not any situation in which I was actually present. Like most people all of my experiences with gun violence are through the fictionalized environments of movies and television. In particular for me, it was an episode of the show Family Matters, in which one of Laura Winslow’s friends is shot in the arm over a pair of sneakers. I do not recall the episode being inherently anti-gun, though there was a volunteer surrender program being portrayed toward the end of the episode in which one person did voluntarily surrender their firearm.

That episode also aired at a time where it seemed the popular shows were experimenting with what kind of scenarios based on real life they can broadcast on television, something you almost never see today. For example the show Roseanne portrayed teen sex and unexpected pregnancy, fornication and unwed cohabitation, homosexuality and bisexuality, a gay "marriage", divorce and death. Full House brought to people’s televisions child abuse, the transition of the two older children into their teenage years and the kind of experimental situations that could go with that, and the death of a family member. Family Matters also brought other issues in the lives of high school students to televisions, including one situation in which injurious rumors spread quite far around the high school Laura and her older brother Eddie were attending.

And then there’s another episode that comes to mind. When Carl Window was still an officer, before being promoted to Sergeant, he responded to a an armed robbery that resulted in the death of an innocent person caught up in the situation. The episode took place two years after the incident when Carl was planning to visit the cemetery to pay his respects and the decedent’s widow happens across him.

For most people it is only through the fictionalized environment of television that they experience many of the horrors possible in real life. They will likely never see it up close. This includes gun violence and murder. And on that we can be grateful. Even with as horrifying as the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary and the movie theater in Aurura, Colorado, appear, we can be thankful that such incidents are extremely rare.

As such it is easy to have a romanticized view of some of these issues and what to do about them, and this appears to be the perception in much of America today.

It is incredulous that in the aftermath of a presented concern, many people suddenly presume they know the cause of the concern and, following on that alleged cause, the solution. Since the tragedy that befell Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, this has been the case. The one thing lost in all the rhetoric, discussion, argument and "debate" is the idea that complex situations don’t boil down to simple solutions.

As such, if you think that more gun control is the solution to the problem presented at Sandy Hook Elementary, you need to get your head out of your ass. It isn’t that simple.

Yet the President has convened a commission that will be investigating ways to prevent tragedies such as what has presented this year. And when the government talks about wanting to "prevent tragedy", it almost always involves restrictions and the infringements of rights. In this case it’ll likely involve firearms restrictions, such as renewing the "assault weapons ban" and restricting magazine capacities. Because a law-abiding civilian with a 10-round magazine against a crazed madman with a 17-round magazine are such great odds.

Let’s look at the situation: a 20 year-old man walked into an elementary school armed with an AR-15 style rifle and a Glock and Sig Sauer handgun. Using the AR-15 he proceeded to mow down mostly children until he was finally confronted with an armed resistance from law enforcement, to which he responded by taking one of the pistols and ending his life.

The guns were immediately blamed. In some cases it seemed the guns were all that was blamed. Following from this, individuals and groups called for the end or destruction of the National Rifle Association, the assassination of the NRA president among others, immediate bans on all firearms, and all kinds of things that showed absolutely no detectable tinge of rationality, but the overwhelming stench of emotion. This was not entirely unexpected. Actually that’s not entirely accurate. The calls for hits on gun rights supporters were unexpected, but not entirely illogical in the aftermath. It’s not rare for people to call for blood in the wake of such situations. How many people called for blood and more in the aftermath of 9/11?

But when you respond to a situation with your emotions, things get out of hand very quickly. This is because emotion and reason do not reside in the same room peacefully. One almost always cedes to the other. And when legislation is drafted and enacted purely or majority from emotion instead of reason and rationality, the result is typically more harm than good. One need look no further than the Patriot Act for evidence of this notion.

And when someone shoots up an elementary school, it is difficult to not respond with your emotions.

And emotions are still running high. And the Federal government is looking to cash in on it. And if you want to see evil at work, look no further than those who attempt to gain political points from such tragedies. In the aftermath of the Federal government’s political moves, people might have the feeling of safety. But whether they end up feeling safer, they won’t necessarily be safer. The government will have seized more liberty from the people in exchange for the illusion of safety.

