North Korea this week came to South Korea. They held wide ranging talks to end the war that has been on pause since 1953. That pause being only 64 years old is just shy of applying of old age pensions. The question is why now? The answer is not rocket science. The American right wing thinks it is all due to Donald Trump and his so called diplomacy. To my chagrin, I am going to somewhat agree with that. So 6 months ago, you had a war of words between North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un and President Donald Trump. The result was an escalation in the nuclear testing of both rockets and weapon design. This is where you have problems occurring in three ways, the Bomb, the missile and testing. You need a bomb you can toss at the other guy that will hit him where you aim. Well sort of, it’s a big bomb so anywhere close to the target within miles is close enough. Problem is… The North Koreans could not do it. Sure, they have the bomb, sort of. They have the missile and it could be tossed somewhere. But where will it hit? So what are the issues? The bomb itself was not that hard to make. Hint, it really is not all that hard to make, the physics is well know and Pakistan has been selling the secrets to anyone who wanted them. Most countries already have them or don’t want them except North Korea. So they have a great big bomb that remained, great and big, when they need to fit it small and powerful in a small missile that could fly half way across the world. They could not make it small enough to fit a missile. The missile they had was good at short range; basically if you have the capability to make a missile you can hit things in the short range. Things like wind and weather won’t be that much of a factor over the short term but medium and long term; you need to be able to guide the missile or to have it self guided. That is a lot harder. It was something they never managed to create thus far. But there is a solution to both problems. It involves testing. And here is the third problem. The test site, a mountain, is too fragile and is in danger of collapsing in on itself, releasing all the trapped radiation that was released in previous testing. Which would create a bigger mess then anything seen thus far? Picture Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima all rolled into one and multiplied a thousand times. New York State and North Korea are about the same size in land so that sort of release of nuclear radiation from further testing would be insane.

Twitter wars

With the escalation from comments by both leaders, Trump and Kim, the world took a collective pause to change underwear. This is not two school yard bullies going at it. But two nuclear armed nations about to square off. So, the rest of the world did something because nuclear war is not something anyone wants. They hammered North Korea with sanctions. This is not something new. They have been hammered before and with the assistance of China, they can make it through the winter. Only this time, it was not in the interests of China to have a nuclear war on their door steps, or a mountain collapse and release tonnes of radiation on their door step either. So China stepped up its enforcement of sanctions. That left only Russia to smuggle good into Korea and they could do so only occasionally. Enough to get Kim some luxuries but not enough to feed the people, the way the trains coming from China had supplied North Korea in the past.

So North Korea could not improve or finish their weapons program. The world was strangling North Korea over the real possibility of war that even China was afraid. Lastly, you had Donald Trump challenging them and making them lose face with his nasty comments. When you are this far in the hole, stop digging. And that is exactly what Kim did. He made a third step. Peace with South Korea, always a big step, end nuclear weapons research and give up weapons. Keep in mind, big brother China has guaranteed the border of North Korea for the last 64 years, continuing to do so in future and the mass of conventional arms pointed at the south are still there. With the nukes gone, the testing stopped, the sanctions go away, trade opens with both China and South Korea and the rest of the world. Thus Kim gets to run his fiefdom for as long as he can, and the world goes back to ignoring him. And gasp we can all thank Small Hand Donald.

Say what?

Yes, The president of United States.

What exactly did he do? Nothing. Except the pesky thing of doing what he normally does. He shot his mouth off on Twitter. He attacked Kim on Twitter. And that is all. See Ronald Reagan won the cold war not by fighting, not by diplomacy. Reagan beat the Russians by upping the ante. By bringing the USA military to the table dumping trillions of dollars on the table and saying to the USSR keep up with us. Which, of course, they could not, but they tried and bankrupted the country trying. “Mr Gorbachev tear this wall down,” on June 12, 1987, was nothing more than a taunt to the USSR, but with its weak economy another round of industrial building and sacrifice for another 50 years was unattainable for such a small economy of the USSR. The cowboy diplomacy had worked. The same thing is happening with North Korea. Only instead of cowboy diplomacy, call it Twitter Diplomacy. The North tried to be ready to fight this war with the USA and the world, and if the science had been there, the technology had been there and that stupid mountain had not gone all weak and threatening to collapse, things would have been different. If the world had not been afraid of two nuclear armed psychopaths, hands itching on a button and arguing who has the bigger hands, err buttons, to launch those nukes then they would not have dropped such harsh sanctions in such urgent speed. And lastly, if China has not been afraid of all of the above, the mountain, the idiots playing with their nukes and just how unstable the two of them are, they would not have turned on North Korea and stopped supplying them with needed materials. These sequences of failures are what brought Kim to the table.

