The Constitution?

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedPolitics

[New Contributor]

The Constitution is a term that’s used regularly in the political world and in right-wing circles. But it’s constantly misused like the term love, which is used every single day. There are many levels of love. It can go anywhere from love for your favorite sports team, love for a family member, and of course, the love of your life (at the time lol). But again, the term love is used all day, every day.  And similar to the adjective “the,” there’s often not much meaning behind it.

Similar to “love” and “the,” the term Constitution is used improperly or rather without true meaning. We live in a time where many want to bring up their Constitutional right, whether they are left, right, or somewhere in the political middle. We often hear “It is my Constitutional right…,” “I am protecting my Constitutional right,” or, “They want to take away our Constitutional right…” and so forth.

The issue is many who are yelling protection of their Constitutional right do not even know what the Constitution says. They are clueless about how many Amendments are in the Constitution and what they actually state.

There are 27 Amendments in the Constitution. Some remember popular Amendments, such as #1 Free Speech, #2 Right to Bear Arms, or #5 Remain Silent. But as mentioned there are 27 Amendments, and I can guarantee you judges, police officers, and government officials constantly use many of them as justification for their actions despite not actually following the law.

Let’s deal with the Second Amendment for today. Many gun activists believe that the Second Amendment is their only God-given right and the most important. They also believe that this Amendment justifies having 18-20 guns to protect themselves including military-like weapons. This may be true, but this is not the law of the Amendment nor is it the purpose of its creation.

Because these activists have chosen not to use the Amendment properly, they have subsequently created a Stand-Your-Ground Law. Stand Your Ground Law states that you have the right to use your gun to stand your ground when you feel your life is threatened. But these activists are using their guns any way they want because they believe the Second Amendment and Stand Your Ground Laws give them that right and justify their actions. Once again something that is not accurate. And what we’ve discovered is “Stand-Your-Ground” really means Whites can stand their ground and Blacks & minorities have no ground to stand on. Blacks can’t say, “I am standing my ground because I fear for my life.” Blacks cannot walk up and down the street waving a gun or have a large gun strapped across their chest and walk in a Burger King, gas station or Walmart without police or authorities being called. That phone call on that Black individual most likely will end in an arrest or murder by the police or civilians. 

If we’re being honest, Stand-Your-Ground Law is another made-up law that allows White Americans to make civil arrests or take the lives of innocent people, mainly African-Americans. If it was really about protecting everyone then the law would also give African-American their fair protection and rights to STAND THEIR GROUND as well.

But the reality is it’s not for Blacks. They still believe how dare a Black man own a gun because that is NOT American so they must be up to some type of crime.  How dare a Black man go golfing, take a jog, sit in first-class on a plane, or be in the park with friends. 

But people used The Constitution as their American Bible to hide behind their hatred and evil speeches. Believing that The Constitution is their legal right to do whatever they want as long as they say my Constitutional rights.  It’s the same ones that say, “Get over slavery it was a long time ago.”

But Blacks and minorities have Constitutional rights. It is their right to speak up, defend, and protect themselves and their families. It is their right to not be killed, shot at, or threatened. It is their right to vote, worship, love whom they deem fit, and it is their right to stand their ground and demand justice in our judicial system. The sad truth… justice is not blind, it can see real good. She sees color, skin tone, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and income status. Justice is not blind and justice is not fair. So when will we make The Constitution something that protects and serves all Americans? Because it’s just not for White people.

What a Fall From Grace

by with One Comment CultureFeaturedGen ZGun Debate

While I’ve been in college only for four and a half years, it feels as if I’ve been there twice as long because so much has changed from the time I enrolled and to now.

I entered college under Barack Obama and will be graduating under Donald Trump. I’ve watched Trump gradually tear down what little Obama was able to build, branding it as ineffective, but was unable to come up with anything better.

In my junior year, I interned with The Japan Times when I studied abroad in Japan. Every day without fail, Trump would be on the front page with new or recurring shenanigans. Through a different cultural lens, I was able to look at my president, at my country and see how we are continuing to plummet from grace.

The mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL happened while I was abroad. When I returned home, there were many more mass shootings. There were many more shootings in general, which claimed the lives of innocent people for unjustifiable reasons.

If we put forth legislation to regulate the gun market, people will claim that it’s an infringement on their second amendment rights, and/or use under-the-table methods to obtain a gun. It turns out that the more you tell someone to do something, the more likely it is for them to do the opposite.

This holds true in terms of immigration as well. Everyone’s circumstances for emigrating from their home countries are different, though more often than not, it is a better option to take a chance on America versus staying home. Under this anti-immigration presidency, immigrants have been treated worse than I’ve ever seen in my life. Separating children from their adult relatives, housing these children and adults in separate detainment camps without the barest of essentials, and making these children stand trials without translators or juries are just a few of the inhumane efforts to deport these immigrants.

America was built on immigration and continues to thrive today because of immigration. Yet, xenophobia has a vice grip on some Americans. The fear of foreignness coupled with the misconception that immigrants are taking over our economy result sometimes in fatal events like the mass shooting in El Paso, TX.

I continue to watch as our “magnificent” country further deteriorate because that’s all I can do when I don’t know what to do or what can be done. 

Similar Read: Fascism 101

Bulletproof Backpacks, a 2019 Back-to-School Essential?

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen Z

New anxieties emerge with the return of the school year in the wake of multiple mass shootings. 

I had never seen someone look so brave holding up a broom as a weapon. As all my peers and I hid against the wall, many crying softly, my teacher stood by the door barricaded with desks and held the plastic pole ready for whatever might emerge. No amount of active shooter drills prepares a child – or anyone – for the fear of a lockdown. That was in the sixth grade, and now as a college student, that same experience feels like it could repeat itself at any moment.  

After the mass shooting incidents in El Paso and Ohio, it does not come as much of a surprise that some parents are opting out of purchasing their children Barbie and Star Wars backpacks for bulletproof bags. On Aug. 5 2019, when I received an email from Temple University’s President addressing recent safety concerns, I thought maybe it wasn’t so ridiculous after all. According to CBS Philly, Patrick Buhler, a Bucks County man was arrested and charged with terroristic threats and harassment. Buhler bought several boxes of ammunition, as well as knives and propane bottles from Walmart locations. While he was purchasing five boxes of ammo, he asked a customer about Temple University’s security and its campus police. 

Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Senator Cory Booker, and Julián Castro have called on Walmart to stop selling guns. The company is one of the leading sellers of guns and ammunition in the country. ABC News reported Walmart is pulling violent displays, but will continue to sell firearms. An internal company memo obtained by the Associated Press instructed Walmart employees to unplug Xbox and PlayStation consoles that show violent video games and shut off hunting videos in the vicinity of where guns are sold. The truth is though, no amount of active shooter drills, bulletproof backpacks, or removal of violent displays will save us from the gun culture that has become normalized in the United States.

According to USA Today, the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio may also prompt the Supreme Court to delay hearing cases that could expand Second Amendment rights. Proponents of gun rights say the violence should not hinder the Supreme Court Justices from pushing their agenda. To this, I agree. Change can not purely be catalyzed in the face of tragedy. The lives lost in Dayton and El Paso, is only one story in a string of devastation. The Atlantic reported the United States has witnessed nearly 2,200 mass shootings since the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive. 

This new anxiety from mass shootings is not only present in people with loved ones returning to school, but in many Americans when entering public spaces. People recently took to Twitter to share their respective fears. Geraldine DeRuiter posted her sentiment in a tweet that instantly went viral: “whenever I’m in a public space, I think about what would happen if a mass shooting broke out. It’s a constant, low-level anxiety that follows me everywhere. I wonder if it’s just me. I don’t think it is.” Buzzfeed News said DeRuiter received a slew of responses from individuals scared to be in classrooms, movie theaters, churches, etc. This concern recently became even more tangible to me when my cousin declined an invitation to go to a street festival because she was anxious about walking in a highly-populated open space.

