Second Amendment

What a can of worms! This topic and abortion are probably the top 2 issues faced by the Supreme Court. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett leads to praise and condemnation.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/second-amendment-advocacy-groups-laud-amy-coney-barrett-nomination

I found this paper quite interesting...from this Tennessee Law Review.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3625076

Law professor E. Gregory Wallace does not address why anti-gun activists focus on semi-automatic rifles, but it is important to consider the origins of this effort. In the early 1980s, efforts to ban handguns failed to gain traction with the American public so gun controllers decided that a new focus on rifles could be a steppingstone to their ultimate goal. Their scheme depended on Americans’ ignorance regarding these rifles – and it still does. That’s why many politicians continue to push the same falsehoods nearly 40 years later.

The fact that the military M16 and M4 resemble a civilian AR-15 does not make the rifles equal. That they fire the same cartridge is also irrelevant. The military chooses service weapons and calibers based on any number of factors and trade-offs are necessary. Military personnel also use 9mm pistols like the Glock 17 and the Sig P320; the 1911 .45 caliber pistol; 12-gauge shotguns like the Mossberg 500 or the Remington 870; and bolt-action rifles like the Remington 700.

An argument to ban “military-style” firearms is really an argument to ban all firearms. All modern firearms have some type of military analogue.

The second claim alleges that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are supposedly “extra lethal” because they shoot faster, are more powerful, hold more ammunition, and cause more serious wounds that other firearms. These allegations would require semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15 to have a higher rate of fire, a higher velocity than other rifles, a unique ability to accept magazines with more than an arbitrary number of rounds, and somehow be differently subject to the laws of physics and physiology than any other firearm.

It’s important to note here that Wallace is, by his own admission, a firearms instructor and competitive shooter but his insight and experience only informs his analysis – it does not drive him to a predetermined conclusion. That much is obvious, as his analysis is based on indisputable facts. We’ll take each of these claim requirements individually, though without the same depth.

First, all semi-automatic firearms have essentially the same rate of fire: one round fired for every trigger pull. Another go-to gun control claim is that an AR-15 can be fired between 300 and 500 times per minute, which would require between five and eight trigger pulls per second for an entire minute (without time for necessary reloads). Wallace points out that the sources for these claims were prominent gun control advocates. In summary: all semi-automatic firearms have essentially the same rate of fire. 

The most common AR-15 cartridges – the .223 or 5.56 – produce less kinetic energy than other common rifle rounds. These factors, and a myriad of other variables, determine the type and severity of wounds inflicted by a gunshot. There is nothing exceptionally unique about the AR-15 or other semi-automatic firearms in this regard. Wallace explores these ballistics topics in great detail, noting that the “wound severity depends largely on the type and quantity of tissue disruption, which in turn depend on the location of the bullet strike.

A magazine of a certain capacity does not make an AR-15 or any firearm any more powerful or fire any faster. Most full-size handguns come with magazines that hold 15 or more rounds and are capable of taking magazines with even greater capacities. In other words, the term “high-capacity” is a misnomer; these are common magazines. Wallace cites research that estimates more than 100 million magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds in circulation and cites Gary Kleck’s research that found that larger-capacity magazines do not produce more lethal outcomes in mass shootings.

Wallace goes into significantly more depth on these topics, but his point is constant: the semi-automatic firearms targeted by “assault weapon” bans are no more lethal than any other rifle. 

Religion and Politics

 Thoughts pulled from a variety of articles

The Religious Right is the problem?https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-christian-right-is-helping-drive-liberals-away-from-religion/ 

“Politics can drive whether you identify with a faith, how strongly you identify with that faith, and how religious you are...And some people on the left are falling away from religion because they see it as so wrapped up with Republican politics.”

As recently as the early 1990s, less than 10 percent of Americans lacked a formal religious affiliation, and liberals weren’t all that much likelier to be nonreligious than the public overall. Today, however, nearly one in four Americans are religiously unaffiliated. That includes almost 40 percent of liberals — up from 12 percent in 1990, according to the 2018 General Social Survey.