Ignored in all of these calls for "tougher" laws is the fact that the 20 year-old killer broke numerous firearms laws before even pulling the trigger for the first time, starting just with the fact that the firearms were stolen, meaning "gun control" likely would’ve done little, if anything, to arrest or prevent the tragedy that befell Newtown.

One misnomer that many need to get out of their minds is the idea of "gun control". There is no such thing. Instead what many call "gun control" is the seizure of freedom on the part of the government in exchange for merely the illusion of safety. "Gun control" is nothing more than a "Potomac two-step": "we’ll give you safety if you surrender to us your liberty", only it is, again, the illusion of safety that is given, because safety cannot be guaranteed. Laws are not magic spells.

And I’m sure many will cum hard, have a screaming orgasm at the idea of more restrictive gun laws. And some will be satisfied for now, their political cravings sated for the time being, while others, continuing on their political nymphomania, will not be sated at all. That political orgasm won’t satisfy those who want to see Americans further or completely deprived with regard to firearms. They cannot be sated, and they cannot be persuaded away from their goals either.

To meet these ends, several ideas have risen to the top of gun discussions, chief among them seeming to be the idea that firearms owners must justify to the rest of society why we want to keep our firearms. Such ideas ignore the fact that the United States is a republic and not a democracy, and in a republic your rights do not need to be justified to be protected.

Adding to this is the use of the word "need" in these discussions: "who needs these kind of firearms, other than the military?" "Who needs more than 10 rounds in a magazine other than the police?"

Now if you’re a person who feels that I need to justify to you or anyone else why I have my firearms in order to keep them, then I say that you need to justify to me and everyone else why you should have the right to voice your opinions. After all no one needs to dissent from the majority on anything. In fact it can be a risk to your safety to do so, as you never know who you’ll offend and how that person will react, so perhaps everyone should give up their First Amendment rights in the name of safety? What’s that? You’re not willing to do that? You still want to disagree with others and have the ability to voice that disagreement irrespective of the risks involved? Then why the fuck are you calling for the deprivation of others’ rights?

Oh wait, I think I know. It’s because depriving others of their firearms means that you don’t really lose anything. How interesting that one would call for additional restrictions that would not effect oneself in the least.

And since when does becoming a police officer or joining the military suddenly bestow a special trust upon that person with regard to firearms? Why are you only willing to trust the police and military with firearms, but not the common civilian? Every police officer and member of the armed forces begins life as a civilian. The only difference between them and me, aside from being employed by the government, is training. It isn’t like their new military or police status magically gives them the knowledge they need to exert control over their firearm, nor is their military or police status some kind of halo that ensures they will only use their firearms for good.

Ask those who died at Fort Hood and the numerous people who’ve been unjustifiably killed by police for evidence on that mark. After all, no one blames guns for an officer-involved shooting. Oh wait, yeah they do. They blame the firearm the civilian was carrying that caused the officer to open fire: "well if he didn’t have access to that gun…" But with the military, did they blame the guns for the Fort Hood shooting? Do they blame the weapons and ordnance for the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by our military in the last decade, sometimes wiping out entire cities to get a couple suspected terrorists? Of course they don’t blame them. They blame the people involved, either the personnel that went in and committed those heinous acts or the officers overseeing the operation. The guns and ordnance are not blamed at all.

Practice and training is what gives us the ability to trust someone with a firearm. Just as military and police can undergo such training and exercise such practice, so too can civilians. In fact a demonstration of such is necessary before a person can be trusted by the issuing jurisdiction with a license or permit to carry a firearm concealed.

And it is that ability to carry a firearm concealed that leads to further crime deterrence. It’s like a vaccine for crime, wherein those who don’t own firearms still benefit by the presence of those who do being in their building or on their block. And it works in the short run until we can properly diagnose our societal ills to get at the root of problems like what presented in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut.

