This is Essential if We are to Reform Our Criminals

Three years ago, I wrote this:

Thought last night on something we should definitely be doing if we are to have any hope of reforming our criminals.
And, it is something we are not doing, not as a prescribed method -- not as part of our sentencing and not as part of the prison program.
The criminal needs to obtain self-worth. He or she needs to be doing something, needs to be achieving something that makes him or her feel worthwhile and gives a sense of accomplishment -- a sense of pride, I think we call it. Would it be so wrong to have the sentencing offer up an endeavor that brings a sense of worth to that prisoner?
Growing a nice little garden, searching the night sky with a telescope, becoming an expert on the Civil War -- there are many, many things a person can pursue to bring self worth. It is essential the convict be given this sense of accomplishment. He or she can hardly be expected to reform unless finding something bringing a worthy purpose to life.
Ofttimes, people turn to crime because they lack such a purpose. They feel frustrated or rejected or worthless, so they fall into a life of crime. So, why would we not seek to correct that? Why would we not seek to instill such a foundation in their lives? Why would it not be part of the sentencing, or, if not part of the sentencing, part of every prison experience? If you don't follow the principles of reformation, you cannot expect as much success as when you do. Giving a person a purpose is one of those principles. It is a must.
And, while some fall into crime for lack of purpose, others turn to crime to obtain purpose. They find in crime, bravado, and they take pride in being able to commit the crimes, and they glory in the lifestyle. If you are to take that away, you must replace it with something else.
It is said, everyone needs a reason to believe.
Surely, we cannot think to reform our criminals if we do not instill in them self value. Whereas now it is not a part of the sentencing, nor part of many prison programs, it should be.

Second Amendment Says the Opposite of What Many Say it Says

   Jackie Biskupski, Salt Lake City's mayor, calling for gun control, makes an argument. "We believe in the words of the Second Amendment," she is quoted as saying in a Deseret News article, "especially the beginning, 'Well regulated.' "
   Ahh, then, is that what the wording in the Second Amendment means? Does "well regulated," mean well controlled and government regulated?
   I've never though much on the first phrase of the Second Amendment. It is the second phrase that has always caught my attention. But, Biskupski's suggestion got me thinking. Does the Second Amendment actually say exactly the opposite of what many interpret it to say? Many say, the reason we need to have guns is to protect ourselves from our own government taking our freedoms away, to protect against the possible tyranny of our own government.
   Is that what the Second Amendment is about?
   Or do the words of the short little amendment say just the opposite? Biskupski suggests it is saying guns should be regulated, but actually, it is saying the militia should be regulated. That implies that the militia is the government's militia, not a militia rising up against the government. After all, you don't regulate something you don't control.
   As I sit here, I think more on the wording of the Second Amendment, specifically on what the founding fathers were trying to suggest when they spoke of, 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State." I would suggest, in saying, "a well regulated militia," they probably were referring to a well-organized militia. "Being necessary to the security of a free State," most likely indicates we would lose being free from other nations if we did not have a national defense. If it said, "being necessary to the security of the State," instead of, "free State," it would clearly be referring to defending this country from other countries, not rising a squad to guard against this government becoming tyrannical. Does the word "free," then, take away from that? I think not. I think they were simply suggesting this is a free nation.
  At any rate, it says, "State," not "Citizenry." It is the state that is to be protected.
   Back then, I would guess, much of the arming of the militia consisted of those enlisting bringing their own arms. So, the Second Amendment is simply saying: A well-organized and adequately armed defense being necessary to protect this nation, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be limited, lest the citizens not have arms to bring with them when they enlist.
  So that you can reflect on whether the interpretation I offer is correct, the Second Amendment says, "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."
   In closing, I would note that regardless the reason the Constitution gives for not restricting weapons -- regardless what the first phrase says -- that does not change what the second phrase says. There is to be no infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. There is to be no impeding on gun ownership no restrictions on bearing arms. You can say this part of the Constitution has been outdated, since we no longer bring our own weapons with us when we enlist in the military, but unless we change the Second Amendment, unless we amend it, what it calls for is what it calls for.
  "Shall not be infringed" remains the law, and the highest law in the land.

Would We Shield Guns from the Blame they Deserve?

