Friends, Americans, Countrimen...

[mischief]

Who are you?

For a helluva long time we have, as a society defined ourselves by rote. We have reflexively used monikers to function as macros to explain who we are. Increasingly it is becoming clear that this is no longer an accurate or reliable method. I want to know who you are. I am not asking who or what you hail from. I am not asking your Party, religious or racial affiliation. I want to know your beliefs. I am hoping that this exercise will help to uncover the core humanity and compassion shown so elequently from all camps in the threads regarding Terry Shriavo. Those of us who are not Americans, please post with your citizenship as a subject... I want to aim this primarilly at fellow Americans as we, as a society deny commonality of identity to the point that we have, IMHO lost track of what "American" really means.

I believe that all people have a right to live and die in dignity, free of opression. I believe that all persons are created equal and in the image of Divinity. I believe that politics and religion are like ego and relationship: inherently inseperable but mutually destructive. I believe that a person's religion or party affiliation is less important than their equal treatment under the law. I believe that The Constitution should be the core document of policy. I believe that money and nepotism have nearly destroyed any shred of humanity left in DC. I believe that taxes should be simple and direct with no exceptions or shelters. I believe that quality of life is more important than standard of living. I believe that decisions should be made in the moment on a case by case basis.

That is all part of who I am.

Who are you?

[miloblithe]

There's plenty of humanity in DC.

As a lifelong resident of the District of Columbia, I hate that "DC" and "Washington" are metonymns for the US government, as if we are to blame for them.

They're your damn representatives people, not ours. Stop blaming DC.

[mischief]

There's plenty of humanity in DC.

As a lifelong resident of the District of Columbia, I hate that "DC" and "Washington" are metonymns for the US government, as if we are to blame for them.

They're your damn representatives people, not ours. Stop blaming DC.

Okay. You obviously caught the difference. I apologize for offending you. Could you comment on the topic please?

[Mav451]

When Republicans stop using "morality" and religion as political freeze tactics, maybe some real work can be accomplished. Notice how morality is in quotation marks.

I also get pretty scared when people use the word American. I am Asian. Let's just say that no matter what I do, even if my English/grammar is far better than the white guy next to me, I will never be as "American" as the white guy. Its the sad truth.

American, in short, has been used TOO often, by the right, as a means of creating some kind of institutionalized, fake society. It is "American" to do this. It is "American" to do that. Watch Chris Rock "Never Scared", and you will understand why I don't like using these kind of 1984 "patriot" cries.

[IJ Reilly]

I also get pretty scared when people use the word American. I am Asian. Let's just say that no matter what I do, even if my English/grammar is far better than the white guy next to me, I will never be as "American" as the white guy. Its the sad truth.

If you weren't born here (you haven't said), then it's not too surprising that to some you aren't as "American" as somebody who was -- especially if you prefer to refer to yourself as Asian. I put that term in quotes because aside from citizenship attained by birth or naturalization, I really don't know what it means anymore to be an "American." But I do know that it's generally more difficult for an immigrant to be accepted in most societies than it is in the US.

[mischief]

Mav,

You illustrate my point beautifully. We've gotten so focussed on the factions we've forgotten and marginallized what is universal. I understand your position as an individual. I could go on for several posts in regards to my personal beefs with feeling opressed. That's not the point. I want to know what you believe in, not what you're reacting against.

[Desertrat]

Lessee. "Quality of life" for me is not defined by possessions. I've always felt rich because of the numbers of friendly acquaintances and friends that I have.

As for people in general, I think that folks oughta do their best to be as self-sufficient as possible. Doesn't matter if it's paying the bills or being a do-it-yourselfer. Nobody was born an expert anything, and life oughta be an unending learning trip. Heck, I didn't learn to fly an airplane until I was 54 years old...

I think people oughta work at general politeness and courtesy when dealing with others. The old "oil, not sand, in the gears of society" shtick. Differences in race or religion or whatever are unimportant, as long as folks aren't pushy toward others on account of these.

Looking at the meaning of words in the context of the times of those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: I don't really think I can improve on them.