Now would a person lawfully carrying a concealed pistol have been able to stop the Aurora or Newtown massacres long before they reached the numbers burned into our minds? It’s difficult to say. We can speculate. Yet many seem to think that if anyone dies in a situation arrested by a person carrying a concealed weapon, that if that CCW person could not prevent all of the deaths in a situation, then that person is little better than useless. Talk about a high bar to reach. And I think that’s the point.

But if a lawfully carrying person had violated the "gun free zone" of that public school and stopped things such that 19 children died instead of 20, I think everyone would agree that even saving that one life would still be a win, especially when we’re talking about children. One need not save all lives to justify using a firearm to put a stop to such a situation. After all, lawfully permitted carriers of concealed weapons are not superheroes, and to expect us to be superheroes, saving everyone facing peril and near-certain death, is beyond unfair. They can, however, be the first responders and arrest a bad situation while the police are on their way. After all the sooner someone responds to the situation in the proper manner, the quicker a bad situation is interrupted on its way to being a worse situation. And a person best able to respond to a mass shooter is a person already in the vicinity, and that person need not be a law enforcement officer.

Now not every concealed carrier can put a stop to such situations. In some cases, the presence of a concealed weapon carrier might actually aggravate things. But then, the same can be said of police as well. In fact the same can be said more of police than a concealed carrier of a weapon. As we all know, people don’t always surrender when the police show up. Sometimes they take hostages and/or keep shooting until shot or their ammo is completely expended. And sometimes they just put a bullet through their brain.

I think part of the issue befalling America is the fact that people have too glorified of points of view with regard to, well, everything.

Concealed carry

Want to carry concealed? Train first!

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

My wife and I have been going to a nearby gun range for a little over two years now. We have an annual membership there. So both of us have had a lot of experience with our firearms, and in the marksmanship evaluation in my concealed carry course, I was able to demonstrate just how proficient I had become.

I’ve also been doing a lot of reading over the years, and I’ve watched a ton of videos on YouTube regarding firearms and concealed carry. I didn’t want to be going into my concealed carry course blind. I was already pretty knowledgeable about things, what the case law recognizes as self defense and does not, and other things. But beyond that, as I already said, I’ve also become proficient with my firearm.

Now the marksmanship evaluation for the concealed carry course, at least here in Missouri, is easy enough for virtually anyone to pass: on a standard B27 target, you just need to hit the silhouette 15 out of 20 shots. And you are to be tested with both a revolver and a semi-automatic. Now the instructors where I took my class have more steep marksmanship requirements: those 15 shots need to score 8 or better. Even then, unless you’ve got terrible control, you’re going to pass. And everyone in my class did pass. I think they said that of over 7,000 students they’ve had since first offering their class, only 4 have failed to pass.

Being relatively easy to pass doesn’t mean everyone should take it. After all, we are talking about firearms here.

What concerned me during my course was overhearing the conversations they were having. Many of those in my class did not seem proficient with their firearms, and some seemed to be brand new to guns. One guy even said that he’d never been to a range before the class. Another said he hadn’t touched a gun in decades. What?!?

If you are considering going for a concealed carry permit, please get trained on your firearm first. My wife and I took our firearms to the range about once a month to every other month for the last two years. Exercising your privilege to carry doesn’t do you any good if you cannot shoot well.

Before you sign up to take a class for a concealed carry permit, or whatever you need to do in your State, become proficient on your firearm of choice first. It’ll be better in the end for all of us if you do this.

Owning firearms is one hell of a responsibility unto itself. Carrying concealed is an even bigger one. If you have a concealed carry permit but are not proficient on your firearm, you’re more of a danger to society than a benefit. Please be a benefit to society by getting trained before qualifying for the permit.

Abortion

Misconceptions about contraceptives

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Here’s a question for you: when you lie in support of your pet cause, are you actually helping that cause? If you answered No, you’d be right. The reason is quite simple: when people find out that you’ve lied to them to get them to join your cause, they’ll walk away.

Okay to be fair, this isn’t entirely true. For example cancer research charities lie all the time by creating false hope. But the good they accomplish by raising money and directing that money toward cancer research makes up for it. The false hope, by the way, is the use of the word "cure", such as "Race for the Cure" with regard to breast cancer. Cancer cannot be cured in the same sense that other diseases can, but people keep hoping and pouring money toward it, and they’re still doing a lot of good.

