The day got off to an outstanding start today. As I was driving home from the gym this morning, the Harvest Moon was setting over Little Traverse Bay. This was a first for me and it was breathtaking.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let’s be honest, not even the most optimistic Lions’ fan would have predicted the beat down the Lions put on the Packers during the first half of last night’s game. Especially after Jared Goff threw an interception on the first series of the game and giving the ball to the Packers on the Lions’ 16-yard-line.
In the second half, I was really impressed with the Lions in the way they stayed poised during the Packers comeback. After the Packers scored because of a free play at the end of the quarter that the refs should have never allowed, the Lions came back with a nine-minute scoring drive of their own to go back up by 17. When the Packers cut it 14 the Lions did something we have not seen in a very long time, if ever. They had a game ending 6-minute drive. This is not the Same Old Lions. This team has taken on the personality of their coach, and they are bringing “it” every play.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let me get this straight, we are heading for a government shut down as of Saturday night and paychecks for federal employees, funds for social security, and most everything else will be put on hold until Congress does their job. Yet, our congressmen will still get paid because they are exempt from a government shutdown, unlike everyone else.
Just another example of how our lawmakers ask the average Joe/Jane to live by rules that Congress is not willing to live by.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A few weeks back, Leah introduced me to James Vanden Bosch, Emeritus Professor of English, Calvin University via email. Professor Vanden Bosch has studied the Second Amendment and analyzed it from a linguist perspective comparing the terms used in the original writing of the second amendment with legal definitions of the same words at or about the time of the writing of the second amendment.
After extensive studying of the words and comparison to other legal meanings of the words during the same period, Dr. Vanden Bosch concludes ……………”the common sense reading of the amendment seems to support the older, traditional interpretation of this amendment, namely, that the bearing of arms used in the operative clause is done in support of a well-regulated militias, not for hunting and self-defense.”
After reading the extensive paper written by Professor Vanden Bosch, I sent him two questions. His response follows each question.
Question one: Didn’t many people at the time of the 2nd amendment own guns that were used for hunting and their livelihood? I have a hard time believing the founding fathers would take away guns used for hunting and livelihoods. What are your thoughts?
Vanden Bosch response: I probably should have been more explicit in the text of my paper by simply saying “The Second Amendment is not dealing with the subject of self-defense but with the subject of national security. It never addressed self-defense because English common law assumed the right of self-defense.” Once self-defense is off the table, the Second Amendment becomes much clearer. The amendment was not about taking guns away from people, but it was about making certain that well-regulated militias were well armed.
Question two: If one is to use the words of the 2nd amendment based on the time they were written, “arms” at the time, did not mean automatic weapons, military high scope sniper rifles, AR-15s, etc. because they would not exist for another 150 or more years. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, arms meant rifles, handguns, knives, swords and other such things a person could use in the militia at the time. How do the originalists, such as Scalia, Thomas and Alito justify arms to mean things other than what was available at the time of the 2nd amendment?
Vanden Bosch response: Question 2 is a very good one. I think that Scalia stated somewhere in the opinion that the most popular guns of the day should be legally available for self-defense; I need to read the entire Heller case again to be sure, though. (I’m probably remembering this comment early in the opinion: “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Under this interpretation, the second amendment does not apply to hunting and self-defense, therefore passing laws limiting the right to gun ownership for hunting and self-defense is not a violation of the second amendment providing the rules and laws do not violate the term “in common use at the time”.
I find the work of Professor Vanden Bosch to be very stimulating because I have always felt that to understand the constitution and amendments, we must interpretate the terms using the definition at the time the words were written and not how we interpret them many years later. I have never believed the second amendment ever meant to allow average citizens to have automatic weapons that can discharge ammunition at a rate faster than a human can do with single shot single pull weapons.
Feel free to share my blog or to sign up to receive it directly in your email. See the sign-up below the Video of the Day.
Quote of the Day: “We need to replace the term ‘common sense’, with ‘good sense’ because common sense seems to be lacking these days” A person who is very close to me.
Orchid of the Day: The Lions for their impressive win and their fans who traveled to Green Bay to support their team so vigorously.
Onion of the Day: The referees in the Lions’ game for allowing the Packers to run a play after time expired at the end of the quarter. They must be held accountable for such a blatant miss.
Second Onion of the Day: The NFL for not allowing the above play to be reviewed as part of instant replay. Makes no sense to me.
Question of the Day: How long will the government shut down last?
Video/Image of the Day: Lions’ highlights
Detroit Lions vs. Green Bay Packers | 2023 Week 4 Game Highlights – YouTube