Hmmm. I think that respect and self-esteem can only be earned; they can never be given. Anyhow, not as I understand those words. You earn respect by the way you live and how you perform. This is separate from treating people with courtesy and politeness. Self-esteem? That comes from meeting challenges and succeeding against them. One helps the young by giving them just enough of a challenge to push them toward their best, while not making the challenge so difficult that it's beyond their capabilities.

May, down in my little chunk of desert, nobody cares about where you're from or any of that. It's what's in your heart and how you treat others that matters, here. Once upon a time, then-governor Mark White was touring backwater areas of Texas. He went into one cafe and introduced himself, "Howdy! I'm your governor, Mark White." The owner responded, "Howdy. In Terlingua, you can be anybody you want to." Yeah, that works. :)

'Rat

[Mav451]

If you weren't born here (you haven't said), then it's not too surprising that to some you aren't as "American" as somebody who was -- especially if you prefer to refer to yourself as Asian. I put that term in quotes because aside from citizenship attained by birth or naturalization, I really don't know what it means anymore to be an "American." But I do know that it's generally more difficult for an immigrant to be accepted in most societies than it is in the US.

My mistake. I believe I should have said "I think I'm an Asian-American"; meh, but that in itself is a whole can of worms. Do I belong in my home country, where they look down on me as an American? Do I belong here, in the US where stereotypes and subtle racism still exists?

I didn't mean to make it a race issue, but my sense of belonging? It is hard to say. Going to iTASA (Taiwanese) summits/conferences, and other things like FUEL, ECASU, certainly help, but my identity is still something that I'm trying to figure out. Hell, even in college I'm figuring myself out.

[IJ Reilly]

My mistake. I believe I should have said "I think I'm an Asian-American"; meh, but that in itself is a whole can of worms. Do I belong in my home country, where they look down on me as an American? Do I belong here, in the US where stereotypes and subtle racism still exists?

I didn't mean to make it a race issue, but my sense of belonging? It is hard to say. Going to iTASA (Taiwanese) summits/conferences, and other things like FUEL, ECASU, certainly help, but my identity is still something that I'm trying to figure out. Hell, even in college I'm figuring myself out.

I won't make excuses for racism, subtle or otherwise -- but you might consider how readily you might have been accepted had you decided to live in some other country. Americans have always been conflicted about immigration. We are most of us not far removed from our immigrant roots, yet many of us seem comfortable with the proposition that our immigrant ancestors were the last worthy generation. At least we are of two minds on the subject. Most countries are of one mind -- they'd prefer to have no immigration at all.

Most first-generation Americans (there's that word again!) have a difficult time adjusting, figuring out where they belong. But I think the country's history suggests that the U.S. is as much about its recent immigrants as it is about those who've been here for many generations. I take it you are young, and intelligent. I have an idea you'll work it out before too long.

[skunk]

Most countries are of one mind -- they'd prefer to have no immigration at all
Hmmm. That's a very "American" assertion, IJ. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but it's not an "American" assertion to observe that few countries anywhere in the world have been as welcoming to immigrants as the U.S. has been historically.

[blackfox]

Good thread topic Mischief...

I will try to put a thoughtful answer out when I have a moment, but for now I feel the most pertinent thing I believe is:

That what I believe, as a thoughtful person, as a citizen, as an American, no longer matters.

That the rules of marketing have, in superceding the pursuit of truth, made the manner,medium, and (framing of) character of the author of a particular belief, more important than the validity of the message itself.

The very precepts of successful marketing/advertising, deliberately mask the truth and/or the intent of the message. Talk Radio (political) is polemic to attract viewers for advertising revenue, not beholden to an accurate, insightful or truthful portrayal of an issue. The fact that many cannot tell the difference is what marketing is all about. Perhaps you might allow this distortive practice for an electric shaver, but it is abhorrent and corrosive applied to Political issues.

In such an instance, it hardly matters what I think from a practical political perspective, which leads me to believe that we have not had a representative Democracy in a long time, if ever.

I believe in Education as a foundation for a healthy political climate, and am saddened by the abdication of responsibility for providing this by the Government, the School Districts and the Parents.

I believe in the goodness and sensible character of the individual, yet the irrational, dangerous and ignorant character of many groupings of them. Many cannot seem to discern this obvious difference or are too lazy to try.

