# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/politics/john-thune-immigration-pillars/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/politics/john-thune-immigration-pillars/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-01-12/trumps-latest-controversy-should-spark-real-conversation-about-immigration-policyhttps://www.pri.org/stories/2018-01-12/trumps-latest-controversy-should-spark-real-conversation-about-immigration-policy

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/01/31/the-health-202-trump-seems-to-see-opioid-crisis-as-primarily-a-law-enforcement-problem/5a70cc2130fb041c3c7d74ef/?utm_term=.1f30b56efe6ehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/01/31/the-health-202-trump-seems-to-see-opioid-crisis-as-primarily-a-law-enforcement-problem/5a70cc2130fb041c3c7d74ef/?utm_term=.1f30b56efe6e

# data[].attributes.body
Deric Newman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLEVELAND, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to take up Cleveland's appeal of a decision that struck down a gun offender registry and several gun ordinances approved in 2015.

The decision lets stand an April 2017 ruling by the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals. That ruling held as invalid a package of ordinances proposed by Mayor Frank Jackson and passed by City Council in the wake of a flurry of gun violence in 2014 and 2015.

Jackson on Wednesday expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court would not hear the case.

"I disagree with the Ohio Supreme Court's decision not to hear the city of Cleveland's appeal to uphold its own gun laws," Jackson said in a statement. "The laws the city proposed and that were enacted by our City Council are reasonable and do not conflict with any state gun regulations."

The laws were enacted, the mayor said, as an effort to provide for the safety of residents. The Supreme Court's decision will weaken cities' home rule abilities and efforts to protect citizens, he said.

"Local municipalities are the most familiar with - and the most impacted by-- the public safety needs of its citizens because we deal with the results of crime and violence every day," Jackson said.

"In 2017, the City of Cleveland had 130 homicides and 112 of them were a result of gun violence," he said. "We are reminded, through senseless tragedies, of the need to remove and keep weapons from the hands of those who should not have them."

Legislation enacted by the Ohio General Assembly limited the ability of cities and villages to enact gun laws that go further than state statutes. The appellate court's April ruling struck down all but two of Cleveland's laws -- a restriction on selling to people who are intoxicated and a prohibition on giving guns to a minor. They were deemed to mirror state law and not overly restrictive.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry had filed a constitutional challenge against the ordinance days after it was passed by City Council.

When the appellate court ruled last April, Ohioans for Concealed Carry President Jeff Garvas described the decision as "unsurprising."

Before the city's legislation was enacted, Garvas' group had warned Cleveland that it would sue to challenge its constitutionality.

"Cleveland's idea that they can legislate away the criminal use of firearms at the expense of law-abiding individuals is a flawed concept that has been proven wrong time and time again," Garvas said in April.

Follow @RobertVHiggs

Follow me on Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ohio Supreme Court rules against Cleveland's efforts at local gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLEVELAND, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to take up Cleveland's appeal of a decision that struck down a gun offender registry and several gun ordinances approved in 2015. The decision lets stand an April 2017 ruling by the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Glitter Is Not Good For The Environment 

# data[].attributes.subject
Glitter Is Not Good For The Environment 

# data[].attributes.body
Abbi Fletcher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On top of it all, scientists are saying it's dangerous for the environment.

Most glitters are in essence teeny tiny bits of shiny plastic, called microplastics. They are a well-known environmental hazard for the world's oceans, and they're currently a hot topic in the United Kingdom. The UK next year will implement a ban on microbeads -- a type of microplastic found in face washes, body scrubs and other products. ( The US already has a partial ban on microbeads in place.)

This impending ban prompted some scientists to tell The Independent that glitters -- like loose glitter and those found in makeup and body products -- should be considered a similar hazard.

"I was quite concerned when somebody bought my daughters some shower gel that had glitter particles in it," said Richard Thompson, a professor at Plymouth University who led a study examining how plastics affected marine environments.

"That stuff is going to escape down the plughole and potentially enter the environment," he said.

Microplastics can pollute marine environments, leech chemicals into the water and pose harm to marine life if they are ingested.

Dr. Trisia Farrelly, an environmental anthropologist at Massey University in New Zealand, told The Independent "all glitter should be banned."

Luckily, there is hope for those of us who still choose to punish ourselves for a glittery fix: Some companies make environmentally friendly alternatives that are biodegradable and don't clog up waterways.

