The Gun Ownership Dilemma in America

It has been estimated that there are approximately 300 million firearms in the United States.  The vast majority of which are legally owned and registered to law abiding citizens. If you took every one of those firearms, and placed them in a location, and allowed them to remain there for 1 year, and not allow any interaction with a human, you would not have a single incident of an accidental discharge, suicide, wounding of a person or murder.  For one of these events to take place, it would require human 

involvement.  Even if you involved humans, it would not change the outcome 99% of the time.  Most gun owners in the United States are either hunters, or sport and target shooters, or want to have a firearm for the protection of their home, family or business. We constantly hear of the instances when a firearm is used by someone in an aggressive or inappropriate manner, resulting in injury or death.  However we seldom hear of the many times firearms are used to deter, or stop that behavior, preventing injury or death to the innocent person that was just protecting them self.  This happens thousands of times each year, to homeowners, 

business owners, rural residences, drivers of passenger cars and truck drivers.

In actually in the United States there are literally thousands of laws already on the books covering guns, their operation, purchase, sale, and use. Chicago is a glaring example of some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Handguns are literally banned in Chicago, but account for approximately 90% of their murders. Also this year as in the recent past years, Chicago is on course to set another record of over 500 murders. The reasons for this are many and varied.  From socioeconomic, to neighborhood "Rules or Policies," to just plain bad people. An absolutely astonishing thing is how over the years, the criminal element has convinced the people in the neighborhoods, that the Police are the bad-guys, and that no one should cooperate with them. This is used a lot to promote the "philosophy" that people should fear the Police, thus giving the "Bad-Guys" a freer hand in running their criminal activities.  However it is just a way for the criminals to convince the locals to be uncooperative with the "Cops," thus helping to protect the criminal activities they are engaged in.   I have strongly felt this way for many years, however,this strategy was born out for me, after watching a 60 year old movie, (On the Waterfront),which was based on a neighborhood being totally convinced, by the bad-guys, to be negative and uncooperative towards the cops. In certain areas drug dealers, gangs, and thugs control the local streets, and have residents in total fear of their safety, if anyone tries to change the system.  Irregardless of these facts, these are not people that are going to say "I can't shoot him, this gun ain't registered."  Their guns are acquired through theft, or bought from other thieves, or through "Straw Purchases" which are legal purchases  made by people who then give or sell the firearms to the persons who are unable to purchase them legally. Whichever way they are obtained, this type of person has no regard for any laws, negating the effectiveness of passing more laws. Ironically the average law abiding citizen, that lives in one of these neighborhoods is prevented from legally owning certain firearms for their personal protection. Thus they are forced to rely on 911, which may take from 3 minutes to never, for a response.  I have personally tried to contact 911 several times via cell phone, one time to report a car driving on the sidewalk and running red lights, only to hang up after 7-10 minutes without ever having had talked to a human. I cannot imagine how a person would feel to be in a life threatening situation, then to dial 911 and not get through.

Also what should be of major concern today, is the policy of persons with mental health problems that are not being monitored or institutionalized.  In almost every case of people involved in multiple shootings, there is a clear case of mental infirmities. Columbine shooters Harris and Klebold, who wrote in their journals about the Oklahoma City Bombing, Waco, Texas and the Viet Nam war, and how they wanted to outdo those events. They were unable to purchase weapons, and had one friend make a straw purchase of two weapons, and acquired other weapons illegally from two other persons. .  Also disturbing about the two, was the fact that they made a video of their actual intentions that was viewed by students and instructors, who made minor comments on the darkness of it. The Sandy Hook shooter had a long history of mental problems.  He attempted to purchase a firearm, but was denied.  So he killed his mother and stole her weapons.  Matricide is already illegal. A similar scenario was true of the Tucson shooter of Gabby Giffords, who was already banned from the campus that he had attended, due to erratic behavior.  The Aurora Colorado theater shooter, James Holmes was described by an instructor as "A little bit off," after he would participate in role-playing games on-line.  His ultimate role playing was to imitate the Dark Night in appearance and actions and murder six people and wound twelve more.  Major Nidal Hason was described as "Deeply Troubled,"  "paranoid,"  "Belligerent," and "Schizoid," by the medical staff at Walter Reed psychiatric residency program.  He had objected strongly to America's involvement in, and being deployed to the war in Afghanistan.  He yelled "Allah Ackbar" and then killed thirteen American servicemen.  I believe the glaring fact in all of these situations, is that no law was going to stop the carnage put upon their victims.  However a more observant parent, teacher,  Commanding Officer, or mental health worker could have.