Thank Donald J. Trump. Not for what he did, not for doing anything great, not for anything else but being himself, the spoiled brat, psychopath that he is, that we know and love, that scared the rest of the world into motion on what his next unpredictable reaction to this conflict would mean for the rest of the world. That scared Kim into pushing his nuclear program beyond what he could sustain and that silly old mountain that had its gut blown out and became unstable enough to collapse.

US Constitution, 2nd Amendment
“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.”

In a New York Times op-ed Former US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a republican, called for a new amendment to remove from the second amendment of the US Constitution the right to bear arms. In response to this we may ask why? Is it because we wish to raise the age where you can buy a gun?. Establish long waiting periods, and stronger background checks? Ban whole classes of weapons such as assault style weapons or add on like bump-stocks? Or demand training classes be longer and more rigorous? Make it a crime to not report lost or stolen weapons? Or near anything else along those lines? In fact all of them are perfectly legal and can be done now under the existing understanding of the legal framework in effect. In fact with the exception of 3% of the population, those who we shall persistently call gun nuts, the rest of the population will more or less agree with any and all of those actions. In fact, the jurisprudence is the Heller decision, (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) where they affirm all of the above. What makes the Heller decision so decisive is that for the first time, the SCOTUS affirmed that there is an a right such that; “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm…” Prior to this ruling, the Second Amendment was seen only as a collective right seen in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which held that a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment, as it could not be used in a militia. Heller affirmed similar protections in that;“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”
As such, it is not the law that is in need of changing. It is the political will to change the law that is in need of changing. But wait, in order to change the Constitution, you need strong political will. Whereas, adding any new requirement listed above would only be a mere law, an Amendment to the Constitution would be a much bigger deal. So why is it we can expect there to be enough political will to change the Constitution when there is not enough political will to come up with mere new laws to protect people? The answer is, there is not enough political will to enact mere law. Going that much further to alter the Constitution is unneeded. What is needed to be done is to reclaim the 2nd Amendment from the hands of gun nuts who think Heller’s gives them “license to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
People need to stand up and clearly say:
I support the 2nd Amendment by raising the age where you can purchase weapons.
I support the 2nd Amendment by establishing longer waiting periods.
I support the 2nd Amendment by having stronger background checks.

I support the 2nd Amendment by making it a crime to not report lost or stolen weapons.
I support the 2nd Amendment by banning whole classes of weapons such as assault style weapons or add on like bump-stocks.
I support the 2nd Amendment by demanding rigorous training classes!

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and Heller decision. Do not let gun nuts fool you into thinking otherwise.

California congressman Ted Lieu tweeted the following:

“Below is the Constitution. It DOES NOT say @POTUS can:

-engage in acts of war without Congressional approval

-Use force for 60-90 days

-enforce the Chemical Weapons treaty by force

-attack a country that hasn’t attacked the US”

Ted is a lawyer, a reserve colonel and served in the JAG (Judge Advocate General) so he knows better, or should know better in any case. Welcome Ted to the Twilight zone: “Justice Robert H. Jackson once called the “zone of twilight in which the president and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.” Without a clarification from SCOTUS, (Supreme Court of The United States) the question is one of interpretation not established law.