For those in the UK, the coming microbead ban will also tackle some shiny concerns: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told The Independent the ban will include glitter in "rinse-off" cosmetics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
it could be bad for the environment  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glitter is not just annoying, it could be bad for the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On top of it all, scientists are saying it's dangerous for the environment. Most glitters are in essence teeny tiny bits of shiny plastic, called microplastics. They are a well-known environmental hazard for the world's oceans, and they're currently a hot topic in the United Kingdom.

# data[].attributes.body
Sheanna

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/health/opioid-crisis-fast-facts/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/health/opioid-crisis-fast-facts/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
Aryk Banks
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/01/obamacare-repeal-republican-status-381470

# data[].attributes.body
Armando Herrera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article is from the archive of our partner

Committee rosters are set, oversight plans are signed, and witnesses are being called up to the Hill. For congressional Republicans, it's regulation-hunting season.

Republicans have made no secret of their plans to swipe at what they've deemed an overly burdensome environmental agenda from the Obama administration, and the change in power in the Senate provides both some new turf and leverage to do it. That effort kicked off in earnest Wednesday when the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Environment and Public Works committees teamed up for a joint hearing to grill Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy on the agency's proposed expansion of its Clean Water Act authority.

Here are 10 administration rules that will be in the GOP's sights this year:
1. The Clean Power Plan
The tent pole of the Obama administration's climate action plan, EPA's plans to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from new and existing power plants will face challenges on all fronts. EPA will finalize the rules in one package this summer, but the congressional challenges will come early and often. Environment and Public Works and the House Energy and Commerce Committee have both said they'll hold hearings on it and legislators are already looking to the appropriations process to kill the rules. No less than Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell put himself on the Appropriations subpanel that oversees EPA, with a promise to "continue to fight back against this administration's anti-coal jobs regulations on behalf of the Kentuckians I represent." A Congressional Review Act attack is also a possibility, but that can't come until the rules are finalized this summer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Environmental Regulations the Republican Congress Wants to Kill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is from the archive of our partner Committee rosters are set, oversight plans are signed, and witnesses are being called up to the Hill. For congressional Republicans, it's regulation-hunting season.

# data[].attributes.body
Angel Valadez.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most Popular

"Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld," Chalmers Johnson insisted, "one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order." Alarmed and inspired by his work and aware that relatively few have heeded his warnings, I've spent years trying to track and understand what he called our " empire of bases." While logic might seem to suggest that these bases make us safer, I've come to the opposite conclusion: in a range of ways our overseas bases have made us all less secure, harming everyone from US military personnel and their families to locals living near the bases to those of us whose taxes pay for the way our government garrisons the globe.

We are now, as we've been for the last seven decades, a Base Nation that extends around the world, and it's long past time that we faced that fact.

THE NATION IS READER FUNDED. YOUR SUPPORT IS VITAL TO OUR WORK.

The Base Nation's Scale

Our 800 bases outside the 50 states and Washington, D.C., come in all sizes and shapes. Some are city-sized " Little Americas"-places like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and the little known Navy and Air Force base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These support a remarkable infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, power plants, housing complexes, and an array of amenities often referred to as "Burger Kings and bowling alleys." Among the smallest US installations globally are " lily pad " bases (also known as "cooperative security locations"), which tend to house drones, surveillance aircraft, or pre-positioned weaponry and supplies. These are increasingly found in parts of Africa and Eastern Europe that had previously lacked much of a US military presence.

Other facilities scattered across the planet include ports and airfields, repair complexes, training areas, nuclear weapons installations, missile testing sites, arsenals, warehouses, barracks, military schools, listening and communications posts, and a growing array of drone bases. Military hospitals and prisons, rehab facilities, CIA paramilitary bases, and intelligence facilities (including former CIA "black site" prisons) must also be considered part of our Base Nation because of their military functions. Even US military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.

The Pentagon's overseas presence is actually even larger. There are US troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories, including small numbers of marines guarding embassies and larger deployments of trainers and advisors like the roughly 3,500 now working with the Iraqi Army. And don't forget the Navy's 11 aircraft carriers. Each should be considered a kind of floating base, or as the Navy tellingly refers to them, "four and a half acres of sovereign US territory." Finally, above the seas, one finds a growing military presence in space.

The United States isn't, however, the only country to control military bases outside its territory. Great Britain still has about seven bases and France five in former colonies. Russia has around eight in former Soviet republics. For the first time since World War II, Japan's "Self-Defense Forces" have a foreign base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, alongside US and French bases there. South Korea, India, Chile, Turkey, and Israel each reportedly have at least one foreign base. There are also reports that China may be seeking its first base overseas. In total, these countries probably have about 30 installations abroad, meaning that the United States has approximately 95% of the world's foreign bases.

"Forward" Forever?

