Pro Common Sense

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not anti-gun. I spent almost 9 years in the Air Force and qualified on two handguns and an M-16. When I was growing up, I hunted with my grandfather, and even owned my own double barrel, 20 gauge shotgun. I was also responsible, as a kid, for dramatically increasing the copper content of the soil around our house, as well as a few trees (sorry again Mom!), due to heavy BB gun use.  I've been a military history buff since I was a little kid and I love me some Quentin Tarantino. So I'm hardly a frothing crusader for repealing gun rights. But having said all that, I fully support some common sense gun regulation.

No, I'm not looking to take everyone's guns away. In fact, almost no one is, so I wish the NRA and others on the 'no compromise' side of this argument would stop whining like 2 year olds whose ice cream just hit the floor. Look, guns exist for only one reason: to kill. You can talk up target shooting and skeet shooting, etc. But the truth is that firearms were not invented and perfected to shoot clay pidgeons. They were invented to kill human beings. And over time, they have become more and more efficient at ending lives. I'm not saying that a gun is evil, but let's not pretend they are holy relics or talismans of liberty either. Guns are as likely to support tyranny as they are to protect freedom. Guns are not the cornerstone of Democracy. The cornerstones of Democracy are governmental checks & balances, freedom of expression and our judicial system, not who has the most, or biggest guns.

It's important to remember that there are two different spheres of life where guns exist; military and civilian. The military has much different needs than does a convenience store owner down the street. For the military, it's all about killing people in the quickest, most efficient manner possible for a particular situation. Whether that's a sniper rifle to kill a single individual from a mile away or a special forces team clearing a building with FN P90 assault rifles. Fast, reliable and deadly are the key features. And these weapons are put into the hands of highly trained soldiers. Individuals who have been drilled over and over on how to operate rationally in the chaotic environment of flying bullets. These are specialized weapons in the hands of those who have been trained to be specialists in the dark art of killing other human beings.

Then we have the civilian world, where the needs are much different. Here it's about sport or personal defense. There is no need for 30+ round magazines or a high rate of fire. Neither will help you hit a target on a range or take down a game animal and neither is needed for self defense. If one standard pistol magazine isn't enough to defend yourself, you're either in the middle of a gang shootout or you're running with Officer John McLane. In either case, your problems are unlikely to be solved with a few more rounds. And for the survivalists out there, I'm afraid a larger capacity magazine is not going to help you if the government really does come for you. Your AR-15 isn't going to save you from a highly trained tactical strike team or a platoon of trained infantry.

Military grade weapons have no place in civilian society. That's why your neighbor can't mount a quad .50 on his garage and you can't pick up Stinger missiles at Walmart! Neither of you has any legitimate need for that kind of firepower. Home defense? Try a shotgun. Talk about fear factor! I'd be more scared staring down the muzzle of a 12 gauge than an AR-15 any day! The AR-15 might miss, at least with the first few rounds, but the shotgun probably won't.

The other thing that so many people seem to not understand is that owning a gun does not imbue you with magical powers. You hear it after every mass shooting. The chorus of, "if only they had all been armed this would never have happened!" Look, Rambo, owning a gun doesn't make you Jason Bourne. Shooting targets on a range or hunting deer does not remotely qualify you to be calm and rational in the middle of a firefight.  Sure, if some of the teachers at Sandy Hook had been armed, the result might have been different. Perhaps they would have stopped the gunman, but that difference could also have been that several more bystanders may have been wounded or killed as multiple 'good guys' started spraying shots down range without carefully clearing their target.

It doesn't help that the Second Amendment is so non-specific. The whole thing is one sentence with one or two commas, depending on where you source the text. You would think that might make it straight forward, but it's not. Read it for yourself:

"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."

It seems like the only part most people care about is the last section, but the whole first part seems to clearly be a qualifier, implying that it specifically pertains to militias. There are some who interpret the Second Amendment as some paranoid safety valve, put in by the founding fathers as a defense against an overreaching government. That seems like a strange thing to shoehorn into the bill of rights. Not to mention, it's like a bride calling from her wedding reception to put a divorce lawyer on retainer. It also doesn't seem to fit when you read the whole amendment. I can't get past the militia bit, personally. When I read it, what I see is a warning not to ban guns because to do so would functionally disarm the state militias, who were pretty much the entire US army of the time. But we no longer base our security on civilian militias whose equipment is provided by the individuals themselves. We now have a professional military and the militias have been superseded by the National Guard, who have their weapons provided for them by the individual states. I think the Second Amendment is actually a bit anachronistic. Remember this comes from a time when the founders never imagined that the United States would have a standing, professional military numbering more than a million men and women.