I believe in hope. Despite everything I have written, I do. I also believe that my hope ( and ideals) have been, and will continue to be, manipulated by those who lack the scruples to refrain from such behavior.

I believe that in many cases in an imperfect world, an imperfect choice now is better than a potentially imperfect choice tomorrow. I also believe that it is leadership to make the former as close to the latter as possible, not to merely use this fact as a convenient excuse.

I believe that all individuals have the right to dignity, which includes: the access to health-care, to decent food, shelter and education. It also includes the right to make choices about their life, from who they love, to whether they wish to end it, without government interference.

I believe unless it can be proven definitively otherwise, that Government is the best guaranteer of these rights. In a Democracy, it should be, and is certainly preferable to Corporate guarantees. I would like to believe that citizens could provide this service without government, but I haven't seen it happen yet.

I believe that some force, government most likely, should mitigate the essential inequaltiy of the capitalist system so that every person could provide for themselves in a modicum of comfort and dignity, while working less than 40 hours a week. I believe that the future of our society is in the balance.

I believe I left much out and will try to come back to this later. I believe that in a country of almost 300 million people, "Americans" are both as good and as bad as they are made out to be, but mostly somewhere in the middle.

[mactastic]

Cynical me, I believe in moms and apple pie. I also believe I need a drink since it's now after 5 on an otherwise crappy day.

[Thanatoast]

I believe in treating people with respect until they prove unworthy of it, and then I believe in treating them with patience. I believe I don't always succeed in this endeavor.

I believe that a corporation, by definition, cannot have my best interest at heart. Only that it's goals may sometimes coincide with mine.

I believe the government should work for the benefit of all the people, not just its constituents. Infighting between our own leaders has caused more trouble and misery than is worth it.

I believe in the Golden Rule. I also believe there is a lot of lip service to the Golden Rule. I thirdly also believe that humans are not perfect, that they have their bad days, and will not always be nice eachother despite their goal of following it. I believe that whenever possible, we should just let it go, and smile at the pissed off cashier, and move on with our day. I believe we'll all be a lot less stressed this way.

I believe that we, as Americans, are too focused on the trivial, or only how something affects us personally, to see the larger picture, and that the larger picture often involves short term loss, but often involves long term gain, while the trivial and personal often works the other way.

[Chip NoVaMac]

There's plenty of humanity in DC.

As a lifelong resident of the District of Columbia, I hate that "DC" and "Washington" are metonymns for the US government, as if we are to blame for them.

They're your damn representatives people, not ours. Stop blaming DC.

I agree. And you forgot that you in DC proper have no legal right for representation.

What bothers me is that with 70% of the nation disagreeing with the politicians, they will end up forgetting that in the upcoming elections.

GWB flew back, even though he could have signed the law in his "home" state. He and his hypocrite Fascists talk of state rights and the "wrongs" of "activist judges". To me they are the money changers in the Temples. May they rot in Hell when they meet St. Peter.

[mischief]

This is going better than expected. Thank you all for your views; cynical, introspective and otherwise.

My point in starting this thread was to get to the core from which this amalgam we call a Nation built itself. I believe that within each human, regardless of race, gender, national origin or mental status is the same basic set of universal gut-instincts about morality, ethics, fair play, etc. I wanted to provide a forum for each of us to express how we see that core.

I also acknowledge that there are a plethora of factions, actions and policies that exist contrary to any of those core values. I will make the assertion that all of these things are the result of fear and self hatred expressed through denial and cruelty.

I believe that the vast majority of citizens in this country, as well as worldwide share the same horror and frustration over these phenomena. Unfortunately common sense, common decency and mutual respect rarely sell papers. I believe that the citizens of this country have been convinced by sheer saturation of media that there are no sane, decent, compassionate people left in the world. I started this discussion to prove that belief wrong.

I believe that less than 1 in 1000 people in this country are as dammaged as people believe. I believe that if we were a little braver about expressing what we believe in and where our hopes and outrage lies we may just find we all agree on far more than we'd ever guess.