Although the United States has had bases in foreign lands since shortly after it gained its independence, nothing like today's massive global deployment of military force was imaginable until World War II. In 1940, with the flash of a pen, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a " destroyers-for-bases" deal with Great Britain that instantly gave the United States 99-year leases to installations in British colonies worldwide. Base acquisition and construction accelerated rapidly once the country entered the war. By 1945, the US military was building base facilities at a rate of 112 a month. By war's end, the global total topped 2,000 sites. In only five years, the United States had developed history's first truly global network of bases, vastly overshadowing that of the British Empire upon which "the sun never set."

After the war, the military returned about half the installations but maintained what historian George Stambuk termed a "permanent institution" of bases abroad. Their number spiked during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, declining after each of them. By the time the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, there were about 1,600 US bases abroad, with some 300,000 US troops stationed on those in Europe alone.

Although the military vacated about 60% of its foreign garrisons in the 1990s, the overall base infrastructure stayed relatively intact. Despite additional base closures in Europe and to a lesser extent in East Asia over the last decade and despite the absence of a superpower adversary, nearly 250,000 troops are still deployed on installations worldwide. Although there are about half as many bases as there were in 1989, the number of countries with US bases has roughly doubled from 40 to 80. In recent years, President Obama's "Pacific pivot" has meant billions of dollars in profligate spending in Asia, where the military already had hundreds of bases and tens of thousands of troops. Billions more have been sunk into building an unparalleled permanent base infrastructure in every Persian Gulf country save Iran. In Europe, the Pentagon has been spending billions more erecting expensive new bases at the same time that it has been closing others.

Since the start of the Cold War, the idea that our country should have a large collection of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops permanently stationed overseas has remained a quasi-religious dictum of foreign and national security policy. The nearly 70-year-old idea underlying this deeply held belief is known as the " forward strategy." Originally, the strategy held that the United States should maintain large concentrations of military forces and bases as close as possible to the Soviet Union to hem in and "contain" its supposed urge to expand.

But the disappearance of another superpower to contain made remarkably little difference to the forward strategy. Chalmers Johnson first grew concerned about our empire of bases when he recognized that the structure of the " American Raj " remained largely unchanged despite the collapse of the supposed enemy.

Two decades after the Soviet Union's demise, people across the political spectrum still unquestioningly assume that overseas bases and forward-deployed forces are essential to protect the country. George W. Bush's administration was typical in insisting that bases abroad "maintained the peace" and were "symbols of... US commitments to allies and friends." The Obama administration has similarly declared that protecting the American people and international security "requires a global security posture."

Support for the forward strategy has remained the consensus among politicians of both parties, national security experts, military officials, journalists, and almost everyone else in Washington's power structure. Opposition of any sort to maintaining large numbers of overseas bases and troops has long been pilloried as peacenik idealism or the sort of isolationism that allowed Hitler to conquer Europe.

The Costs of Garrisoning the World

As Johnson showed us, there are many reasons to question the overseas base status quo. The most obvious one is economic. Garrisons overseas are very expensive. According to the RAND Corporation, even when host countries like Japan and Germany cover some of the costs, US taxpayers still pay an annual average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the United States. The expense of transportation, the higher cost of living in some host countries, and the need to provide schools, hospitals, housing, and other support to family members of military personnel mean that the dollars add up quickly-especially with more than half a million troops, family members, and civilian employees on bases overseas at any time.

By my very conservative calculations, maintaining installations and troops overseas cost at least $85 billion in 2014-more than the discretionary budget of every government agency except the Defense Department itself. If the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is included, that bill reaches $156 billion or more.

While bases may be costly for taxpayers, they are extremely profitable for the country's privateers of twenty-first-century war like DynCorp International and former Halliburton subsidiary KBR. As Chalmers Johnson noted, "Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries," which win billions in contracts annually to "build and maintain our far-flung outposts."

Meanwhile, many of the communities hosting bases overseas never see the economic windfalls that US and local leaders regularly promise. Some areas, especially in poor rural communities, have seen short-term economic booms touched off by base construction. In the long-term, however, most bases rarely create sustainable, healthy local economies. Compared with other forms of economic activity, they represent unproductive uses of land, employ relatively few people for the expanses occupied, and contribute little to local economic growth. Research has consistently shown that when bases finally close, the economic impact is generally limited and in some cases actually positive-that is, local communities can end up better off when they trade bases for housing, schools, shopping complexes, and other forms of economic development.