The majority of Democratic voters are religiously affiliated. But the more liberal you are, the less likely you are to belong to a faith; whereas if you’re conservative, you’re more likely to say you’re religious.

Since 1990, the share of liberals who never attend religious services has tripled. And they’re less likely to believe in God: The percentage of liberals who say they know God exists fell from 53 percent in 1991 to 36 percent in 2018. 

According to surveys by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of liberals who believe that churches and religious organizations positively contribute to society dropped from nearly half (49 percent) in 2010 to only one-third (33 percent) today. And according to 2016 data from the Voter Study Group, only 11 percent of people who are very liberal say that being Christian is at least fairly important to what it means to be American — compared to 69 percent of people who identify as very conservative. 

Recent surveys show that secular liberals are more likely than moderates or conservatives to have spouses who aren’t religious. That’s critical because these couples are then often less likely to pray or send their children to Sunday school, and research shows that formative religious experiences as a child play a crucial role in structuring an adult’s religious beliefs and identity. It’s no coincidence then that the youngest liberals — who never lived in a political world before the Christian right — are also the most secular. 

As more liberals become nonreligious, the Democratic Party’s base is growing more secular, complicating the party’s efforts at reaching more religious voters. 

How religion impacts Supreme Court selections (Remember the Dogma!)

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/09/25/the-lefts-anti-christian-dogma-is-living-loudly-within-senate-democrats/? 

The recent attacks against Barrett mirror ones she faced during her 2017 confirmation hearing, in which Democratic senators asked pointed questions about her Catholic faith, suggesting Barrett’s religious beliefs disqualified her from serving on the federal bench. 

Testing a nominee’s fitness for public office based on their personal faith is barred by Article VI of the Constitution: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The hostility from Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee was not limited to Barrett. In 2018, Hirono and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., asked Brian Buescher, a nominee to the U.S. district court in Nebraska, about his membership with the Knights of Columbus, a faith-based service organization that supports traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, abortion, and human sexuality. 

Democrats have a religious problem

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/democrats-have-a-religion-problem/510761/ 

In the 92-page 2020 Democratic Platform document, the word God appears once. 

Educational Choice

These statement caught my eye this morning.

"Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said he had the same feeling that the NEA has about charter schools, adding that no 'private charter school will receive a penny of federal money. None.'" — DailyWire.com

Biden's promise will likely trigger a response from both the Trump campaign and fans of charter schools -- many of whom are minorities who prefer charter schools to the failing public school system. Not lost in all of this, the power of the teachers unions -- one of the biggest donors to Democrats. In fact, according to OpenSecrets.org, teachers unions give 94% of their political donations to Democrats. No wonder Joe's against charter schools. 

There is strong demand nationally for school choice. There are waiting lists across the board: rich and poor, red and blue. Are all these parents wrong? One point is true: rich people will always have school choice. 

Here is some data on this issue.

Public schools: 90% of school students
10 states: any school, any district. 16 states: some open enrollment options.

Public charter schools: 7,000 nationwide. 3.2M students in 44 states. Tuition-free. Primarily non-profit.
Less $ per student than a public school. More freedom and flexibility, but they have to answer to a performance contract and financial accountability.

Magnet schools: 4,300 nationwide. 3M kids.
Used to be test in to attendance. Few have that requirement today.

Private schools: parents pay tuition.
30 states provide tuition assistance. Many students with learning disabilities are commonly sent to private schools by public schools.

Online learning: 33 states offer K-12 online learning options.
Students meet virtually, meet for group activities. More active lifestyles than average students - example Olympic figure skaters. Some students have to work to support their families.

Homeschooling: 2M kids.
Continual growth. Many networks for group activities. 

Thoughts on this topic:

Students are unique. Different interests. Parents want what's best for their kids.

Can parents make the best decision for their kids? The government want us to make good decisions...but not about education, health care, etc?

What if parents are not well educated? When parents choose a school, data says the graduation rate increases. Increase parent-student satisfaction.

Should we take away freedom from poor people? Where do you draw the line?

What holds back choice? Lack of understanding of the various options. 