The recent attacks highlight issues that go beyond gun violence, namely the El Paso shooting and the animosity it carries towards people of color. According to the New York Times, the suspect, Patrick W. Crusius, 21, who is a White male, told police that he had targeted Mexicans. Crusius wrote a four-page manifesto that said he was carrying out the attack in “response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” Hate crimes like this become even more incomprehensible when public figures like Fox News host Tucker Carlson declares on-air that White supremacy is a “hoax.”

This summer I worked as an English language teacher for high school students from Spain. It was heartbreaking to me that a majority of the students were eager to get answers about the presence of guns during our presentation on campus safety from Drexel University Police. It was sad that neither I nor the police officer had a substantial answer, but it was also a reality check. America, we need to do better. 

Similar Read: Guns Are Here To Stay 

Where Are the Stun Guns?

by with 2 Comments Uncategorized

Not tasers. Not rubber bullets. Not tranquilizer darts. Not mace. Not anything we have seen before.

Where is the weapon that can effectively incapacitate its target without lethality? What brilliant mind is developing this revolutionary defense mechanism that could save millions of lives (and earn millions of dollars)?

Let me be specific: this is a weapon that can paralyze, immobilize, or knock unconscious its target without killing them. To my knowledge, it doesn’t exist yet.

If such a weapon existed, here are some of the enormous societal problems it could alleviate:

  1. Home Security. Many families are reluctant to have a gun in their home because of the danger it poses to children or even negligent adults. A stun gun would be a safe home defense tool that would at most knock out an intruder. The worst misuse would be an accidental, unintentional shooting of the self or another; but since no deaths would occur, the damage would be only temporary and not permanently traumatizing to a family or community.
  2. School Safety. Every teacher could have a stun gun without fear of causing unintended mortal damage to someone at the school. The weapon could be like a fire extinguisher: “Break glass in case of emergency.” The penalty for abuse of the stun gun would be severe, possibly a federal crime. But once again, the worst case scenario is that someone is rendered immovable for a time; not killed or permanently injured. Unfortunately, even an armed security guard might be too incapacitated (or cowardly) to stop an attack, so stun guns would offer a last line of defense for teachers or even for students in the worst case scenarios.
  3. Police Shootings. For every nefariously motivated murder by a bad apple in the police force, there are dozens of good officers who shoot innocent victims out of fear or immediate safety concerns. A stun gun would allow police to shoot first and ask questions later if they felt their safety was at high risk. If this weapon truly was non-lethal, then the worst that could happen is that a police officer immobilizes an innocent person until all fear of imminent danger is gone. Much like improper arrests warrant lawsuits against officers who abuse their power, likewise a citizen could sue for damages if unjustifiably stunned. However messy the legal and financial entanglements, no human lives would be forever lost in such a case.
  4. Robbery and Assault. Stores and Businesses that are subject to being looted could carry this much safer defense option (vs. a shotgun) that could deter or at least give pause to potential criminals. Also, individuals who are walking alone in dangerous places could feel a stronger sense of security knowing that they have the means to protect themselves against assault or robbery.
  5. Most people have an innate, fundamental aversion to killing another human being. This has been proven in studies about war and the large number of soldiers who purposely fire up or down instead of straight ahead to avoid causing the death of even a hated enemy. A stun gun allows a person to take action against another human being in extreme circumstances without hesitancy on account of this aversion to killing, knowing that a K.O. is the worst possible outcome.

If developed, this stun gun would obviously not solve all of the problems mentioned above. But I would be curious to see how anyone from either side of the current debates about gun control and the 2nd Amendment would take issue with such an invention.

My intention with this article is not to take sides or discuss the merits of opposing ideologies. I am simply pushing this idea out into the ether in hopes that a more qualified mind than mine can bring it to fruition.

Sometimes, the solutions to our gravest and largest dilemmas in civil society today are not exclusively A or  B; but they are the yet-to-be-invented C.

I don’t know what this weapon will ultimately look like or entail, but I leave the matter up to the ingenuity of our world’s best and brightest. We have microchips, nuclear power, and space exploration… bring on the stun guns. 

