The Failure of Democracy?

As news continually updates us with more impassioned protests, screaming pundits, and overall mass divisiveness across the nation, if we can backup a bit perhaps these thoughts might offer an explanation of what has been happening. Let us see if we can accurately describe the current state of affairs. The “United States had become a nation polarized by specific regional identities… The Democrats... emphasized the right of individual states to create and enforce laws… The divide in the parties can be seen in the state’s political newspapers… Debates about the bill erupted throughout the nation. Despite public opposition, Douglass, “utilizing all his powers of argument, his prestige, and his mastery of parliamentary tactics [forced] the bill through Congress by the narrowest of margins.” Yes, I admit there was a certain level of cherry picking used to make the quotes fit, but I think you get the point. Please do not think I am particularly targeting the Democratic party of today as a parallel of the pro-slavery Democrat party of the 19th century. That discussion would distract from the issue this hopes to address. That is, the level of political division in this nation is not uncharted territory and perhaps if we take a step back there might be some perspective to gain on the causes.

I do not think it is too much to compare the current political climate today to that leading up to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. Namely, there are bouts of unrest across the nation over hotly divided issues, which at large might be summarized as Identity Politics which more or less follow clear political partisanship divides. Sentiments were strong and divided about who gets to govern whom, and the federal system at large was in question. Insert the overused quip about those who do not remember history here. The nice thing about remembering history is the prospective we have, especially when there is a plethora of recorded writings and plenty of time to separate us from the passions of the time. We can have a clear understanding of the sentiments at the time while being isolated enough that the issue is less personal in nature.

Conventional lectures on the road to the Civil War highlight the competing powers between the North and the South that started as soon as independence was gained and continued until the most costly war in our history “settled” it. Consider this perspective, if we were to take a proportional comparison of the Civil War to our current population, 6.5 million people would have lost their lives. The typical lecture might highlight the expansion of the territory in the US and the designation of slave or free as the overall cause. In that approach the point of no return might be the Compromise of 1850, the Dredd Scott decision, or Lincoln's House Divided speech. It might highlight the shift in understanding of the institution of slavery itself, from the Peculiar Institution which Thomas Jefferson thought it to be, to the Positive Good by the late 1830’s. This shift in philosophy fomented the institution that made it worth defending to enough people that it eventually lead to war.

Ultimately, I point to the breakdown of the institutions put in place that prevented our nation from being a direct democracy. These institutions are described in detail in the Federalist, those would be; separation of powers, extended republic, bicameral legislature, and the electoral college to name a few. Summed up, the Federalist system as defined by the Founders and illustrated in the Constitution. There are volumes of writings extolling the virtues and understandings of these structures and I am but a pup in the presence of academic giants. Unfortunately, unless one was home-schooled, there is a very good chance the Federalist or a serious consideration of the Founding documents were not considered unless one took a proactive posture to understand the Founding.

The Separation of Powers essential purpose was to ensure each branch of government would conflict with one another, competing for greater power in their respective branch. In doing so, the three way competition would result in each branch being limited to their own respective range of authority. Imagine giving three children a pie to share in which two children get to make the slices and the third gets to choose which piece to take. It would be in the self interest of the two slice makers to attempt the most even division, in order to maximize their self interest. The 20th century saw a shift in jurisprudence which has furiously sought to judge the law not from the bindings of the text of the statutes, but from the greater wisdom of the judges to accomplish a sort of “justice” not found in the text of the laws under question. For these many decades the Legislature, who has the explicit and exclusive right to make law, has seen fit to abdicate that power in the most controversial issues, because the lifetime appointment of the jurists allow it. Why would a congressperson risk upsetting their constituents if a judge will accomplish the same goal? There are many issues with the Legislature not doing their duty, this is one of the grandest abdications.

The Extended Republic was the notion that the nation would be so diverse that no majority faction (party) would be able to successfully quell the minority. This model essentially spoke against the two-party system. While it is true that within a couple years of the Constitution’s ratification, the very authors separated into parties, for the first hundred years of American politics, third parties held a legitimate place of influence at the federal level. It was not until the 20th century that parties made rules in the House and Senate that continued to grow to the point that third parties are realistically a wasted vote in national elections. One of the most caustic aspects how parties fulfil the right definition of “factions” is how they control committee assignments and maintain a hierarchy of representatives. The best suited representatives are not put in committees for their fitness but instead because they have pleased the party powers to be rewarded with the places of greater influence.