But then there’s abortion, or rather the hardcore pro-lifers.

You don’t need to lie to support the pro-life cause, but it happens all the time. Actually with virtually any cause, you’ll have overt liars who think they’re doing good when in actuality they might be sabotaging a cause without realizing it.

With the hardcore pro-lifers, one of the more prominent information sites is LifeSiteNews.com. Recently they published an article responding to a woman who got pregnant while on an IUD.

Before going into the article, let’s get a few things clear up front. First, the only guaranteed way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs is abstinence. But we do have other methods that do come close. If you’re going to be sexually active, the best way to prevent the spread of STDs is the condom. And to the lesbian and bisexual women out there, if you share toys with your female sex partners, you’re still at risk. As for preventing pregnancy, the best method is a pretty close match between the pill and IUD, or intra-uterine device. But the condom is still the most convenient and cost-effect method of preventing pregnancy as well.

But there is a caveat: all methods of preventing pregnancy require correct and consistent use. This includes abstinence. "Wait," I can hear people already saying, "there’s an incorrect way to be abstinent?" If you have to ask that question, you need to do some reading.

Now, on to the article: "Pregnant with an IUD: Pro-abortion writer baffled after contraception fails".

As I said, the IUD is one of the best methods of preventing pregnancy that exist. It is designed and recommended for long-term contraception, such as older women who are done having kids and want to keep their risk of additional pregnancies at a minimum without having the husband go in for the… umm… double-snip… They’re certainly popular, too. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) listed the IUD as the top method of reversible contraception in use.

But IUDs are not perfect, but their failure rate is actually lower than that of the pill because it is difficult to be inconsistent with an IUD. And they are the longest-lasting of any method of contraception available, aside from lifelong celibacy.

But where LifeSiteNews gets it wrong is when they start talking about contraception.

While pro-abortion activists routinely claim that increased use of contraception will decrease abortion rates, pro-life advocates have argued that the data points to the opposite conclusion. The solution to the high abortion rate, they say, is not increased contraception, but rather to educate people on responsible sexual behavior.

Actually, no, pro-choice advocates do not routinely claim that increased use of contraception will decrease abortion rates. Instead we advocate simply what they already claim the solution is: better education regarding contraception and sex. Wait, is the pro-life movement actually becoming less anti-sex? Will they soon start advocating for comprehensive sex education in schools instead of that abstinence-only bullshit? Yeah, I doubt it.

Let’s get to the facts of the matter.

As I said above, contraceptive use must be consistent and correct to maximize its ability to prevent pregnancy. Again, no method is perfect. But pro-choice advocates don’t say that increased use of contraception will decrease abortion rates. Instead we advocate consistent and correct use of contraceptives to decrease the numbers of unintended pregnancies, with the idea being that this will also result in a decrease in the number of abortions.

The indecency at LSN continues, quoting Brian Clowes of Human Life International:

This story is about only one of the nearly two and a half million contraceptive failures that occur in the United States each year, and nearly half of these end in abortion. Women (and men) have been conditioned to use devices that just do not do what they are billed to do – prevent pregnancy.

Oh brother… The stupid! It burns!!!

First, there are approximately 5 million pregnancies each year in the United States, approximately half of which, or about 2.5 million, are unintended. So this guy is claiming that all unwanted pregnancies occur from contraceptive failures. Bullshit. Casual research will show the fallacy behind that claim.

As an example: coerced pregnancies. I touched on this in an article a couple years ago. Another example: rape. Need I go on?

The question that we cannot really know is how many unintended pregnancies resulted from not even bothering to employ contraceptives. After all, contraceptives that are never employed never have the opportunity to prevent pregnancy, let alone fail.

And to say that contraceptives do not prevent pregnancy deserves a slap in the face. They overwhelmingly prevent pregnancy. If that were not the case, they would not be around because no one would use them. What’d be the point?

Goes to show that it’s easier to lie to support your cause than to actually tell the truth. After all, telling the truth takes a bit of effort.