Meanwhile for the United States, investing taxpayer dollars in the construction and maintenance of overseas bases means forgoing investments in areas like education, transportation, housing, and healthcare, despite the fact that these industries are more of a boon to overall economic productivity and create more jobs compared to equivalent military spending. Think about what $85 billion per year would mean in terms of rebuilding the country's crumbling civilian infrastructure.

The Human Toll

Beyond the financial costs are the human ones. The families of military personnel are among those who suffer from the spread of overseas bases given the strain of distant deployments, family separations, and frequent moves. Overseas bases also contribute to the shocking rates of sexual assault in the military: an estimated 30% of servicewomen are victimized during their time in the military and a disproportionate number of these crimes happen at bases abroad. Outside the base gates, in places like South Korea, one often finds exploitative prostitution industries geared to US military personnel.

Worldwide, bases have caused widespread environmental damage because of toxic leaks, accidents, and in some cases the deliberate dumping of hazardous materials. GI crime has long angered locals. In Okinawa and elsewhere, US troops have repeatedly committed horrific acts of rape against local women. From Greenland to the tropical island of Diego Garcia, the military has displaced local peoples from their lands to build its bases.

In contrast to frequently invoked rhetoric about spreading democracy, the military has shown a preference for establishing bases in undemocratic and often despotic states like Qatar and Bahrain. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, US bases have created fertile breeding grounds for radicalism and anti-Americanism. The presence of bases near Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin Laden's professed motivation for the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Although this kind of perpetual turmoil is little noticed at home, bases abroad have all too often generate grievances, protest, and antagonistic relationships. Although few here recognize it, our bases are a major part of the image the United States presents to the world-and they often show us in an extremely unflattering light.

Creating a New Cold War, Base by Base

It is also not at all clear that bases enhance national security and global peace in any way. In the absence of a superpower enemy, the argument that bases many thousands of miles from US shores are necessary to defend the United States-or even its allies-is a hard argument to make. On the contrary, the global collection of bases has generally enabled the launching of military interventions, drone strikes, and wars of choice that have resulted in repeated disasters, costing millions of lives and untold destruction from Vietnam to Iraq.

By making it easier to wage foreign wars, bases overseas have ensured that military action is an ever more attractive option-often the only imaginable option-for US policymakers. As the anthropologist Catherine Lutz has said, when all you have in your foreign policy toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Ultimately, bases abroad have frequently made war more likely rather than less.

Proponents of the long-outdated forward strategy will reply that overseas bases "deter" enemies and help keep the global peace. As supporters of the status quo, they have been proclaiming such security benefits as self-evident truths for decades. Few have provided anything of substance to support their claims. While there is some evidence that military forces can indeed deter imminent threats, little if any research suggests that overseas bases are an effective form of long-term deterrence. Studies by both the Bush administration and the RAND Corporation&amp-not exactly left-wing peaceniks-indicate that advances in transportation technology have largely erased the advantage of stationing troops abroad. In the case of a legitimate defensive war or peacekeeping operation, the military could generally deploy troops just as quickly from domestic bases as from most bases abroad. Rapid sealift and airlift capabilities coupled with agreements allowing the use of bases in allied nations and, potentially, pre-positioned supplies are a dramatically less expensive and less inflammatory alternative to maintaining permanent bases overseas.

It is also questionable whether such bases actually increase the security of host nations. The presence of US bases can turn a country into an explicit target for foreign powers or militants-just as US installations have endangered Americans overseas.

Similarly, rather than stabilizing dangerous regions, foreign bases frequently heighten military tensions and discourage diplomatic solutions to conflicts. Placing US bases near the borders of countries like China, Russia, and Iran, for example, increases threats to their security and encourages them to respond by boosting their own military spending and activity. Imagine how US leaders would respond if China were to build even a single small base in Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean. Notably, the most dangerous moment during the Cold War-the 1962 Cuban missile crisis-revolved around the construction of Soviet nuclear missile facilities in Cuba, roughly 90 miles from the US border.

The creation and maintenance of so many US bases overseas likewise encourages other nations to build their own foreign bases in what could rapidly become an escalating " base race." Bases near the borders of China and Russia, in particular, threaten to fuel new cold wars. US officials may insist that building yet more bases in East Asia is a defensive act meant to ensure peace in the Pacific, but tell that to the Chinese. That country's leaders are undoubtedly not "reassured" by the creation of yet more bases encircling their borders. Contrary to the claim that such installations increase global security, they tend to ratchet up regional tensions, increasing the risk of future military confrontation.

In this way, just as the war on terror has become a global conflict that only seems to spread terror, the creation of new US bases to protect against imagined future Chinese or Russian threats runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. These bases may ultimately help create the very threat they are supposedly designed to protect against. In other words, far from making the world a safer place, US bases can actually make war more likely and the country less secure.