The Bicameral Legislature is the most deliberate sign that direct democracy is not a good thing. The balance of power within the legislature itself, between the House and Senate clearly illustrate the Founders concern of the passions of the people (or mob) should not rule. This was the solution to learned men who considered how the best form of government is made through a social contract while simultaneously and deliberately creating space to slow the process of governance. A majority faction can easily stir a group of people to get any law passed regardless of Constitutionality. The bicameral legislature soothed those passions. Keep in mind, in the original form, Senators were selected by state legislatures. I think one of the most grievous amendments to the nation has been the direct election of senators in the 17th Amendment. This has lead to people so focused on what the Federal government does and an inverse attention to what the state does. The legitimate slowing of the deliberative republican process was the best answer to the diverse regions of the nation. As the nation expanded, the diversity of regions also expanded, hence extending the republic further, that might ensure even greater agreement in the federal laws passed. In the same way, the Electoral College accomplished that goal for the presidency. The legitimacy and need of the Electoral College has been in question a handful of times in the recent decades but in reality it only confirmed that we are a federated republic not a pure democracy. We cannot be a nation of coastal urban elites, or rural lords, but a consensus of the regions.

This is far from a complete analysis of the present political climate, but hopefully these suggestions might add context to your considerations of what this nation was founded to be and what it should become. There are numerous scholars who recognize these things but also recognize the social contract made at the Founding was made to an entirely different society, hence we are being constrained by the rules of the dead. That is a consideration that is worthy to be made. I tend to side, that before we replace the rules of the dead, perhaps we should understand what they made, the issues they addressed, and if we could do better.

Re: Viral Video about Millennials in the Workplace

Re: Viral Video about Millennials in the Workplace

In case you happen to read this, thanks for your patience. This semester was a doozy and I had to step back from pretty much anything not work or school. In the same way one might hypothetically see how many drinks they can handle in order to know “how much is too much” this is how I would describe my course load. This was too much, I didn’t puke, but I know my limit now. Knowing is half the battle, right?

So there is this 15 minute clip floating around that has some interesting insights into the dreaded “Millennials.” I’m not familiar with Mr. Sinek, but he has some good insights and descriptions about this odd group of people. His web pages indicate he’s a pretty smart guy and the video only adds to his intellectual repertoire. In case you haven’t seen the video or you haven’t yet decided to watch it, the skinny is this: he diagnoses the problems employers/corporate America is having with the millennial generation. This is not a particularly new topic, from politicians, business leaders, and missiologists, apparently this generation is a difficult one to pin. In the opening he nails it, millennials want purpose in their work.

I am not one to really counter that, my current path in life is in the pursuit to have the most fulfilling career that suits my passions. In some way, the reason I am doing what I am doing is because I could do no other career path. This is in contrast to the vision that our grandparents generation has been stereotyped to have, in which the goal from a job is to have one, then to get by. This is particularly true of the working class vision of Americana. To offer a movie clip which I would describe this view is from the film Rudy, at the bus stop. His father tries to talk him out of his dream to go to Notre Dame. Yes, I know the true story about Mr. Ruettiger is not as pure, but that’s why movies are “based” on true story. Anyways, the past generations used to be satisfied with a good job that paid on time and afforded one to provide for the needs of their family. Today, my peers, who also are having fewer children and getting married later, want their job for more than a paycheck, they want a purpose from it.

Sinek points this out very well but his remedy I have to disagree. In order for his approach to occur the structure of corporate America must change entirely to meet the needs of this generation who “by no fault of their own” were apparent victims of poor parenting. The poor parenting strategy was summed up as: Parents who did not allow their children to fail, but ensured their success was not through their efforts but from their intervention, this has been termed Helicopter parenting. By this point, the term Millennial is much less than those born in 1984 to 1995. His implicit description are those of middle to upper class with a probable two parent household who are college graduates. Not to take away from his message, but I think we need to be careful when grouping people by generic factors like age, it is overly broad. Sinek thinks it is the responsibility of employers to meet the needs of this generation, this calls for a complete overhaul in the purpose of business at large.