Clowes followed-up by saying, "Contraception has made us spiritually and emotionally lazy". According to what measure?

The LSN article then goes on to reproduce several anecdotes from women who have suffered contraceptive failures. This really isn’t a new revelation, folks. Contraceptives do fail. Condoms break. The effectiveness of the pill and patch can fluctuate with your body’s chemistry. The IUD can also fail. How is this a surprise?

One study released in 2011 showed that in Spain, the abortion rate rose in proportion to the availability of contraception, a result that confused the researchers who expected to find the opposite result.

The study in question is called "Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Spanish population during 1997–2007". It was originally published online in June 2010. This was a study in which women self-reported on the contraceptive methods they employed during the prior two years. Unfortunately the full text of the study is locked behind a paywall.

But there are a couple things we can deduce from this study. First, it followed 2,000 women and had them self-report their contraceptive usage every two years… Okay there’s the first problem with the study. And during that two year period, the self-reported results showed an increase in contraceptive usage among those 2,000 women. Here’s an obvious question: how does that compare to the rest of Spain?

According to the United Nations, the contraceptive rate among women between 2006 and 2010 was approximately 66%. The study showed contraceptive usage to be 79.9% in 2007 for the study’s population, so clearly we have one hell of a margin of error or some kind of disparity between the data.

But yet the hardcore pro-lifers snatched up this study as "proof" that increased usage of contraception does not result in a decrease in abortion rates. In Spain during the time period for the study, the rate of abortion more than doubled from 5.42 per 1,000 to 11.49 per 1,000 women. The study concluded that "factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation." Indeed in the United States, a similar correlation was seen, just in the opposite direction.

The study itself also does not make the conclusion that the hardcore pro-lifers are drawing from this. It is an interesting correlation, but causation needs to be established, yet hardcore pro-lifers seem to think they know all the answers. Quoting Brian Clowes, "The whole idea is just to get people on contraception so they can sell them abortion."

Okay so let’s ask the question directly: are contraceptives giving women a false sense of security as far as preventing pregnancy? The available data clearly say NO.

Between 2006 and 2008, of approximately 61.8 million women of child-bearing age at risk for pregnancy, over 3 in 5 were using some form of contraception. If you do the math, that’s approximately 38 million women. In that same period of time, there was an average of approximately 830,000 abortions per year. Even if all abortions were the result of contraceptive failures – they’re not, but I’ll temporarily grant the premise – that’s still only a little over 2% rate.

Contraceptives do have a known rate of failure. It is the responsibility of those who are using them to know that and what to do to mitigate that risk. It is the responsibility of those who are sexually active to know how to employ contraceptive methods properly to reduce the chance of pregnancy to its lowest, absent abstinence. Yet many in the hardcore pro-life arena don’t want teenagers to be given a comprehensive sexual education.

The fact of the matter is that contraceptives work, contrary to what they seem to want to believe. Quoting Dianne Irving, PhD:

Since it is…a long-recognized and documented scientific fact that almost all so-called ‘contraceptives’ routinely fail at statistically significant rates resulting in ‘unplanned pregnancies’, is there any wonder that elective abortions are socially required in order to take care of such ‘accidents’? Thus abortion has become a ‘contraceptive’ in and of itself.

Long-recognized and documented scientific fact? Okay, I’d like to see some independent, peer-reviewed sources on that. And not all contraceptive failures result in a pregnancy.

But then the question they don’t seem to explore can be worded as this: what is the cause of contraceptive failures? In the vast majority of cases, it’s the person attempting to employ the contraceptive method failing to employ it properly or consistently. Indeed in the above-linked CDC study, they say this:

Given these findings—that many women who became pregnant did not think they could get pregnant—further research on factors related to nonuse and inconsistent use of contraception could be useful. A recent report on a national telephone survey suggested some possible explanations of nonuse and inconsistent use of contraception among unmarried males and females 18–29 years of age in the United States.

In other words, women who fail to properly employ a contraceptive method when they are at risk of an unintended pregnancy did so because they didn’t think they were at risk, despite wanting to avoid pregnancy.