Behind the Wire

In his farewell address to the nation upon leaving the White House in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned the nation about the insidious economic, political, and even spiritual effects of what he dubbed "the military-industrial-congressional complex," the vast interlocking national security state born out of World War II. As Chalmers Johnson's work reminded us in this new century, our 70-year-old collection of bases is evidence of how, despite Ike's warning, the United States has entered a permanent state of war with an economy, a government, and a global system of power enmeshed in preparations for future conflicts.

America's overseas bases offer a window onto our military's impact in the world and in our own daily lives. The history of these hulking "Little Americas" of concrete, fast food, and weaponry provides a living chronicle of the United States in the post-World War II era. In a certain sense, in these last seven decades, whether we realize it or not, we've all come to live "behind the wire," as military personnel like to say.

We may think such bases have made us safer. In reality, they've helped lock us inside a permanently militarized society that has made all of us-everyone on this planet-less secure, damaging lives at home and abroad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld," Chalmers Johnson insisted, "one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order."

# data[].attributes.body
Sheannahttps://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/health/opioid-crisis-fast-facts/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
Terry guhr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"When I hold you in my arms,
And I feel my finger on your trigger,
I know nobody can do me no harm, because...
Happiness is a warm gun,
Bang, bang, shoot, shoot."

- The Beatles, "Happiness Is a Warm Gun"

In "Gun Control Debate: Showdown at the PC Corral," I tried to put a human face on the issue of gun control with a real-life example of one man's tragic attempt to fight violent crime in his community within the ludicrously restrictive, irresponsible, and completely unconstitutional laws of his city and state. For his valiant but foolhardy effort, he ended up shot to death on the sidewalk by a drug thug with an illegal firearm.

Bias Against Guns: What Happens When We're Pushed

My main point was that had he been able (as was intended by his Constitution) to respond in kind with his own legally owned gun, he might not only still be alive, but his killer would very likely himself be dead - a cold, stiff example of a strong and utterly justified message sent to others of his kind by fearless, conscientious residents:

Push us, and we'll push back. Hard.

In this sequel to "Showdown at the PC Corral," my goal is twofold. First, to offer some proof of the worth - rather, the vital, lifesaving importance - of an armed citizenry. Second, to truly advance the somewhat stalemated Second Amendment argument with an interpretation of the amendment's wording I've never heard anyone else talk about.

Before I get started in earnest, however, I want to thank Whiskey & Gunpowder readers, regardless of their stance on the issue (though about 85% were in agreement), for their overwhelming response to "Showdown at the PC Corral." Thanks for forwarding it all over the Web, where it has been picked up and run by numerous entities. And thanks for taking the time out of your lives to tell me what you think. Keep it up, please.

And now, once more unto the breach, dear friends.

Bias Against Guns: More Guns = Less Crime

It seems like everything I've ever read defending the Second Amendment is screaming with statistics. And indeed, the hard evidence supporting (more like exonerating) legal firearms is overwhelming, both domestically and abroad.

Not that you'd ever learn this from the mainstream media, which only report crimes committed with guns (the vast bulk of which are illegally owned) or gun accidents (which are far rarer than the left would have you believe). Never do you hear or read about the huge number of crimes prevented by the presence of a gun, the vast majority of which deter malfeasance without ever being fired...

However, the fact that most of the pro-gun articles and essays try to persuade using statistics is putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. It puts the already righteous position on the defensive. I think the way to get the point across best would be to let people know not that guns SHOULD be allowed, but that they ARE allowed - and that anything the government does to limit your personal power to legally own, carry, and defend your life with a gun (that whole "shall not be infringed" part) is patently unconstitutional.

In other words: Even if the statistics didn't bear out the wisdom and efficacy of the keeping and bearing - even if every city in the country were a Buckaroo Banzai shootin' match like Tombstone, Ariz., in 1881 (still statistically far safer than Washington, D.C., by the way) - it would still be your right under the law, one we'd just have to deal with the consequences of, or else change the Constitution. Simple as that.

But thankfully, those "consequences" have been proven time and again to be a reduction in crime and a safer society, despite what the Michael Moores of the world say.

Not that any evidence to this effect should be needed with regard to the preservation of a constitutionally guaranteed right - but nowadays, numbers are exalted, not ideals. And since that's the case, I offer these, just a spare few of the statistics no gun article seems possible or complete without...

