Passing the Constitutional Muster

I wrote earlier about the need to repeal the Second Amendment. Obviously, this will never happen. Common sense isn't and, as I've pointed out repeatedly, people are stupid.

So, let's examine the Second Amendment and see if we can accomplish the same goals (reducing the number of firearms-related deaths in the United States) but still pass constitutional muster.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are two parts to this: the justification and the prohibition. The justification says we need a well regulated militia. The prohibition is not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. But as I've argued, without the former, you really can't justify the latter. We have no well regulated militia based on the right to keep and bear arms. We only have the right without justification.

Previously, I pointed out that this means the Second Amendment is obsolete (it is) and utterly unnecessary (also true) based on its justification. But in light of human stupidity, another justification for dealing with the propensity of people to use their lawfully acquired weapons to wreck havoc on their family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and loved ones, it behooves us to come up with a justification to "regulate" arms in such a way that the Second Amendment actually fulfills its purpose., and still fulfills the need to stop the slaughter.

Right now, a major threat to the security of the United States is the fact that any idiot can go out and buy or own a gun - and most do, resulting in 30,000 American deaths per year. That's a major threat to the security of the United States. The first part of the Second Amendment clearly says this is why we need well regulated militias.

So the big things here are fulfilling the mandate of the Second Amendment without necessarily regulating who can own a gun.

As I mentioned before, the Second Amendment arose due to a lack of funding in the nascent United States Government to support a standing army capable of defending itself. Obviously, we've come a long way from that point and militias aren't strictly necessary to defend the United States. However, although they aren't necessary, they are mandated by the Second Amendment.

After all, it clearly says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State.

And our militias aren't exactly well regulated nor do any of them have anything to do with the U.S. government. We have a National Guard (the modern equivalent of the Militia), but at the same time, they don't need the RIGHT to keep and bear arms outside of their duties as National Guardsmen. They have the obligation to do so while on duty as directed by their commanding officers.

So, it comes down to cases of actually adhering to the reason we have the Second Amendment: Maintaining well regulated militias. The implication is that these militias will be armed by the personal arms of its members.

The biggest problem with gun ownership is idiocy and a lack of training and responsibility.

So let's bring back militias.

Simply put, militias were required to drill and train to defend the country. It was expected of every man (women weren't given the vote till the 1920's, after all) to fulfill their obligation by being responsible, training and being disciplined by the training in their local militia. Obviously, we don't need a bunch of "citizen soldiers" acting as local militias, but according to the Second Amendment, it CAN be made compulsory for all gun owners to drill and train become well regulated.

After all, that well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State, according to the Second Amendment.

But given the more modern context, these "militias" aren't really needed for defending the United States (as they once were). However, they ARE necessary to the security of our country, since ignorant, stupid, untrained, mentally unbalanced and utterly unfit people are allowed to go out and buy guns with no obligation to fulfilling the reason for the Second Amendment. There is no constitutional barrier to creating and enforcing a requirement to fulfill the first part of the Second Amendment: To create well regulated militias.

This doesn't mean arming "citizen soldiers". It means teaching these idiots how to properly use their guns - and repeating this training based on proficiency and elapsed time. One must train more than once in order to maintain and prove proficiency in the proper care and feeding of a firearm. It also makes it compulsory if you own a firearm.

Your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But if you own one, you will be REQUIRED to attend monthly sessions in training, use, practice, etc. You won't lose your gun if you don't. You'll simply go to jail, become a felon and by long established law, you can't own a gun if you are a felon.

Problem solved. Constitutionality is maintained and gun owners either stay good militia members, give up their guns or go to jail and lose the right to own or carry them forever.

Personally, I like this option the most.

The Caffeinated States of America

America is going to hell in a liquid hand-basket. Epidemics of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and, most troubling, a complete destruction of tact and manners (not to mention common sense) have swept the country. These epidemics have been on the rise over the last several decades, with two common factors tying them all together into a universal cause.

Caffeine and sugar.

The perils of caffeine are many and far reaching. Caffeine is considered the most prevalent and overused psychoactive drug in the world. More than 90% of Americans consume some on a daily basis. This is actually twice the number who consumed caffeine daily in the '50's and '60's. What's worse, 400% more children today consume some amount of caffeine than did sixty years ago.

What's really scarey is that the actual effects of caffeine aren't well understood or fully studied. What little is known about it for sure is that it acts on the central nervous system as a general stimulant. Every such stimulant also kicks the endocrine system to produce more of the stress hormones cortisol, GH and norepinephrine. Too much of these create conditions in the body which cause fat to be stored, constrict blood vessels, increase heart rate and decrease absorption of nutrients. This leads to obesity, high blood pressure, elevated mood swings and other effects which, as I pointed out at the beginning, has, in my opinion, led us to an epidemic of nasty behavior, high blood pressure, obesity and other negative effects on the American population.