I think it’s safe to say that the hardcore pro-lifers need to get a new dose of reality.The reality is this: contraceptives work.

With consistent and correct use of contraceptives, the risk of an unplanned pregnancy can be reduced to its minimum, but not eliminated altogether as contraceptives can and do fail, but not anywhere near the degree that hardcore pro-lifers seem to think. But also practicing abstinence can eliminate the risk of pregnancy and the transmission of STDs.

And with the reduction of unplanned pregnancies will also come the reduction in abortions, since the vast majority of abortions stem from unplanned pregnancies.

Life/Religion

Serving up Angus well done

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I’ll say up front that I’ve never seen much of the show Two and a Half Men, nor do I ever intend to familiarize myself with the series. I know all I need by the simple fact that Charlie Sheen was the show’s star until his fall-out last year, into which Ashton Kutcher stepped in to take his place.

Now Ashton Kutcher is cleaner than Charlie Sheen, but he’s no glistening ray of sunshine. For one he’s married to a woman 16 years his senior, though she’s filed for divorce, and has had some television and movie credits that cross the morality boundary as well. And I don’t think I really need to discuss Charlie Sheen. Given how often he’s been in the news (and in and out of jail), I think even mentioning his name is quite enough.

And given all of this, and the long history of the entire show, Angus Jones is only just now having a crisis of morality with the show? Something’s got to be up.

Well something definitely is up. You see, Angus found God, and his new-found religion has given him a new set of glasses through which to observe the world. That’s great that he’s "found " God, or at least he’s been baptized and is now studying Christianity and the Bible. But there’s something I have to wonder.

The Be A Star Alliance is a coalition of teachers, students and parents taking a stand against bullying in schools, including bullying on account of sexual orientation. Angus has supported this organization. Yet Christians have been against legislation and other government actions that attempt to penalize bullying gays in schools, of which evidence includes the neutering of such legislation in Michigan last year.

I really hope that Angus Jones does not go back on his support for Be A Star in the least, that he will continue to support them and stand against bullying of gay students, and that he does not become an anti-gay Christian. I hope he will not now go against that for which he has previously fought.

Constitution

Amending the Constitution, revisited

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Many people are frustrated at Congress. To this end it is no surprise that people have proposed amending the Constitution of the United States. I mean, why not? The Constitution even provides for an amendment process that, in essence, bypasses Congress, so additional limitations could be placed on Congress without having to even ask Congress to consider the idea first.

Amending the Constitution, however, is not something to be considered lightly or haphazardly. Nor is it something you should be persuaded into supporting with catchy language and tear-inducing images, such as the image of a scar-faced Marine in dress uniform:

422931_3109088563967_1023380413_n.jpg

With this image is this proposed text for an amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

There are several problems with this idea, chief among them being that people who propose amending the Constitution to satisfy their immediate urges for justice never seem to think beyond what is in their mind. The same could easily be said of those proposing to amend the Constitution to give Congress the ability to override the Supreme Court of the United States – anyone proposing such an idea needs to study Supreme Court jurisprudence to understand what would also be on the chopping block with such a power in the Constitution.

But let’s consider the language above of the newly proposed idea. What exactly is wrong with it? I mean it seems like such a good idea, doesn’t it? Well let’s take a look.

1. Use of the word “citizen”

This is the chief concern, the chief problem with this idea. The word “citizen” is used very infrequently in the rest of the Constitution, and with good reason: the initial architects of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the language of the Constitution was used to limit the government and not the people – yet it’s rather interesting how many conservatives want to amend the Constitution to do just that, but I digress.

So first and foremost, the words “citizens of the United States” must be replaced with “person” – i.e. “Congress shall make no law that applies to any person that does not equally apply to the Senators and/or Representatives”. But that, still, would not push me toward supporting this amendment.