In U.S. states forbidding concealed-carry (meaning states that don't allow law-abiding citizens to pack heat without restriction):

** There are 89% more violent crimes than in states that permit concealed carry** There are 127% more murders than in states that permit concealed carry** There are 25% more rapes than in states that permit concealed carry** There are 96% more aggravated assaults than in states that permit concealed carry

** There are 106% more robberies than in states that permit concealed carry.

Put another way, the argument in defense of unlimited concealed carry looks like this: In the seven-year period following the adoption of unrestricted (or virtually so) concealed-carry handgun laws, affects U.S. states saw an average...

** 27% reduction in violent crime** 31% reduction in murders** 16% reduction in robberies** 26% reduction in aggravated assault

** 16% reduction in robberies

These aren't tricks of statistics put out by gun makers or pro-gun lobbyists. They are from a scientifically conducted and methodologically rigorous study of public records of crime rates per 100,000 citizens across all 50 U.S. states, as compiled and analyzed by Yale legal research scholar John Lott and published in his book More Guns, Less Crime (a great read, as is his follow-up, The Bias Against Guns).

Again, these are only a few of the myriad of statistics - among these an October 2003 CDC report summarizing studies that found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduce crime or suicide - that prove without any possible doubt that the framers of our Constitution had it right when it came to packin' heat.

Which brings me to my next point, that infuriating Seco nd Amendment...

Bias Against Guns: Once More Into the Breech

As a gun owner, I'm thrilled with the framers of the Constitution for laying down on paper the Second Amendment, which reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, as happy as I am that they committed this most basic right to defend one's own life to parchment, I'm a little irked at the way they chose to word it. After all, it is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that includes a justification for itself in its text, and from where I'm sitting, it'd be a whole lot better if they'd been a touch more concise...

That's because the justification clause - the part that reads "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - leaves the Amendment vulnerable to a lot of misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise. This starts with the term "Militia," which many erroneously take to mean government-run entities like the National Guard, but which actually refers to the entire fit-for-service citizenry that is currently NOT enrolled in any standing force.

In other words, the militia is you and I - not anyone who's issued their clothes, weapon, orders, or paycheck by the federal or state government.

But many use the phrase "well regulated" to contest this notion, implying that the framers intended that the government should oversee, direct, and impose rules and limits on armed citizens (the militia)...

This assumption, however, shows just how indoctrinated to the idea of big, invasive government we've all become. Every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights is aimed at the same overarching goal: Limiting government's power over the populace. Amendment 2 is no exception; hence, the phrase "well regulated" couldn't possibly refer to any kind of governmental oversight of armed citizens. So what does it mean, you're asking?

Well, I've got a theory - one I've never heard discussed in gun circles before, but one that should be obvious to anyone who attempts to view the Second Amendment through the lenses of our Founding Fathers' eyes. Quite simply, it's this:

The phrase "well regulated," given that it can't mean government-run, must more or less mean "equally equipped." Think about it: No force of Minutemen would be able to mount any kind of coordinated or effective defense of anything at all if only every third member had a gun, while the others brandished pitchforks, sickles, or blacksmith's hammers. A force of this type isn't "well regulated" in the least...

No, I think the framers meant that all citizens should be able to bring to any brewing fight the most up-to-date weaponry - namely, guns - so they can make a proper account of themselves and defend their state, country, and selves adequately in the absence of a regular army.

Bias Against Guns: Fairness and Credibility of the Second Amendment

I also believe that in simplest terms, the Second Amendment means this:

Because no army can protect individuals at all times and from all threats - animals, criminals, foreign invaders, or the government itself - your right as a citizen in good standing to defend yourself using any means in existence shall not be compromised.

Now, I'm not pretending to be a better wordsmith or thinker than the framers themselves. And it's entirely possible that someone else has come up with this interpretation, or one like it, before. After all, I'm not a Second Amendment scholar, historian, or authority on the Constitution. As I've said before, I'm just a regular guy who's not afraid to toss aside the lens of political correctness and look at things for what they are and talk about it...

So consider this a disclaimer to anyone who's more educated on the subject than I am (I'd love to hear from you, in fact): The argument and interpretation you've just read may exist in print elsewhere. I'm arrogant, but not enough to think that I've originated a new line of reasoning on what surely must be the most debated Amendment in history. I've just never read it anywhere before. Enough said.

Like I said in "Showdown at the PC Corral," there's enough out there on this one issue of civil liberty for me to make a career writing about it. I could produce essays arguing your right to guns from now until I retire and still not make every point that could be made on the subject...