Think about ADHD for a moment. How many of these kids are getting caffeine? There seems to be a major explosion of ADHD kids in classes these days (either that or they haven't been introduced to the belt behind the wood shed often enough - once is usually all it takes - to keep them in line and focused). Assuming for the moment that Americans are not incapable of raising children (which is entirely possible), one can point to caffeine consumption as a possible cause. Because it's never had a study to determine its long-term effect on developing bodies, who can say whether the reason little Johnny can't stay focused isn't because of all the Pepsi he sucked down as a toddler?

As for sugary drinks, let's face it, they have a shit-ton of calories in them. Sugary drinks have finally become a recognized danger to our kids health. This has been a long developing phenomenon. American obesity rates have risen along with the popularity of caffeinated and sugary beverages. The average calories in a soda are 120 per 8 ounces. The normal restaurant glass is between 24 and 36 ounces, meaning you're getting about 360 to 480 calories EXTRA with that meal. And that only tabulates the sit-down restaurants. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores have beverage sizes up to 72 ounces (a QUART is 64 ounces). That's 1080 calories in a standard (normal calorie) sugared drink.

That's a hell of a lot of calories when the standard diet for a normal adult of 180 pounds who engages in a moderate amount of activity is 2000 calories a day.

Now, let's put the two together.

You have caffeinated beverages stimulating the body. Some studies indicate that you can lose weight this way, but others show that the stimulation of the stress hormones actually compounds the effect of the sugar, adding fat at an accelerated rate. Toss in an obscene amount of sugar and you get fat. Being obese is bad enough as a high blood pressure and diabetes risk goes, but the stress hormones increase the work the body has to do to keep itself from flying apart, increasing the chance for stroke, heart attack or other organ failure.

And because these epidemics cut across all demographics, it's likely not simply be due to race, lifestyle, genetics, etc. The one commonality for all demographics is the prevalence of caffeine (and sugar) consumption.

This means Americans are getting far and away more calories or, worse, caffeine (or both) than anyone actually needs. "Energy drinks" seem to have sprouted like weeds on the landscape with words that pretty much describe what the individual who consumes them will turn into (Kudos for the truth in product labeling, by the way): Monster, Full Throttle, Red Bull, Amp and Rock Star (you will never be one even if you consumed a billion of these things, so the truth in labeling falls down there) are just a few of these "quaff and jitter" demons in a can.

All studies done so far on these beverages tend to focus on caffeine OR sugar. There isn't a single one (that I could find) which focuses on the prevalence of both of these ingredients and how they interact. But I can pretty well tell you what the long-term effects will be (aside from obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, heart attack, acne, etc - as if they weren't bad enough):

Unparalleled hostility and intolerance.

In order to make this understandable to the average person, one must understand the brain structure. The brain is laid out in three (well, a lot more than three, but for the purposes of this argument, it's three) basic areas: The brain stem, the cerebellum and the cerebrum. The brain stem controls the body's vital functions - breathing, heart beat, etc. The cerebellum is the "little brain" which is involved in posture, movement and hormonal regulatory functions. The cerebrum is the thinking part. So in effect we have the lower, the mid and the upper part of the brain (for those of you who know cerebral function, please bear with me).

Caffeine is a stimulant. It effects the brain primarily in the cerebellum - the hormonal part - due to the stimulation of the limbic system (a part of the brain in the cerebellum). The cerebrum is built upon the cerebellum, so anything that effects the latter has an impact on the former. Since a person's emotional reactions are filtered through the cerebellum via the limbic system (more or less - purists, please hold your nit-picking), they have a subconscious impact on the cerebrum which is the thinking part. In short, a person's thinking is effected by way too much stimulation due to caffeine and too much nutrition due to sugar without their realizing it.

This is a logical derivation based on empty calories in the form of sugar and too much exposure to a psychoactive drug which stimulates the whole body and brain. The human brain uses 10% of the energy the body produces (it will shut down in the absence of sugar) along with 25% of the oxygen. It is a little powerhouse which reacts in as yet unstudied ways to long-term exposure to hormonal stimulation. This much is fact. The logical conjecture is that as the brain is constantly fed a nutrient-rich supply of stress hormones, the lower, more critical brain functions are enhanced and since they are an "older" part of the brain, have a detrimental impact on civilized behavior (a learned and definitely rational behavior controlled by the highest part of the brain - the cerebrum).

In short (too late, I know - I keep doing that), caffeine is making us into savages.

Now, strangely, I don't advocate that caffeine be banned. I think a rational approach should be taken. We should understand it, prove it's effects (both good and bad) and decide then what to do with it. But we should understand what we're putting into our bodies. If your Monster is turning you into one, perhaps you should cut back (if you recognize the fact that you're a monster in the first place, or someone points it out to you, that is). We need to know what the long-term effects of caffeine exposure really are before taking any specific actions against caffeine.

In the meantime, what can it hurt for restaurants, supermarkets and other vendors of beverages to offer more caffeine-free, sugar-free beverages for those of us out there (and we are a growing segment of the population) who don't want to be "energized" and just want something other than water to quench our thirst that won't turn us into fat, hostile "Monsters"?