The President swore an oath, as you did Ted, to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution also says; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” and lastly, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

So what does that do for my opposition? Fairly, well argued it says a lot.  The attack on Syria is not an act of war. The act of war was the use of chemical weapons upon civilians. The use of force in retaliation to that provocation is justified in enforcing the Chemical Weapons treaty. Just as police give out tickets to people speeding to enforce the law, so too is this attack justified. Remember that treaty is not a piece of paper that means nothing. The Chemical Weapons treaty is the “supreme law of the land.” Hence the term police action. This is not act of war but defending the USA from a foreign enemy. No approval is needed, just a notification within 48 hours. I think he still has a few hours to go on that notification part.

I am going to ignore the 60-90 days line, since it comes from the War Powers Resolution. Not in the Constitution but still having the force of congress, which your being a member would make you complicit. I would also point out the whole attack lasted more like 6-9 minutes to launch the missiles.

The last part, about not attacking the USA? True, they have not invaded but that was not your question, was it? The treaty signed by the USA is enforceable by all members who signed that treaty. The USA just happens to be the world’s only super power with the capability to do so.

So Ted, I think I can safely call this a draw. Even though, I think I have the better arguments. So why go for the low ball? Because without a ruling from the Supreme Court, we may never know who is right and who is wrong.

“Surprisingly, the courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. The first legal challenge to noncompliance with the resolution, Crockett v. Reagan (1982), was filed by eleven members of Congress who contended that President Ronald Reagan’s decision to send military advisers to El Salvador must be reported to Congress. A district court ruled that Congress, not the court, must resolve the question of whether U.S. forces in El Salvador were involved in a hostile or potentially hostile situation. The Supreme Court declined consideration of a later appeal. In Lowry v. Reagan (1987), the courts refused to decide whether President Reagan had failed to comply with the War Powers Resolution when he dispatched naval forces to the Persian Gulf. A suit was brought by 110 members of Congress, arguing that sending forces close to the Iran-Iraq war zone required congressional approval. The district court held that it was a political dispute to be dismissed “as a prudential matter under the political question doctrine.” (Source)

The American attack upon Syria has been called illegal, uncontitutional and beyond the power of the Presidency. This is wrong and I will explain to you why.
The Congress passed the War Power Resolution after the Bay of Tonka incident. It is called an incident as even today there are question as to what exactly happened that night and if the US Navy was, in fact, attacked. The question and answer need not be addressed here. Congress did not like being dragged into a war without their approval. So then we jump to this attack, undertaken by the USA, UK and France. Was this an illegal action on the part of the President?

Even with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, it is generally agreed, that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States. The question is this strike such an act? When did Syria attack the United States? They did when Syria used poison gas to kill civilians, the Geneva Protocol, (1925) the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Whatever agent it is determined to be. As of this writing it is reported to be chlorine gas, a banded weapon used on the battlefields of World War One. Also, the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Makes it a war crime to employ chemical weapons in international conflicts. (2010 amendment extends prohibition to internal conflicts.) Thereby making this attack also a war crime subject to arrest by the international court.But even so, what does this mean for the USA in specific of the attack. What gives the President the power to attack Syria in the first place?
U.S. Constitution, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…” (Note that the USA is treaty member listed above.)
“And the judges in every state shall be bound thereby…”
That rule of law kicks in here, no judge can deny the obligation of any formal treaty entered into by the US government.
“…and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; …”
Kind of obvious, but needing to be said, you took an oath for your position in government, you are bound by this oath to support the Constitution and thereby by adoption, all treaties as well.
As such, a violation of said treaty, against use of chemical weapons, that has been officially approved by the Senate, and has becomes part of American law, must be protected. The Executive, aka The Office of President, must therefore protect the law of the several state and the rule of law by protecting the treaty as it was any other part of the Unitied States. You cannot decide to not protect Montana or ignore those parts of the criminal code you do not personally agree with. By your oath or affirmation, you are duty bound to uphold the treaty.
Thus by international law, International Treaty law, American law, and the American Constitution, the USA must protect the treaties it has signed as if they were a part of the United States. This includes the one against attacking civilians with chlorine gas or nerve agents. Thus Syria attacked the USA by defying the treaty against said use of controlled weapons, just as if the attack was on downtown New York.