I recognize there are some companies who were founded based on something other than money, there are very few large businesses which find this model sustainable. For a test, see how many annual meetings highlight the immaterial purposes of the company above the bottom line. How many investors are more concerned with the accomplishments of the company than the return? This is that brutal reality check that Millennials are being confronted and lack means to cope. I think it is a mistake to look to one’s career for its primary meaning. That is not to say one should not seek to be fulfilled in their career path, but there should be something else that defines who one is beyond their business card. The ancients would call this virtue. I’ll try to describe this in secular terms.

Virtue is formed by our community. Hopefully and primarily by one's family, but those without the blessing of a mostly stable two-parent household are not permanently disadvantaged. Community consists of those in close proximity and influence. If family does not teach virtue, then hopefully it would be through church, volunteer work, intramural, or some other extracurricular voluntary gathering. My bias thinks church is the best format because all the other gatherings are based on an activity over a shared belief, whereas people can similarly enjoy baseball but have very different views on morality, but if people attend a local church together, they are much more likely to have similar views on morality. Dennis Prager, an author and radio show how, frequently challenges that with the decline of religious belief, there is an inevitable decline in public virtue. He further argues that no other organization teaches values better than religious institutions. I will be more charitable and hope there are institutions with virtuous people who overflow on the people they impact with their virtue, regardless of the purpose of the institution. Virtue ultimately comes from one person and is passed to the next. It is no doubt the best transference of this virtue is by watching another more experienced person pass it down from one to another. The interpersonal aspect of virtue is essential lest the virtues be limited to abstract ideals not grounded in reality.

If nothing else I’ve picked up from the election cycle this year talking to people, I have recognized how much Millennials long for heaven. They long for their image of perfection, this is why they can make castigating claims against others’ nation, race, gender, career, ect. because the standard is not history, but their ideal. It gets worse when Millennials, or the next power group fails to see the mistakes of past idealists imprint from history. We must insist, that when “they” did it, they just didn’t do the right way, but when “we” do it, everyone will be happy and full. One cannot create a new society from scratch, they must acknowledge the previous generations not with their idea of righteous indignation, but with an understanding of reasonableness. I see these longings as the groaning of the effects from sin, the only problem is the idea of sin is not compatible with the vision of many Millennials. If we are to address a problem, the first step is recognizing it exists.

15 Years Ago

One of the difficult things about being joyfully busy is the struggle to have some introspective time of reflection. Today marks 15 years ago when, for a good portion of my generation, our experience in the world changed. Ten years ago I reflected upon the new world under the lens of an active duty soldier stationed overseas. In those conditions it was unmistakeable to myself and those around me, that our lives were certainly different. Tonight I reflect upon how that day of infamy has rippled through this life. Much has happened between these two points of reflection. Although it took longer than I expected, I finally did get to go to war as a soldier. Then as life would have it and providence continued, I would go back to war.

I recall the night we received news about the death of Bin Laden. There was buzz on the classified chat channels that something big happened but we had no idea. My spidey senses convinced the cafeteria staff to change the TV channel to news and I got to witness with everyone else that night the President’s address. It meant something different sitting less than two miles from where that fateful day was planned. Killing the instigator of this new reality did not return us to the world we knew before. That has long since past and cannot be recovered, there is only moving forward.

I have been considering what was so uniquely remarkable about that day. It was not the first time we had been attacked by overseas terrorists in New York. It was not the first time a building was attacked on our soil in our memory. It was far from the first time we had been attacked by people of Islamist ideology. It was the largest coordinated attack with the most devastating results in our history. I have not talked to someone who lived through the attack on Pearl Harbor to describe what the effect was. That was a deliberate act of war by a uniformed nation. This was a cowardly hijacking using civilian aircraft to destroy civilian and military targets.

We experienced this. Many of us watched on live television as the second plane struck the North Tower. Even more of us watched as the two towers collapsed. For weeks those images were replayed countless times on television. We rallied around the flag proclaiming in earnest, “We Will Not Forget!” We invaded Afghanistan and on the coattails of “Never Again” we invaded Iraq. We had to be proactive about this threat we mistakenly thought to be malignant. We struck back and exerted the full force of the United States of America on anyone who dared to threaten us again. Such force had not been displayed in the world’s view since we landed on the beaches of Normandy and dropped the world’s most terrible weapons many decades ago.