This whole issue is way too complicated to fix by just arming everyone. Just as we will never stop every mass shooting by tightening gun laws. However, there are obvious steps that can be taken to make it a little harder for some individuals to arm themselves. Making background checks universal, whether you're shopping a brick and mortar store or just browsing at a local gun show, will make it harder for those with ill intent to pick up a weapon while adding only a minor inconvenience for everyone else. It's like security at the airport. Sure it's annoying, but everyone has to deal with it and it does provide a basic barrier to those trying to do harm. Is it fool proof? Of course not. Having laws and punishments setup for murderers doesn't stop 100% of killings, but that's no reason not to have them in place. Will banning some assault rifles stop the next Sandy Hook? Probably not, but it may very well save lives among the thousands of other shootings. And it will do so without causing the vast majority of gun owners the tiniest inconvenience. All I ask is for gun rights activists to stop and take a slow, deep breath. Holster their bravado. Then listen with an open mind and think rationally about what is actually being proposed and consider the real world impact.

Unintentional

Mississippi is set to vote in less than a week on a state amendment that would redefine a 'person' as existing "from the moment of fertilization, cloning or functional equivalent thereof". Yes, it includes cloning. It's the latest round of attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Keep in mind that Roe v. Wade has been 'on the books' so to speak for almost 40 years now, yet has not been overturned.

Proposition 26 is, pardon the pun, the poster child for unintended consequences. It's one of those ideas that sounds interesting in a philosophical discussion about where life begins, but is a disaster waiting to happen if actually applied. The problem is that it opens the door to all sorts of complications that the simple minded folks who drew it up never considered.

Let's for a moment assume that this proposition was passed. We shall also assume, for the purposes of discussion, that it's not struck down immediately after introduction due to Constitutional conflicts, certainly a possibility. Based on the language, "moment of fertilization," could effectively outlaw some common forms of birth control such as the IUD. Some have even claimed that it could effect the Pill. Now there seems to be some disagreement on exactly where the birth control 'cut off' would be, though at least some personhood amendment supporters have expressed their belief and/or hope that it would ban the Pill. That in itself should worry you as it means that at least some of these people will fight to try and ensure it does include the Pill. Don't even think about any kind of birth control for victims of rape. This amendment would all but guarantee that these brutalized women would be forced by the state to carry their attacker's child.

What about a miscarriage or even a stillbirth? Does that trigger a mandatory homicide investigation? Sounds silly, but think about it. We've already had a woman in Mississippi charged with murder following the stillbirth of her baby, and while she did reportedly use cocaine there was no evidence that this had anything to do with the stillbirth.  So as crazy as it sounds, it's not a hypothetical question anymore. What if a woman smokes during pregnancy, could that be grounds for child endangerment charges?

But let's move outside the semi-obvious for a moment. Depending on interpretations this could effect in vitro fertilization and therefore endanger fertility treatments in general. On the same subject, will fertilized eggs be considered legal people? How will that effect inheritance law? Will this become part of census data, where every pregnant woman will need to note the number of fetuses she's carrying as members of the household? If the woman is injured or ill and you have to choose between her life or the life of her baby, will the judicial system step in to defend the rights of the fetus against the mother? What happens if the husband or her family choose to save the woman at the expense of the fetus? Would that be first degree murder now? While some of these examples may seem extreme, that doesn't mean they won't come into play. After all, we Americans have a knack for pushing the envelope in just about every facet of life.

I know we would all love a chart that clearly noted where 'life' starts, but it's not going to happen. It seems like it should be a simple question, but it's not. It's another of those annoying gray areas where everyone can come up with their own answer and make a case that they are right. This is why the abortion debate will not be solved in our lifetime and probably not for centuries, if ever. This "Personhood Amendment," while it may sound reasonable to the anti-abortion faction, is a bureaucratic, social and judicial land mine. Not only will it not clear up the question, it will muddy the waters far worse that they are now. Sometimes it's just as important to know when NOT to do something as it is to know when to do it. This is a good time NOT to do something.

Dictator for a Day: Campaign Finance

As we drift into the election season I'm feeling that same old, sinking feeling I get every time the talking head parade begins. The feeling got worse after the Supreme Court's inexplicable 'Citizens United' decision a few years ago that all but wiped away any meaningful campaign finance restrictions.