Another major problem with gun violence in the United States is the lack of enforcement of the existing laws. The United States has thousands of existing laws of varying degrees in all 50 states.  Simply enforcing these current laws wold cover most any situation that arises.  I will say as a strong proponent of gun rights, that I do support background checks, even though they infringe on the vast majority of law abiding citizens.  And I do somewhat understand the objections to high capacity magazines, but similarly why does anyone need a 400 HP car?

   

To be continued.

People v. Guns: Which One Kills

There are already 300 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. In theory, a more strict gun law could work. In 1996, Australia implemented a strict assault weapons ban with few loopholes. The country banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and spent $500 million buying approximately 600,000 guns from private citizens. But this isn’t Australia.

There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown.

            “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship.

Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people’s rights being removed little by little. You can’t carry your guns around in public.

Now you can’t own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can’t have any guns at all–time to amend the Constitution. That’s an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile.

Mass shooters don’t follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation’s most strict gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course.

But that didn’t stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. Even Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the administration lacks the time to enforce existing gun laws on background checks, saying to an NRA representative, “We simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence. Some people think that if we just get rid of guns, violence will lower dramatically. Those people are naive, especially when only 2.6 percent of all murders are committed with some type of rifle.

Thomas Jefferson once quoted criminologist Cesare Beccaria on the dangers of disarming citizens. He said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. …Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Criminals would continue finding ways to illegally acquire guns while robbing and attacking law-abiding citizens who suddenly have no means of self-defense.

The cause of mass shootings isn’t guns; it is mental health. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” at first seems like a stupid pro-gun argument. It sounds juvenile, and it is much too easy for liberals to counter with, “Well, people need the guns to kill people,” which is true.

The point is, we need to target the source of the problem, not the tools used. We need to talk about mental illness and how we can help provide services, resources and other support to those who need it. 

Assault Weapons Ban

In the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting, the nation has been hearing many propositions to ban "assault rifles". A common misconception is that these "assault rifles" are machine guns. Many times these firearms are also referred to as "military style firearms", however, in the context of assault weapons laws, they refer to cosmetic features of semi-automatic firearms that are similar to fully automatic military firearms. Fully automatic firearms on the other hand are not classified as an assault weapon by law, but are classified as a Title II weapons.

A semi-automatic firearm is classified as an assault rifle if it has a detachable magazine, and two other specified characteristics. These "military style" characteristics include:

Collapsible Stock
Pistol Grip
Bayonet Lug
Grenade Launcher
Flash Supressor

Not An Assault Rifle

Not An Assault Rifle

Assault Rifle


California Senator, Diane Feinstein, who supports the assault rifle ban was quoted as, "They are designed to kill large numbers of people". Out of the three firearms above only one is an assault rifle, however, they all fire the same type of ammunition, all have detachable magazines and magazine capacity, and they all have the same power and potential, as she puts it, to "kill large numbers of people". The assault rifle ban is nothing more then emotionally based legislation piggybacking on the tragic shooting in Newtown.

Much of the public isn't even aware that assault rifles were already banned once before in 1994, by a bill introduced by Diane Feinstein. It banned assault rifles for 10 years until 2004. For those 10 years it was illegal to manufacture these weapons for private citizens. It also banned high capacity magazines to no more than 10 rounds. In 2004, the National Research Council did studies of the assault weapon ban, and stated that it "did not reveal any clear impact on gun violence" and "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...". The United States Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice even found that if the ban were to be renewed, that it's effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, due to the fact that rifles in general, including "assault rifles", were rarely used in gun crimes.



The newly proposed assault rifle bill,  however, does not include an expiration, and many who oppose the bill feel as it is only the first push, in even further gun control laws to follow. Many claim that the ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, and violates the 2nd Amendment. Which states, "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."