15 years of war later, the resolve we began that had such a powerful undertaking has been… strained to say the least. We will have to come to terms that Afghanistan will incorporate the Taliban in their government if they are to ever stop fighting. We have been almost idly sat and watched as ISIS has ripped through Iraq and Syria proudly displaying to the world the fruit of their ideology. For many of us we must be cautious where we utter “radical Islamic terror” so as to not offend people who cannot tell the difference between religious ideologies. We have watched domestic turmoil divide us by political party, race, education, economic status, religion, even patriotism. We find ourselves in a nation full of people longing for heaven on earth who lash out at others in numerous fashions because it is not. We cannot even agree on our own identity let alone who we are as a nation. Who should we be? We used to be a nation that sought “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. But those are words from old white men who were unenlightened and guilty of some of the most grievous sins of the 21st century in their antiquated 18th century ways and thoughts. Or at least that is how the Founding documents are often treated if given some mind at all.  

I cannot help but think back to littlun Percival Wemys Madison. At the beginning of the story he knew his name and address. Repeating such were his refuge and comfort in considerably traumatic times, by the conclusion of the book, he forgot everything, even his own name. This is not to say our reactions to the attack were acts of innocence and our disenfranchisement of those ventures has been our maturing. We certainly started those wars with the passionate fervor of justice. The hope was that such acts were to fulfill the duty of our government to protect ourselves. Even this understanding is under considerable scrutiny.  I fear if we do not remember who we were, first as people, then as a nation, what was lost those 15 years ago will only be a shadow of forgotten memories.

Providence Verified Pt. VI - A New Community

It was decided then. After two weeks at Biola, the additional unexpected costs would be worth it. The descending digits in my bank account were worth the experience and education I would recieve here. Once settled, I knew it was imperative to find community in a local church. Because of my time Jessup I was already familiar with the intentional posture necessary to build community on campus when one does not reside on campus. Even then, community is not an overnight thing, it takes time. I found myself in a new community, new school, with little to know contacts in the area, but I was certain God brought me here for his purpose.

The first semester was a struggle. Unlike Jessup, Biola had a much smaller veteran population and a near non-existent veteran community on campus. That veteran community at Jessup was instrumental to my reintegration into society following Afghanistan. I recall reading one article that expressed the type of sentiments veterans have amidst their younger academic peers. In that particular article, a veteran described how his classmates were homesick after the first month of class, he on the other hand had spent over a year in combat in Iraq prior to being discharged and going to college. The lack of common ground and unparalleled life experiences within only a few years often feels like an ocean apart. I empathized with that veteran but was entirely grateful for having a band of brothers to guide me back to civilization. When I left Jessup, I also left them. There were an equal number of veterans at Jessup as Biola, but Biola’s undergraduate population was over 7x that of Jessup. The community I enjoyed did not and could not exist at Biola.

There were some clear practical reasons why so few veterans attend Biola. Between the Code of Conduct and the out of pocket expense in addition to Post 9/11 GI Bill, only the most motivated individual would consider Biola over other Christian schools like Azusa Pacific or California Baptist which did not have as strict code and came with no out of pocket expense. At the same time, as much as I love Biola, whenever I encounter potential students I make certain that they consider the costs. In many ways the consideration one makes to select a college should be similar to the considerations before one joins the military. Both experiences provide wide ranges of opportunity but can also carry considerable consequences.

I found a new church home in for a lack of cliche’ reasons at this point, providential manner. When I moved down south, I knew I had to find a local church to be a part of. I attended a large church with one of my housemates and it had all the flash and dazzle of a megachurch, I just sensed among the sea of congregants a long path to building relationships. The second week, I went to this church I heard about from Hume, which was where my theology professor taught. I knew from the moment I walked in that I was supposed to be there. The opening worship song was To God Be The Glory, a song I probably had not heard nor sung in over a decade. This was the song Dad, brother, and I sang every morning as he drove us to school. I was at home.

In the most immediate fashions, God brought me to Southern California, confirmed the school I was to attend, and even got me into the classes that I would enjoy. By then I thought God’s clear guiding hand on me was for the most part finished for a good bit of time. I was checking the formal education box in order to meet the qualifications to be a High School Social Science teacher. Little did I know where I would find myself after graduation to the present stage which I work.