   Guns kill. Then, once they've killed someone, we shield them from fault by vehemently declaring that guns don't kill, people do.
   Guns kill. Bullets from their chambers fire into people heads, and hearts, and lungs and kill people.
   Guns kill.
  You can say people are the ones who make the decisions to kill, but guns do the killing. They kill. We might not want to face up to it, but guns kill. We might be in denial, but guns kill.
   Would we absolve them of all fault? Would we shield them and protect them? After they have taken the lives of  hundreds and thousands and millions, would we say, "Don't blame the poor gun. It wasn't its fault."
   Would we shield them by saying, "Long before there were guns, people were killing"? Would we protect them by saying, "If it they didn't have guns, killers would just find another weapon to use"? Yes, people have long been killing with clubs and ice picks and even scissors, but few weapons administer death so efficiently and to so many people at once as do guns. They are the choice of killers. Killers choose guns to do the killing because guns are often the best tool for the task.
   Guns kill, and guns kill the best.
   What is it about us, that we protect guns, that we seek to turn away blame from them? It doesn't have to mean that we can't see the good side of guns if we admit that guns kill. Guns can still protect. They can still save lives as well as they take them.
   But they kill, simple as that. Anybody who says otherwise is in denial. Why do we get upset when someone says guns kill? Why do we seek to defend them from this simple truth? We shouldn't shield the killers themselves from fault, and we shouldn't shift that part of the blame that guns deserve away from them.
    Guns kill. As surely as a bullet to the heart, guns kill.

 

Washington and Jefferson Might Want Us to Change the Constitution

   If you're thinking we should hold a modern-day constitutional convention, or go about amending the Constitution in some other manner, I know a couple guys who might agree with you -- George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. You might want to call them to the witness stand. Seems they were of the opinion the day would come that the venerable document so precious to us all would need to be tweaked.
  I give you their words, here for you to read.
  First, let's hear from Washington:
  "The warmest friends and the best supports the constitution has do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable, and are sensible, if evil is to likely to arise therefrom, the remedy must come hereafter, for in the present moment it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge), can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary, as ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or posses more virtue, than those who will come after us."
  And, now let us hear from Jefferson:
  "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

This is a Time We Should Consider Changing the Constitution

   I remain convinced that, if we are to obey the Second Amendment, no restrictions on bearing guns should be allowed. That runs me against the ruling out of California, where an appeals court ruled there can be restrictions placed on who can carry concealed weapons.
   I am with those who say that if the Constitution says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then that means no law shall be created that restricts, diminishes or limits the practice of bearing weapons.
   We are too afraid of changing our Constitution. I, too, believe it an inspired document. But, if there is wisdom in a law, and the Constitution prevents it, then the Constitution should be changed. Our founding fathers were wise, but we must be just as wise. No, they didn't foresee all the intricacies that would arise. We are the ones seeing them, and facing them, and we are the ones who must address them.
   At this point, we should consider the wisdom of each of the laws already on the books. What is wisdom? Can laws be crafted allowing some restrictions without jeopardizing the things the founding fathers apparently wanted to protect? If they were wanting to ensure we had guns to protect us from government tyranny, can we craft laws that do not jeopardize this? Do our current laws fail to jeopardize this freedom? If this is the reason for the Second Amendment, to begin with, then simply craft laws so that citizens do not lose their ability to protect themselves. And, consider on the wisdom of that. If we say citizens have the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves against government tyranny, what might they consider to be tyranny? If they oppose the government for owning public lands, do we want to invite them to take up arms against the "tyrannical" government?
   Then, when we have considered all these things -- when we have decided what is wise -- then we still should not proceed without first amending the Constitution.

Measures Needed to Avoid Delegate Spots being Wrongly Filled

  Yesterday, I suggested that at our caucus meetings, we elect more delegates to convention. As I typed, I realized this could easily exacerbate a problem we already have.
 When spots are not filled at the caucus meetings, there is a danger they will be filled by the party machinery in favor of one candidate and at the expense of the other candidate(s).
   So, if enough delegate spots are not already not being filled, having more openings does invite more corruption. So, if these spots are not filled at caucus, we should either leave them empty or be careful how they are filled. It is inappropriate for the party leadership to be making the appointments based on their own favoritism. It is inappropriate that one candidate should be able to slide in names for delegates while his or her opponent is not even aware it is happening.
   It reminds me somewhat of super delegates in the presidential process. Is this worse than that, though?  These are delegates not designated to be anything other than people elected by the caucus-goers, I believe. Nor are they designed to be picked by one candidate at the expense of the other. So, for the process to be circumvented at the expense of one candidate, that strikes me as drifting into an area called campaign corruption.

The Antiquities Act Shouldn't Lock Out the Public

   The public should be part of the equation, right? You don't remove the public, do you? So, when I heard that the Antiquities Act (by which President Obama might be considering designating the Bears Ears area as a national monument) requires that he not pass out advance notices of what he is doing, well, I was surprised.

   It's got to be a "gotcha" moment, I've heard. It's got to be something that takes us by surprise.

   All, I can say, is it is wrong. My thought, is when you find an unjust law, you change it. Congress should change the Antiquities Act. The public should be invited to the process.