So please, Rant, cry, scream or just prognosticate on all you believe in. It's about damn time we started standing up and declaring ourselves above the din. It's not the end of the world, the sky isn't falling.

I personally believe deep in my gut that the world will soon be utterly intolerant of fearmongering and greed... But only if we make it clear to each other first that we're all together in those assertions.

[takao]

about the problem with finding identity: it's the same over here since 1995 (and before) after joining the EU .. i remember being asked the question "as what do you see yourself ?" ...where the answers were

1. a citizen of the world (or something like that)
2. a european
3. an austrian
4. a "vorarlbergian" (the 'state' i'm living in)
5. a member of your hometown

was an intersting discussion because hardly anybody was sure...and few called themself "an austrian" ..most identified them selves as a member of their 'state' or 'hometown'

except being pessimistic,a little bit close minded and perhaps a good chunk of harshness/grumpyness i don't see anyting with being an "austrian" ;)

[Desertrat]

Aw, well, takao, me being from Texas, I know I'm one of God's chosen. :D That makes life easy.

Back almost 50 years ago, I walked into a bar in the Communist section of Paris. Somebody grumbled, "Yanqui..." and my response was, "Yankee, hell, I'm from Texas." (A minor misunderstanding of the difference betweeen "Yanqui" and "Yankee", there. :) )

"Ah, Texas! Cowboys...!"

I spent the afternoon and evening telling BS whoppers about cowboys and Indians and ranching and Texas Rangers and all that, and they got me drunker'n a rat.

People are fun, most everywhere I've ever been...

:), 'Rat

[zimv20]

Back almost 50 years ago, I walked into a bar in the Communist section of Paris. Somebody grumbled, "Yanqui..." and my response was, "Yankee, hell, I'm from Texas."
my most typical response when i'm abroad and asked where i'm from: "chicago."

oftentimes, it seems to engender some kind of respect. whether it's because of michael jordan or al capone, i'm not sure.

[takao]

well rat it could be worse... i always end up saying "no... the other australia .. the one without the animals who like to jump around" ;)

zimv20: i know that michael jordan was/is a good basketball player but apart from that i have no idea (or any other american football,basketball,baseball player) and i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one...

on the other side the members of US skiing team are perhaps more famous over here ...

[Don't panic]

my most typical response when i'm abroad and asked where i'm from: "chicago."

oftentimes, it seems to engender some kind of respect. whether it's because of michael jordan or al capone, i'm not sure.

it's more likely the Blues Brothers or ER, depending on age ;)

Back almost 50 years ago, I walked into a bar in the Communist section of Paris.

when did Paris have a Communist section? :confused:

[skunk]

The Left Bank, obviously :rolleyes:

[Don't panic]

The Left Bank, obviously :rolleyes:


Ou, mais oui. Naturellement...

[mischief]

UN Declaration of Human Rights. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Basic Human Needs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_human_needs)

Indoctrination. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination)

Group think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_think)

Bystander effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)

Comments?

[mischief]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Mischief's radical-centrist translation:

Section 1: The legislature SHALL NOT create any law, tort or bill in regards to religions, their tax status, nor whether one organization is and another is not a religion recognized by the state, nor outlaw or suppress any system of belief or faith.

Section 2: Censorship is not on the table. Ever, under any circumstances. Congress shall pass no law that directly or indirectly suppresses the free flow of ideas and dissent. Ever. Period. No exceptions. "National Security" is no goddamn exception.

Section 3a: Congress shall pass no law nor tolerate from the Executive any order or actions that violate the right of free association. This includes but is not limited to labor organizations, political groups, religious groups, gatherings in public places, orgies and biker rallies. ;) \

Section 3b: Congress shall pass no law obstructing the populaces' ability to complain about the lack of lubrication involved in the ****ing they get from the Fed. Additionally Congress has the responsibility of making themselves easily available to hear these grievances.

[mischief]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Mischief's radical-centrist translation:

Armed Millitary and pseudomillitary organizations form the internal and external security apparatus of this country. Being that formal organizations are inevitable, as is the disbursement of firearms to the general public an integration of the two must exist to satisfy this amendment. You want a gun? Fine.