Adventures in Security: 0 Days Without an Incident

My streak is over. I have been working security at a nearby ritzy venue for almost a year. Over the course of that time, I have somewhat proudly noted that every real fight or altercation we have encountered I have been absent. I would insinuate my particular demeanor was more comforting and successful to de-escalate situations instead of allowing disagreements to turn to fights. It is worth mentioning the pedigree of the venue is far from the typical dive bar. We are not some ragtag tight polo shirt wearing element. We are in suits minus the tie, if you can peg a man by his dress then we are certainly a professional team. A rough approximation would say there are only events which require our intervention once a month. A typical night is filled with checking IDs, assisting bussers with broken glasses, and clearing the venue at closing time. As with most security, our primary purpose is fulfilled in our mere presence. I should probably note that of the three nights a week which our security team is present, I usually only work one of those.

Although I have an older brother, throughout our childhood we never really fought. Dad ensured no such hijinks would be permitted and it worked. We were never taught to back down from any hostile acts but nor were we taught to go looking for trouble. Because my investigation in Complementarian theology followed my service in the Army, I am not inclined to think the “protective desire” was something from my theological convictions. I do not know. We can chalk it up as a social construct which much of my generation has embraced.

Anyways, Saturday night was a learning experience. Not only did I get to assist with an escort following an altercation, as that one was settling I was the lead guard who broke up another fight. Adrenaline flowing in all, the true question of fight or flight was answered in the heat of the moment. It should be noted, that we do not fight patrons… well, I do not fight patrons. When two people are not playing nice with each other, the best resolution is to separate them. It is not worth the time or effort to figure out who was in the right or wrong until the altercation is ceased. We ascertain the details and responsibilities of the event following a successful ceasing of the fight itself. My job is to get between two people fighting and separate them. Not only was that night a first, which I finally got to be the first person on scene, it was the first time I was really punched in the face. I am quite certain had it not been for a broken nose my junior year of highschool, I would certainly have bled after that strike, thanks for that Dave :D.

Once the sting of the facial numbness streaked across my face and the fight was stopped I almost instantly thought about a quote from Muhammad Ali a friend has often quoted to me. “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.” Of course, my friend has always used that phrase more for its metaphorical purpose, but this weekend it was rather literal. Until one is presented with an actual situation where tempers are flaring, danger and fear were present, we can only hope to do the right thing given sufficient mental preparation and/or physical training. Due to my lack of direct experience, I have not had much opportunity to hone my hand-to-hand combat skills. I can generally use my size and strength enough to mitigate my lack of technique, but even then, until this weekend all such mental simulations remained only in theory.

Now I know. I can take a real hit to the face. Aside from the crash against my skull, and slight numbness, I did not falter. I continued pulling the patrons off of one another and once the two were separated the altercation was finished. In the aftermath I was reminded of the temperament of my colleagues. The would undoubtedly disagree with my findings in Babysitting and Bouncing.

I was also able to take a few minutes to reflect upon the numerous types of security I have been involved. From time as a soldier, to a summer camp security guard, to a bouncer. Each capacity has honed the desire to protect into an ability to do so. I am also reminded of the repeated instruction in Army Combatives training. Our instructors repeatedly stated “We are only teaching you just enough to get your ___ beat.” It was a rather simple block of instruction but they were certain that we did not act too empowered by our basic combative skills test. If I recall right, on one of my sparring opportunities I dived head-first into a guillotine choke hold. Oh the joys of youth and vigor.

I returned from Hume on Friday, after a two-week visit. I truly love Hume and the people up there. This summer is far different from how I imagined it even two months before. It has required a type of waiting that has not been required since my exit from the Army. I had no idea what I would be doing this summer as it began and as the weeks passed hopes were dashed and opportunities unveiled. These revelations remind and reassure me that I am supposed to be exactly where I am. God has been guiding these steps far longer than I have been aware enough to recognize their destination. My adventures for this summer are far from over. Although the desired accomplishments are somewhat lacking, the thankfulness for being about to return to Hume, more than statisfy.

Gunpocalypse 2016: Results Are Not Good

We have the final word on “Gunpocalypse” 2016. From the original post the list expanded and contracted. 11 Bills made it through the Assembly and Senate to Governor Brown’s desk. He signed 6 into law and vetoed 5. This will try to address what will happen and how one might comply with these onerous laws. With the passage of these laws California easily jumps to the lead as being the most restrictive state in the nation concerning gun laws. It might say something that the official website of the press release of the list of signed and vetoed bills was crashed for some time. If you want a better explanation of each bill, see the original post.