To determine the original intent of the 2nd amendment we must understand at minimal, some history leading up to it.The Stuart period in England, was the most influential period of English history, shaping the political theory of American revolutionary leaders. In 1628, Parliament enumerated King Charles' violations of the rights of his subjects. These included forced loans, imprisonment without process, and execution of persons pursuant to martial law.King Charles dissolved and refused to call new Parliaments for 11 years. He began developing his own army, and advised subjects of England that bearing arms against the King would result in damnation. Scotland went into an open rebellion, which forced Charles to call Parliament in 1640 for the purposes of raising taxes. Seizing the opportunity, Parliament secured power of dissolving and eliminating the Kings prerogative courts. Parliament also moved to seize control of the militia, the king refused, and parliament  appointed its own officers to take charge of the militia by passing the bill the king had refused to sign as an ordinance. Parliament called out the militia and the king did the same, and civil war ensued. Charles attempted to disarm many militia units by confiscating public magazines and seizing weapons of residents. Parliaments forces prevailed and Charles was executed in 1642.

There are two main points to take away from this time period. Both Parliament and the King had proclaimed themselves the protector of the subjects of England. Each had also tried to disarm the others supporters. The militia, the organization that intended to protect it's subjects liberty, had also become an instrument of government tyranny. Parliament, by appointing officers of the militia and selecting its membership showed how the militia could become an instrument of the government.

There is often debate over, if it's the states right, or the individual's right to form a well regulated militia.  In the states' right model, the militia is the national guard, and the citizens right's are much more limited. My position is that it is the individual's right. Under the current system, officers of the national guard are dual status, meaning they are member's of the state guard and federal armed forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. We see the implications of this in the paragraph above. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, provides that "no state shall, without the consent of congress, ...keep troops, or Ships of war in time of peace...". In a state militia model, where the national guard is the militia, these points alone severely limit the "militias" ability to act as a proper counterweight to the federal government, which was not the envisioning of the founding fathers.

English history made it clear that, force of arms was the only way to effectively check government powers, and standing armies threatened liberty. Therefore, the power had to be placed in the hands of the citizens. These ideals were adopted by the framers of our nation, who knew that a check on all government, not just federal government, had to be a well armed population, the militia. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the Governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

The in-class nation simulation: let's play! (how, with whom, against whom ...?)

The in-class nation simulation started and ... I wish I could understand the meaning of it better.:-) We are playing - that's ok. But is it supposed to be a totally imaginary world? Some of our posts are serious enough to think we are creating something we want to operate, some are not. What is the purpose of it? Are we just dreaming of a better world (Utopia) or we are supposed to deal with the events/people/structures, not every good politician is able to? The best thing we are practicing now is to make our group work - this is important, no doubt. But I just wish we could discuss in class more of what everybody is doing on his/her own. Maybe, I am just a big fan of a classic academic education?:-)

 



Drone Strikes

Is it ever appropriate for the U.S. government to kill one of its own citizens without providing them with a constitutional due process of protections?  I believe it is appropriate if an individual is a risk to innocent lives. For instance if an Al-Qa'ida member receives his citizenship and is a citizen for a number of years and then is plotting an act of terrorism and is taken out by an American drone before he is able carry out this act of terrorism, then the government is doing its job in protecting its citizens.  If the government were to wait and attempt to prosecute this individual he may be out of the country before he is found.  This forces the government to send troops to where this individual is hiding, putting American soldier's lives at risk, and in some cases losing troops to catch an individual who we could have got on American soil.  Once the terrorist is captured, given a trial, and placed on an island to live out the rest of his life.  I do not however believe that killing citizens who are not plotting acts of terrorism or are not a risk to hundreds or thousands of American lives is right or just.  Drone attacks on American citizens is merely self defence carried out by the government(on individuals who are a threat to innocent lives). Article

RE:
Article #2; New York Times.

Arkansas Abortion Law

One of the most difficult things to do, is to try to categorize any one controversial law, proposal, idea, or situation into an "either or" niche.  When it comes to abortion, both sides of the debate have very firm beliefs, but there is such a chasm between those beliefs, that it would seem impossible to bridge the gap.  Just this last week a Doctor in, I believe Philadelphia, was arrested for snapping the spinal chords of babies that were actually born alive. Aborting a fetus, up to a certain point is one thing, this is ???