Be willing to be a reservist, be trained, fingerprinted, registered, certified, licensed, psych profiled and carry a beeper. Be willing to have your gun's working parts sequentially serialled and it's ballistics sampled. Be willing to accept licensing, training and accessory training such as Emergency Response, Chain of Command and Tactics in proportion to the destructive potential of the firearm. Be willing to accept that in choosing to posess a firearm you are part of a Well Regulated Millitia that can be summoned to active duty at any time with all the rank and responsibility earned through training and previous service.

This is actually less infringement than current laws. Technically you could have any firearm or weapons system you like, contingent on stringent training, profiling, licensin and registering. Don't ever forget that "well regulated" part that the rest of the Amendment hinges on.

[mischief]

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Translation:

A house is a house, a barrack is a barracks. Excepting during war, as specifically described by laws made in congress, never the twain shall meet.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Translation: I think this one stands on it's own but I'll add electronic files, tellecommunications, etc. I will also add that, yet again: NATIONAL SECURITY DOES NOT EXCUSE VIOLATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. This amendment does not apply solely to congress as most others but applies as a blanket statement with no specification to government or private agency. My business is my own. Get a damn warrant or be damn sure of your probable cause.

[mischief]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Capital+crime), or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=19747), except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/due%20process%20of%20law); nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Translation:

Section 1: A Grand Jury must review the case for any capital or other infamous offense before a warrant can be issued for the arrest of any suspect subject to that investigation. Exceptions exist in times of war and/or for crimes and suspects involving the millitary.

Section 2: No person can be charged and tried for the same crime twice. Theoretically, on appeal an existing conviction can be "upgraded" if the originally charged crime is not exceeded. This would require the delcaration of a mistrial and require the charges found lacking be retried with the original evidence and witnesses or affidavits. A felon cannot be compelled into double jeapardy but may effectively ellect such through appeal. This is often applied as a blanket statement to all criminal charges though I can see no reason that it be extended further than capital, treasonous, and violent/violate crimes.

Section 3: A person cannot be compelled to reveal information or evidence that would incriminate them.

Section 4: The government has no right to sieze anyone or anything posessed by any person without due process of law.

Section 5: The government must negotiate a price and pay for any service, product or idea with the original owner/inventor/vendor.


Note: I am considering going back into the previous posts and adding hyperliks to the jargon involved. I'd like this to be a reference for this forum as constitutional questions come up often. If you feel I should edit my translations, have opinions to add or would like something annotated please post a reply.Mods: If you'd like to split out the constitutional content into a seperate thread feel free, It just evolved in place.

[mischief]

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Link. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html)

Link to the theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) being circumvented as we speak.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Mischief's radical-centrist translation:

Armed Millitary and pseudomillitary organizations form the internal and external security apparatus of this country. Being that formal organizations are inevitable, as is the disbursement of firearms to the general public an integration of the two must exist to satisfy this amendment. You want a gun? Fine.

Be willing to be a reservist, be trained, fingerprinted, registered, certified, licensed, psych profiled and carry a beeper. Be willing to have your gun's working parts sequentially serialled and it's ballistics sampled. Be willing to accept licensing, training and accessory training such as Emergency Response, Chain of Command and Tactics in proportion to the destructive potential of the firearm. Be willing to accept that in choosing to posess a firearm you are part of a Well Regulated Millitia that can be summoned to active duty at any time with all the rank and responsibility earned through training and previous service.

This is actually less infringement than current laws. Technically you could have any firearm or weapons system you like, contingent on stringent training, profiling, licensin and registering. Don't ever forget that "well regulated" part that the rest of the Amendment hinges on.

While i agree with you, many argue endlessly as to what "A well regulated militia" is. It does bring up historical context of the meaning of words. Much like the parable of the camel through the eye of the needle.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Translation:

A house is a house, a barrack is a barracks. Excepting during war, as specifically described by laws made in congress, never the twain shall meet.

So with the "war on terrorism", we should be forced to have our homes used by the military as they see fit?



Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Translation: I think this one stands on it's own but I'll add electronic files, tellecommunications, etc. I will also add that, yet again: NATIONAL SECURITY DOES NOT EXCUSE VIOLATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. This amendment does not apply solely to congress as most others but applies as a blanket statement with no specification to government or private agency. My business is my own. Get a damn warrant or be damn sure of your probable cause.