But the bottom line is this: The reason such a passionate and elaborate debate exists is because most opponents of gun rights pick their point of view based on how it feels to hold it, not whether or not it's fair, right, lawful, or what was so clearly intended by those greater than they are. This, plus the fact that their sheltered lives and bought-by-tuition-dollars idealism has never put them at odds with a drug-crazed, gun-toting mugger in a dark parking lot...

Ask me how it feels sometime, and you'll be in the gun shop yourself the next day.

As always, forward this to friends and foes alike, write back with comments, criticisms, or kudos, but remember: Don't cross the line and show up on my stoop, you critics, crazoids, or hotheads. There's a little sticker on my door that says:

"If you can read this, you're standing where two other guys got shot."

Fighting hollow points with hollow points,

Here's the Whiskey & Gunpowder article that readers responded to, launching the one you just finished reading:

Gun Control Debate: Showdown at the PC Corral
"It was a recording of a 911 call that an incredibly brave city resident named Dwight Love placed in response to drug-dealing activity in his neighborhood. I call this man courageous because he placed the call from his cell phone in plain sight and within earshot of the criminals who'd taken over his neighborhood."

And here are some other Whiskey & Gunpowder articles by Jim Amrhein:

Animal Rights: "Righting" a Wrong"No rights of ANY TYPE exist naturally, by virtue of birth alone. In the natural world, all that any creature - man included - has a "right" to are those things it can take by force or forcibly defend from being taken."

Legends of the Fall
"There wouldn't be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist."

Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment - The Second Amendment and how it's interpreted by today's courts and modern society. Firearms & Liberty - Examines the positives of gun ownership, and compares statistics of firearms-related injuries and deaths vs. those caused by other circumstances. National Rifle Association - The mission of the NRA and several news stories involving this organization. Second Amendment Foundation - An organization devoted to protecting and strictly interpreting the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"When I hold you in my arms, And I feel my finger on your trigger, I know nobody can do me no harm, because... Happiness is a warm gun, Bang, bang, shoot, shoot."

# data[].attributes.body
A
B
C
Rate the article!

# data[].attributes.body
B
8/10 article

# data[].attributes.body
A! The source is comprehensible and states various statistics to support facts stated. The article is not biased as it mentions both sides of the issue, their merits, and downfalls. The source is reputable, and is known for honest journalism. The article references and cites various studies, statistics, and professionals.

# data[].attributes.body
B because the date of the article is back from 2015, maybe could’ve of gotten a more recent article but all the environmental issues was good because it lists many different ones and gives a good explanation underneath it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/universal-health-care-polls-obamacare-repeal/516504/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/univer
sal-health-care-polls-obamacare-repeal/516504/

# data[].attributes.body
A
I like this source because it was very unbiased, easy to read and it explains why and how glitter is bad for the environment. It’s a a reliable source because it’s off of CNN which is a news sight and it’s also a very new article.

# data[].attributes.body
http://time.com/4511744/american-military-bases-overseas/http://time.com/4511744/american-military-bases-overseas/

# data[].attributes.body
I give this article an A. It is easily comprehensible. Addresses the topic but doesn’t feed it own opinion it has facts and background information and explains why this is an important topic and issue in our country. -Yulissa Fuentes

# data[].attributes.body
From Sheanna to Kaitlyn
A+++
I give this article an A because the article is very informative and unbiased. It gives specific details of dates, names, and settings. It put quotations around opinions and thoughts shared from politicans to signify that it is not their own words but of others that is not involved with the article.

# data[].attributes.body
I’m giving you a B because it needs to build there is alot of information but not all sources are credible but most are.

# data[].attributes.body
I give this article an A because it seems unbiased and looks to be a reliable source.

# data[].attributes.body
B
The article is very biased towards how guns are not the problem. They show only bad things about and they show how they don’t agree with media showing it. The person who wrote sounds that he would fight for his right to bear arms.

# data[].attributes.body
A
This article was very unbiased and it used many references, it also comes from a reliable source

# data[].attributes.body
B because I think that it covers many environmental problems with good agendas for disscussion I think it’s a little bias by almost shaming Obama, and the Republican Congress. It’s a little old now but these issues are still needed to be discussed.

# data[].attributes.body
I give you a B because there is a little bias comments in the article.

# data[].attributes.body
To Sheanna
From Aryk

A+++++ This was a great article keep up the good work sheanna😊😊😊

# data[].attributes.body
C challenge

It's completely bias because it's all toward restricting the number of available guns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To the Editor:
Re " School Gunfire Every Other Day " (front page, Jan. 23):

So it happened again, a high school shooting and kids killed by a kid. This one is so tragically, numbingly and predictably the same as we have so sadly witnessed so many times.