Perhaps that is the biggest dilemma facing people today.  At what point does a separate egg and a separate sperm, when joined become an entity that is acceptable to all the factions of the debate, as a human being. From the belief that at conception, the fertilized egg is a living being, to the belief that if an abortion is not successful, and the perfectly viable fetus is extracted, it is O.K. to just put it in a sink to die on it's own, I wonder what is the point at which the "thing" becomes a viable something that is acceptable, to both sides?
The original questions from Professor Ellerman were;

Would this law pass under your constitution?
For me personally, I would say yes.  If you have a beating heart, you have a living being.

Do you think it is a good idea?
Again I would say yes.  But I have no idea what the circumstances in each case are.  If a person is seeking an abortion, it is a pretty fair conjecture that the baby would be unwanted, and be brought into an environment that would be lacking.  Then again just 2 weeks ago, a court said that nothing be done to a woman that did crack cocaine 2 days before giving birth.  Go figure.

Why?  I'm not qualified to give an answer to that.

I certainly do not know.  I'm just glad my mother didn't believe in abortion.

Banana Republic

Federal Tax System

It shall be adopted that:

The Banana Republic's National Philosophy regarding taxation is one of it being a necessary evil,  and not a means by which a select group may enrich themselves.

National:

I propose that:

Any country wishing to export to the Banana Republic shall pay a tariff to the Banana republic, on said exports, equal to their import tariff levied on goods and/or services imported to that country from the Banana Republic.

RE:

If Tasmania levies a 10% tariff on Widgets made in the Banana Republic, then Tasmania will pay a 10% tariff on any of it's exports to the Banana Republic.

I propose that:

In lieu of a national income tax the Banana Republic will impose a 10% Value Added Tax, to all items manufactured, imported, sold, or transferred through any and all companies, entities, businesses, or services operating in or licensed through the Banana Republic.

I propose that:

Individual counties, cities and municipalities located in or governed by the Banana Republic, will determine their respective tax systems, and limits.

I propose that:

Property taxes shall be determined by local control with no agency above the county level to receive funds from, or have jurisdiction over said tax revenue.

I propose that:

Any attempt to alter or change the tax codes of the federal, state, county, city, or municipality shall require a vote of 57% in the affirmative.

Submitted by: Erling Troswick

Banana Republic: Elections of Officials & Limitations Imposed on Gov.

                       Elections of Officials
Elections of county and district officials will be held on the first Wednesday of June every two years. National elections will be held on February 29 every four years.  All legal or naturalized citizens will have the right to vote.  Every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote.  Citizens can vote by mail or at a designated voting location, located in every district.

                       Limitations Imposed on Government
The Banana Republic will be a three party system with checks and balances.  The three parties are as stated: Judicial, Executive, and Legislative.  The Constitution imposes many limitations on governmental powers.  The three parties and Constitution all together keep the government in check.

Banana Republic: Law - Making Procedure

The law-making initiative can come from any source: political parties, business groups, authorities of any level (including President) and other interest groups. The subject of the possible-to-become-a-law project should not contradict the Constitution.
A decent project should be submitted to the lower Chamber of Parliament, for further discussion and vote. Once the project is voted and the result is positive, it goes to the higher Chamber, for vote also.
Once voted and accepted by the latter, the almost-law goes to the President, to be signed. The President has the right of "veto".

Banana Republic: Court Systems

Courts are divided into District/County Municipal Court, National Superior Court, National Appellate Court, and National Supreme Court. All citations and misdemeanor offenses will be seen by the District/County Municipal Court. Criminal offenses shall be tried at the National Superior Court. Decisions found in the District/County Municipal Court and/or National Superior Court may be appealed to the National Appellate Court for further interpretation. Decisions made by the National Appellate Court my be taken to the National Supreme Court. There is no requirement for the National Supreme Court to hear a case, and may refer back to the National Appellate Court decision. Decisions made by the National Supreme Court are final, unless overturned by the National Supreme Court in the future.