2. The idea such an amendment is necessary

The chief issue with saying that Congress shall not do something is to imply they had that ability in the first place. Indeed this was the justification that Alexander Hamilton made in Federalist No. 84 against a bill of rights, such as what we currently have amended to the Constitution:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

By amending the Constitution to say that Congress shall not pass laws that do not apply equally to itself than to the people implies that Congress had such a power to do such a thing at all. You see, they never had such a power. Even the Supreme Court has said continually that the Federal government is one of enumerated powers. Sure they’ve tended to allow broad strokes in interpreting what those powers allow, but they still at least recognize the precept.

In short what that means is that unless the Constitution specifically and explicitly grants a power to Congress, there is no power to exercise. So despite having a Bill of Rights against the judgment provided by Alexander Hamilton above, the Tenth Amendment is at least there to reiterate the notion that only the powers granted to the Federal government may be exercised.

And the only laws that Congress can pass that don’t apply to the citizenry at large are laws regarding the compensation of those working for the Federal government and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But then these are powers explicitly granted to Congress.

3. It won’t meet the ends sought

The proposed amendment obviously seeks two ends: to force the applicability of “Obamacare” to members of Congress, and to force Congress to take a more “fair” pension.

We can all agree the pensions are considered part of compensation for services. You don’t perform the service, you’re not eligible for the pension. And under the Constitution, such compensations for services are to be defined by law, but that no raise in compensation may take effect until after the next elections for Representatives – i.e. a pay raise passed in 2012 won’t take effect until 2013.

Any law regarding the compensation given to Senators and Representatives has no applicability to the citizenry. So if Congress cannot make any law “that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”, how then can Congress make an act declaring what the requisite compensation for their services shall be?

In short, they can’t.

Now this could be good or bad. This would mean that the current level of compensation provided by law would remain static should such an amendment such as the one proposed above be passed. So as cost of living for those serving in Congress continues to rise, and it’ll rise faster than for the citizenry at large, they won’t receive any increase in compensation to help cover this cost.

Knowing this will serve to dissuade many valuable individuals from pursuing campaigns for the House and Senate. Those who will be so dissuaded are those who could not afford to serve in Congress due to the lack of compensation for services. In other words the cost of exercising their duties and obligations would be greater than their annual income after taxes.

This means that only those left to serve in Congress are those who don’t need the money. In short we would find ourselves represented by a rich, powerful elite. In short, little would change from present day, but things would only get worse in the long run.

If the aim is to merely ensure that Congress does not receive a pension that is better than any provided to those retired from the military, better language can be selected:

No compensation to be provided to Senators and Representatives after the end of their service shall be of greater quality than given to any person after the end of any service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

If the aim is to ensure that benefits in addition to salaries are no better than what is seen in the private sector, better language can be selected:

All compensation for services provided to Senators and Representatives during the terms of their services shall be only in the form of a salary or wage and shall not include any benefits in addition.

These proposed ideas keep the language contained to just compensation instead of providing for language far broader than is necessary. If you’re going to amend the Constitution, the language must be strict and contained rather than wide and broad. Only in certain circumstances has the language of any particular amendment to the Constitution been wide and broad, such as that of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But then the question needs to be asked:

Why amend the Constitution?

Amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult. Not impossible, but definitely difficult. This is why out of several hundred amendments considered by Congress, only 33 total have been proposed to the States, with only 27 having been ratified. The difficult process was intended to allow only the most critical amendments to actually be ratified.

This amendment is not necessary.

And it is bound to have more far-reaching consequences than even I have already foreseen.

Amending the Constitution is no small matter. Now there are issues that can be easily addressed by amending the Constitution, such as legally-sanctioned voter discrimination (Amendments XVI, XIX, and XXIV). The issue attempting to be addressed with the herein-discussed proposal, however, is not one of them.

The lessons demonstrated with the fallout behind the Eighteenth Amendment still have not been learned by a large majority of the populace: complicated issues require more work than simply shortcutting to amending the Constitution. The consequences of the amendment’s enactment need to be accounted, meaning one cannot be shortsighted in considering the idea, and one must consider all alternatives before considering proposing amending the Constitution.

Because once the amendment is ratified and enacted, it’s even more difficult to go back to the previous state of affairs.

That alone should always give a person pause whenever the idea of amending the Constitution, regardless of reason or ends sought, is raised.