Amen here.

[mischief]

So with the "war on terrorism", we should be forced to have our homes used by the military as they see fit?

So far as I recall congress did not, in fact make any declaration of war. There are also no laws (yet, that I am aware of) mandating the use of residences as ad hoc barracks'. However: being that the DOHS is neither Millitary nor Police, it falls into a unique Constitutional blindspot....

[mischief]

While i agree with you, many argue endlessly as to what "A well regulated militia" is.

So far as I'm concerned it's fairly simple:

Initially the Millitia (Army) and Admiralty (Navy) were all we had. They were maintained by the states on a basically local and volunteer level. This was the "Minuteman" model.

After the war of 1812 and the Civil war showed the inherent weaknesses in that model it was revised into a more formal National organization with essentially the same structure. After the Civil War, however there were also more firearms in more varieties so the waters began to muddy. They were still essentially Millitia-based units supplemented by Federally trained officers, calvary and Marines but there was also a proliferation of cheap, incredibly effective and even some concealable firearms. At this point the prospect of regulation seemed ridiculous as there was always the threat of the original inhabitants of this fine land to worry about along with the Central Americans.

Once we get into the period of the early twentieth century everything is set for a very confusing time ahead. There's no more genuine threats left, the USA and the rest of the developped world is drawn into two incredibly destructive wars that are never seen on American soil!. Americans begin to become complacent and paranoid about enemies they've been vigilant for but never seen.

After the 2nd world war's reformation of the Millitary and the advent of the Cold War there are no more State Millitias in any form the founding fathers would recognize. The legacy of freely distributed and unregulated firearms (even after the bloodbaths of Prohibition) would put ever more interesting and devestatingly effective firearms in the hands of the general populace. The constitutional paradox presented by all these weapons would be quelled by the paranoia and propoganda of the Cold War (See movies like "Red Dawn" et al). After all, Who better to repell those nasty invading pinko paratroopers than you and me? (Yeesh, that we ever bought such nonsense...)

After the cold war the US was left saturated with unregulated guns, It's population deranged from generations of hunting phantom invaders, hiding from A-Bombs under desks and only seeing war where it was comfortably at a distance. This history combines to yield a Gun culture that harks back to the success of popular armament from 1700 to 1900 while ignoring it's bloody consequences during the Civil War. Additionally, since the Cold War's rhetoric drew on this and labelled anyone who questioned that doctrine as a traitorous communist sympathizer the country is hopelessly polarized over an issue that the Constitution has had Mandate over from the beginning.

I believe that the issue has been discussed by legislators for a long time but the application of constant war-mindedness since about 1941 has removed any remaining sense from the discussion.

Really there's only two solutions that fit the Constitutional model now that we are out of Clear and Present Danger:

1: All Guns not in the custody of Millitary or Paramillitary organizations under the command of the Executive (Originally referred to en masse as The Millitia) should be removed and prohibited for general sale. Those who wanted Forearms then would have the option of joining such an organization. Personally I think this model stinks but it does meet the criteria outlined in the 2nd amendment.

2: Anyone who wants a Firearm should be trained, screened, registered and licensed rigorously and thoroughly. No firearms are to be prohibited under this model, only the regulation, cost and requirements for ownership escalate with the class of the weapon. The Pentagon would be the best source for writing these regulations as they have standing regulatory mechanisms for their own staff in these regards. Under this model, once you own a firearm you are required to carry a pager when armed and serve as neccesary under any local, state or Federal agency operating in your area in need of an armed volunteer with your skill level and training. Additionally, fines for noncompliance should be rather extreme. Credit should be offered in licensing requirements for Veterans in similar respect as recertification of EMT's.

[skunk]

So far as I recall congress did not, in fact make any declaration of war. There are also no laws (yet, that I am aware of) mandating the use of residences as ad hoc barracks'. However: being that the DOHS is neither Millitary nor Police, it falls into a unique Constitutional blindspot....This was clearly a measure taken in response to British troops being billeted in residences. How times have changed!