The New Laws

1. SB 880 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. The bittersweet relationship the California gun owner had with the “bullet button” is coming to a close. The legislature sought to ban semiautomatic sporting rifles and capitalism responded with ingenuity only a few years later. The previous fix was a setup that required one to open the upper receiver to load cartridges into an internal fixed magazine. Much in the same way one would load a bolt-action Remington 700.
2. Fear not, innovators have already forecasted the lack of restraint the leadership in California would exercise and created this feature which complies with the new law’s text.
3. It might be worth noting that universal firearm registration did not go into effect until January 1, 2014. Any home-build long gun and long gun not voluntarily registered prior to 2014, California has no official record of its existence. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
2. AB-1135 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. This law redefines “assault weapons” from “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle” to “semiautomatic rifle” with the evil features. Semiautomatic rimfire rifles are now included in the list of banned rifles.
   
3. AB-156 Ammunition.
1. Following the reappropriation of taxes and fees gun owners pay for background checks and licenses, there are now new fees which California’s legal gun owners must pay to support the enforcement of illegal firearms.
2. I am less concerned about this law. I am confident like every other law banning interstate ammo sales since 2009, this too will be struck down in federal court because it seeks to control a power explicitly held by the Federal Government, interstate commerce. If such a law were to be permitted that would be a huge power grab away from the federal government, good luck.
   
4. SB 1446  Firearms: magazine capacity.
1. This law prohibits possession of any magazine over 10 round capacity. Because there was already a law that prohibited the sale, manufacture, and importation of such magazines since 2002, this specifically targeted the “pre-ban” standard capacity magazines.
2. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
5. AB-1511 Firearms: lending.
1. Firearm lending is still legal, but limited to immediate family members who must also have a Firearm Safety Certificate one can acquire after passing a test and paying $25. The certificate is valid for 5 years.
2. Let us hope between this law and the still present 10-day waiting period does not have grave results for people in immediate harm.
   
6. AB 1695 Firearms: notice to purchasers: false reports of stolen firearms.
1. This bill makes false lost or stolen firearm reports a misdemeanor which includes a stripping of gun ownership for 10 years.
   

Where Do Gun Owners Go From Here?
As I mentioned, some of these laws have a legitimate chance to be struck down in the courts. If a judge places an injunction on the measure then it might not be done. 

Help us Eastern and Northern Districts, you are our only hope.

 The biggest question which I think the Attorney General will have to clarify on the FAQs page, will the newly Registered Assault Weapons (RAWs) be classified differently than the original RAWs from the early 1990’s. If so those who comply with the new laws will be able to have semi-automatic centerfire rifles with all the fun accessories. The manner by which I read the text, says yes, I’m not a lawyer. It should be worth noting no RAW is transferable to any person in the state. If an owner of a RAW wishes to pass it on to family, it cannot be owned in California before the owner dies.
This is the less popular part of the message especially to the frustrated gun owners. I understand the frustration. I recognize the sabre rattling. I know the impossible nature of enforcing the most onerous laws. I also recognize the estimates of non-compliance from the first round of registration in 1990, when AR-pattern rifles were not yet mainstream. I also recognize the philosophical factors concerning unjust laws, most especially in American history MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Despite these frustrations, if California gun owners want to proclaim that we are indeed law-abiding, then we must comply. I recognize the rough impossibility of enforcement for those who have not featured their firearms on social media. If we wish to abandon that description then we are in a much graver place as a state and nation. Even stirring the masses to “shall not be infringed” fails a history test. Per the 10th Amendment, and due to the present jurisprudence, the State has every right to ban these commonly owned firearms. I deeply disagree with the state of affairs, but I think it a much better solution to move to a less restrictive state than to knowingly violate the law. The Federalist experiment which allows for these many petri dishes known as state governments looks to be failing. I am reminded of this scene from The Patriot.

“And my principals”? I am fearful of any serious talk of rebellion or revolution. I have been to war, twice. One ought not threaten such things lightly. We glorify war in entertainment and speech. I am proud of my honorable service in the recent wars. I am also confident in peaceful resolutions. The way things look, we might be due for a Convention of the States.

Bills Still at the Legislature

7. AB-2510 Firearms: license to carry concealed: uniform license.
8. AB-2459 Firearms dealers: conduct of business.
9. SB-1006 Firearm Violence Research Center
10. SB 1407 Firearms: identifying information.