Want to stay up to date with Stoic Troubadour and other LCR perspectives? Subscribe for free by clicking here: LCR

Blood on the GOP’s Hands

by with 2 Comments Uncategorized

The massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland this past Valentine’s Day has brought forth a debate, the same one that comes up after every mass shooting in recent memory. The issue of gun control is a hot-button; it ignites so much passion on both sides of the aisle that it’s hard to get past the rhetoric and the finger-pointing and the conspiracy theories to see what’s really going on.

The National Rifle Association has been blamed for the rising number of people killed by firearms, including assault weapons – rifles designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in the shortest amount of time with minimal effort. Supporters fight back, citing the Second Amendment, unwilling to give even one inch of ground, for fear of creating a slippery slope of bans, regulations, and limitations.

I’m not against gun ownership. I come from a family of law enforcement officers, and have owned firearms myself. Most NRA members are in favor of responsible and sensible gun laws. I am; however, against owning guns designed for offensive and systematic mass murder. 

The Constitution is vague by design, and can be interpreted in a number of different ways. It’s this vagueness that has made the NRA extremely influential in US politics, and the reason assault rifles and other non-civilian firearms are sold in such vast numbers. While a handful of Democrats have taken money from the NRA, the vast majority of recipients are Republicans.

But this is the tip of the iceberg. Just under $6 million was directly donated to candidates’ campaigns during the 2016 election cycle. The bulk of the NRA’s influence is due to outside, or independent spending –  terms that encompass expenditures for everything other than lining a politician’s pockets. A case in point, an October 2017 Politifact article reveals that the NRA spent more than $200 million on political activities since 1998. Other spending includes promotional efforts, totaling about $250 million per year. 

The NRA didn’t start out as the perceived supporter of murder and mayhem, as some gun control advocates might believe. The humble beginnings consisted of a group of apolitical hobbyists who supported gun safety and responsible gun laws. Some events appear to have changed the focus of the NRA to a lobby for the GOP – the 1966 University of Texas shooting that killed 17 people caused a furor of calls to ban guns, with an equally passionate defense of gun ownership. The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, among other violent events, resulted in the 1968 Gun Control Act, which started a tug or war between the NRA and gun control advocates, and served to start the ideological path of the association to the hard right. The Cincinnati revolt of 1977 also widened the chasm between sensible gun ownership and rabid Second Amendment defense. 

Membership numbers swelled, which put the NRA on the path as a lobby with money to promote its ideology. Currently membership is around four million members, but donations by members, corporations (including gun manufacturers) and other political entities are significant. Total annual donations by individuals totaled $22 million in 2014.

It’s easy to see how the NRA morphed from advocate for firearms education and safety to radical right-wing lobby, willing to halt any and all legislation to regulate firearms. Let’s call a spade a spade – the NRA doesn’t care about the multitudes of adults and children that are killed by bullets. They relish it – gun control proposals make membership surge, and causes a spike in gun sales. It seems that after every massacre, the NRA gains more power.

However, the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida seems to have given rise to a movement that has the potential to give the NRA a taste of humble pie. These kids are sick of active-shooter drills, and hearing the NRA offer “thoughts and prayers.” They will be the ones in office in just a few years’ time, and are likely to change the face of gun ownership for decades to come. 

Texas Church Shooting, I Disagree With Trump

by with No Comment Uncategorized

President Trump claims more would have died were there stricter gun laws—insisting the gunman would not have been taken down by a “brave civilian” if that were the case. As a member of a Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and whose father and brother are both Baptist Ministers, I still cannot agree with POTUS. There absolutely should be a ban on assault-style weapons in the United States such as the firearm used by the gunman to kill 26 people and injure 20 others. Even with oversight by the U.S. Air Force to upload the gunman’s past domestic offenses in their database, civilians should never be able to possess weapons designed to be used in war. 

However, not isolating this incident and considering all of the senseless shootings that have taken place, my stance is not a commentary on the Second Amendment giving civilians the right to bear arms. I do not advocate for a gun-free society, but I do believe stricter laws should be enforced and types of firearms should be evaluated. There are firearms such as the one used by the “brave civilian” that are meant for recreation and defense. While they still can cause bodily harm, they should not be banned. However, in the case of assault-style weapons which are meant for combat situations—to kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time—they should not be accessible to civilians.