I was sent a video about the effects of gun control on Australia after 20 years have past since they confiscated all guns.

The Truth About Gun Control In Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur8lbiModEI

At best, the summation is thus, You are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is your own facts. Here are claims nd the facts, along with sources where you can review the facts from. This video is merely cherry picking out statistics that it likes for its own end.

“Cherry picking
The selective use of data, or cherry picking, is a commonly used method of extracting the “right” answer. This is true even when all the data tells a completely different story.

Cherry picking often exploits random fluctuations in data. Firearm deaths in Australia have declined over the past two decades, but from year-to-year one can see variations up and down. Bigger fractional fluctuations are likely if you shrink your sample size.

Leading US pro-gun lobby group the National Rifle Association (NRA) was cherry picking when its publication, NRA News, reported this statistic from New South Wales:”
http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

time

1m02
claim: “All measure of violent crime have increased”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/
“The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:”
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
government statistics
http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

1m04
claim: “55% increase in the recorded assaults”
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359
“Assault
Assault is the most common form of violent crime; rates of recorded assault have been increasing steadily over the past 10 or more years. Between 1995 and 2006, the rate of recorded assault rose significantly from 562.8 to 829.4 per 100,000 people … Other research suggests this increase is not a recent phenomenon, but started to rise in the 1970s (Chappell 1995).
…
Sexual Assault
The prevalence of sexual assault is also reported to be increasing. Since 1995, the rate of recorded sexual assault increased by 22 percent, from 72.5 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 88.4 in 2006…”

“Recorded rates of both assault and sexual assault have followed a sustained upward trend since the early 1990s. A simultaneous increase in the reporting of assault suggests this is somewhat responsible for the rise in assault rates. The relationship between rates of recorded sexual assault against those estimated from victimisation surveys is less conclusive, as victimisation surveys produced inconsistent patterns in reporting behaviour. An increased awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault (particularly for assaults occurring within the family), a diminishing of associated taboos, a tendency for delayed reporting, and improved police and judicial responses to reports of assault all represent factors likely to have influenced willingness to report (Borzycki 2007; Cook, David & Grant 2001; Lievore 2003; Taylor & Mouzos 2006).”

1m15
claim: “Kidnappings up 52%”
https://aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi103
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia#Kidnapping
Kidnapping
“There was a 7.7% decrease in the number of kidnapping/abduction victims in Australia, from 596 in 2013 to a five-year low of 550 in 2014.”

3m06
claim: “Gun ownership is about self defence”

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
“Parsing 2012 numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

That’s in a nation in which there are some 300 million firearms
…
Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012). That’s a heavy price to pay.”

5m25
claim: “Armed Robberies up 69%”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia
“Armed robbery
There was a 14% decrease in the number of armed robbery victims (both person and non-person victims) in Australia, from 5,631 in 2013 to a five-year low of 4,855 in 2014.”

5m34
claim: “Assault with weapon up 28%”

Assault with weapon is not a category I can find, so I merely report this.

5m36
claim: “Gun Murder up 19%”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia
“There were 238 reported murder victims in Australia during 2014, compared to 245 in 2013
The murder victimisation rate fell to a five-year low of 1.0 victim per 100,000 persons;
Of weapons used in murder, a knife was the most common (44% or 69 victims)”

5m40
claim: “Home invasion up 21%”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia
“Called Unlawful entry with intent;
There was a 6.5% decrease in the number of victims of unlawful entry with intent in Australia, from 194,529 in 2013 to a five-year low of 181,879 in 2014”

Etc etc

In so much as you can cherry pick your facts based on whatever criteria you need to do, it is clear that the debate is simply one of a small minority of gun owners who will try with any argument they can muster to find legitimacy for their position in the face of overwhelming calls from the population to control weapons. When 97% of Americans call for stricter background checks before allowing for a purchase, this is not a small minority. It is everyone who thinks this is fair and needed.