More research on this topic if you are interested.

Teacher's union and school choice http://www.aei.org/publication/thomas-sowell-on-the-moral-bankruptcy-of-teachers-unions-and-politicians-when-it-comes-to-school-choice-and-charter-schools/

2018 school choice survey http://www.aei.org/events/findings-from-the-2018-schooling-in-america-survey/

Harvard opinion https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/04/21/harvard-smears-homeschooling-parents-and-their-children/?

More Harvard opinion https://www.city-journal.org/harvard-conference-purported-dangers-of-homeschooling

Cato regarding Harvard https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cato-daily-podcast/id158961219?i=1000474033723 

What say you? 

Stealing The 2020 Election

The fear of many on the Left is that Team Trump will somehow steal the 2020 presidential election. He's a hateful bully, right? 

Could the GOP do it? Sure. Could the Democratic Party? Sure. Theft has been a part of the political process for years, perhaps centuries.

Two thoughts from people who get paid to think (and write) about "taking the election." 

Thought one: Will Democrats concede if Trump wins?
(author Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institute)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/democrats-may-not-be-able-concede/616321/

I find myself truly worried about only one scenario: that Trump will win reelection and Democrats and others on the left will be unwilling, even unable, to accept the result.

I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory. A loss for Biden, after having been the clear favorite all summer, would provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change—at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high. If Democrats can’t beat a candidate as unpopular as Trump during a devastating pandemic and a massive economic contraction, then are they even capable of winning presidential elections anymore? Democracy, after all, is supposed to self-correct after mistakes...Liberals have had enough trouble accepting the results of the 2016 election.

How could so many of their fellow Americans side with a racist and a fabulist, someone so callous and seemingly without empathy? It was easier to think that those Americans had been lackeys, manipulated and deceived, or that they simply hadn’t understood what was best for them. Moreover, the Russians had interfered, and tipped the balance in an extremely close election through propaganda, fake news, and collusion with the Trump campaign.

If Trump manages to win, recent polling data indicate, he will likely do so despite losing the popular vote. That will fuel disillusion not just with the election outcome but with the electoral system. The popular-vote numbers will be used to argue that Trump won without winning—again. In theory, this could be a good thing, if it birthed a mass movement to change the way Americans choose their presidents.

------

Thought two: will Democrats use the "Nuclear Option" to blow up the election? 

(author Kristin Tate)

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/516207-will-democrats-use-the-nuclear-option-to-blow-up-the-election

Imagine waking up the morning after the election this November with the unclear result over who is the next president. Suppose that Donald Trump fails to capture the popular vote by a wider margin than in 2016 and loses some states he carried that year. With a slim majority in states like Florida and Pennsylvania, he could still garner 270 electoral votes.

But would Democrats accept such an outcome? There is a chance that legislatures in blue states could effectively overturn the election result through a means available in the Constitution. This nuclear option has never been tried before, but it could tear the country down.

If Trump has a narrow victory in one or more blue states, or a contested result, there is a chance that the process would be completely taken out of the hands of voters. A new precedent and a clause in the Constitution may lead us to the perfectly legal case where Trump wins the mandated number of states, yet Joe Biden is sworn in on January 20.

The electoral votes are counted by Congress on January 6, as the Constitution declares that if there is no winner of at least 270 electoral votes, the election is thrown to the House, which is divided by state delegations of representatives. The election for vice president is thrown to the Senate. Since the count of electoral votes comes after the new Congress convenes, the party with majority control of the branch could determine the fate of the president.

Democrats are already meeting to wargame what might happen if Trump wins in a narrow margin. Leaked strategy sessions suggest Democrats do not trust voters, under our current system, to select the president. In one campaign discussion, the former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was playing Biden and called for the governors to send their own delegations of electors in any states that Trump wins by a narrow margin.

Democrats have their fingers on the button to destroy one of the pillars of democracy. (which I think is over the top logically...but so is Trump "stealing" the election IMO)

You decide. What say you? 

P.S. May be worth watching. 

http://click.heritage.org/heVUk6H01M000jsgr030Tt8