We will eventually find out about the shooter's motivations, troubles and challenges. But here's what we know now - he had access to an efficient killing device, even at age 15. And here's what we eventually will know - that prayers don't really mitigate the unspeakable pain of parents burying their child, do they?

And just one more thing worth considering before we move on from this latest tragedy. Every vote for National Rifle Association-backed candidates increases the likelihood of more such tableaux, because certain politicians on this issue have shown they have no more conscience than the weapons they make so very available.

NORMAN L. BENDER
WOODBRIDGE, CONN.
To the Editor:
The ultimate solution to school shootings is to restrict the numbers of available guns. However, in today's environment that is highly unlikely. A reasonable solution, therefore, is a campaign to require that guns be secured in a locked "safe" away from ammunition and addled adolescents.

This will require education and legislation to make it a reality. But how many more school shooting deaths must our country endure before we offer more than thoughts and prayers for the victims?

JIM WEBSTER, SANTA FE, N.M.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Kids Killing Kids: America's Tragic New Norm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To the Editor: Re " School Gunfire Every Other Day " (front page, Jan. 23): So it happened again, a high school shooting and kids killed by a kid. This one is so tragically, numbingly and predictably the same as we have so sadly witnessed so many times.

# data[].attributes.body
Yo what?

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/01/nearly-200-illegal-immigrants-found-in-just-three-january-smuggling-busts.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/01/nearly-200-illegal-immigrants-found-in-just-three-january-smuggling-busts.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security says it will waive more than three dozen laws and regulations - most of them requiring environmental review - as it pushes ahead with the first phase of construction of an enhanced wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The announcement Tuesday by the department's Customs and Border Protection Unit pertains to a 14-mile stretch of the wall in the San Diego area - stretching from the Pacific Ocean to a point inland known as Border Monument 251.

President Trump issued an executive order in January for construction of the wall along the border. His administration says it can waive the environmental laws but opponents have already said the wall could be "catastrophic" to the environment and now charge that a waiver of further review is unconstitutional.

An environmental group that has already called for more scrutiny of the construction said it believes its lawsuit previously filed over the construction will force enhanced review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a host of other laws.

"Trump wants to scare people into letting him ignore the law and endanger wildlife and people," said Brian Segee, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Trump's wall is a divisive symbol of fear and hatred, and it does real harm to the landscape and communities."

The announcement by DHS said the sections of the wall near San Diego could not go under construction in December, as planned, if the project was subjected to standard environmental review. Biological surveys required under federal environmental law would stretch into next June, according to the announcement of the waiver.

Despite its attempt to waive NEPA and scores of other regulations - ranging from the Endangered Species Act, to the Clean Air Act and the National Trails System Act - Homeland Security still claimed in a statement that it would "implement sound environmental practices."

Related: Border Wall Push Creates Flap at the National Butterfly Center

The statement added that the CBP officials overseeing the work are "committed to the protection of the environment" and that they would "continue to perform all important surveys for biological and natural resources, wetlands, culturally significant sites, and environmentally sensitive areas."

The announcement said the officials would coordinate with other federal, state and local stakeholders to assess the impact of the construction and "develop appropriate mitigation strategies."

Those remarks did not reassure activists at the Center for Biological Diversity, which first sued in May to demand enhanced review of the wall. Joining the environmental group in the litigation was U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., the top Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Grijalva said also issued a statement Tuesday, saying that "doing away with environmental and public health laws that ensure clean air and clean water jeopardizes the very people, values, and homeland that DHS claims to protect."

The congressman added: "These are not minor regulatory requirements that DHS is circumventing. They are monumental protections that have been essential to preserving our country's natural heritage and safeguarding public health."

Related: Trump's Border Wall 'Catastrophic' for Environment, Endangered Species: Activists

Environmentalists said the area targeted for initial construction in San Diego County includes wetlands, streams and other rare wildlife habitats that are the home of endangered species, including the Quino checkerspot butterfly and the California gnatcatcher, a bird.

"This isn't just a wall they're in a rush to build. It's roads, lighting and all of the infrastructure that comes with it. All of this without any environmental review or public input. It's a travesty and it has to be stopped," Segee said in a statement. "We believe the waiver is unconstitutional, and we're confident the courts will agree."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump admin moves to build border wall around environmental regulations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security says it will waive more than three dozen laws and regulations - most of them requiring environmental review - as it pushes ahead with the first phase of construction of an enhanced wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

# data[].attributes.body
B. I think the articles good but the writer sometimes only talked or agreed with one side.

# data[].attributes.body
II rate B because the author sided with one argument instead of being biased.