Particularly over the last 30 years, our election system has become increasingly corrupted by money. Money in the hundreds of Millions of dollars floods into groups associated with candidates and political parties. Until recently there were a hodgepodge of campaign finance laws that made at least a valiant attempt to stem the tide of cash that surged into every election. But with one ruling, the now infamous 'Citizens United' decision, the Supreme Court swept most of them away. There are now only a few threadbare restrictions on the Who and How Much of campaign finance. Kind of like patching a dyke with a screen door. There are more than a few avenues and sleights of hand in place to allow anyone or any organization in America to donate without limit.

A great example is Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. It's a so called 501(C)(4) group that not only can accept unlimited sums of money, but doesn't have to tell anyone where the money comes from. The only ghost of a restriction is that they are not allowed to coordinate with individual candidates, as if that's any functional impediment. GPS and its sister group, which does divulge its donors, spent roughly $71 Million in support of Republicans during the 2010 midterm. About 90% of GPS' total collections for that cycle, according to some sources, came from just a few Billionaires. For the 2012 elections they are setting a goal of $240 Million! That's just for two, supposedly independent, groups. If this kind of money, for the Right or Left, doesn't scare you, then you are not thinking it through to its logical conclusion.

This trend is toxic for a functioning democracy. The more money the wealthy and big corporations spend the more control they gain over the system. Sure we all still get a vote, but big money is gaining more and more control over who the candidates are, what we hear about them and what their policy positions are. Money determines what messages are broadcast into our family rooms and how often we hear it. Even a stupid idea, repeated loudly enough and often enough will start to take hold. There are just too many Americans who are either too naive or too lazy to look past the bullet points. They just let ads, pundits and party loyalty guide them blindly along the path without ever asking themselves if what they are being told even makes sense.

Just look at the 2008 financial debacle, if you don't believe me. Various parts of the United States financial industry destroyed the nation's economy and kicked the legs out from under much of the industrialized world. There isn't really even any debate over this fact anymore, aside from the question of whether it was a case of apathy or ignorance. But having done that, and then being rescued because we were all terrified of what might happen if the big banks actually failed all at once, they used every bit of pressure they could bring to bear to kill or weaken any attempt at true, meaningful reform. Even the financial reform bill that did finally emerge has been beaten and bloodied ceaselessly by Wall Street lobbyists to protect their astoundingly profitable casino. Actually, I should apologize as that's an insult to casinos who, unlike our banks, are required to actually have enough money on hand to cover all their bets. So even a blatantly obvious need to reform the banking system can't stand up to the massed checkbooks of that same industry.

If I was Dictator for a Day, the first thing on my list would be a Constitutional Amendment completely revamping campaign finance. Put simply, the days of big money control of US elections would be over.

First, no group, PAC, union or corporation of any kind could donate to political campaigns. Period. This would include these supposedly independent groups like Crossroads GPS. The only legal way to donate would be from individual citizen contributions.

Second, there would be a cap on individual donations, similar to current standards, with a $2500 per election cycle and $5000 per calendar year limit, adjusted for inflation in odd calendar years. Anyone found in violation of these limits would be guilty of voter fraud, face heavy fines and would be barred from donating to any candidate for at least one election cycle.

Third, each candidate would be allowed to create or hire ONE company/organization to manage the collection and disbursement of donations. They would all be licensed & renewed yearly. Their donation records would be available under normal Freedom of Information act rules. Anonymous donations would be illegal. Each group would face at least two random audits per election cycle. The audits would check general fiscal operations as well as take random samplings of donation records to confirm they are indeed real adult, US Citizens. Groups in violation of these rules, beyond a tiny margin for legitimate errors, would face draconian financial penalties, immediate cessation of campaign finance operations, a freeze on all funds and lose their license for a minimum of 2 years.

Fourth, candidates could not use their own personal funds for their campaigns. They would only be able to donate as individuals with the same limits.

Fifth, 'gifts' to candidates would be heavily restricted and fully public under Freedom of Information like rules.

I'm sure there are many details that would have to be ironed out or added, but you get the idea. This would go a long way towards leveling the playing field for voters. The wealthiest individuals and companies would no longer be able to simply buy elections. Sure there's no way to completely bolt the door shut, not considering how devious some of these people are. But it would make it much more difficult and if they were caught they would face more than a slap on the wrist. This amendment would also have the added benefit of preventing the waste of hundreds of Millions of dollars that could be put to far better use. Look, we have a big problem with our election system, but it's not yet too corrupt to reform. Unless of course we continue to ignore the problem till election day becomes nothing but a technicality to placate the masses.

Guns, Guns, Guns

As I type this, we are a day from April 19th. This date is significant in several ways. First, it was the date of the first two clashes at Lexington and Concord that lit off the American Revolution.  It's also the anniversary of the fiery conclusion to the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, TX. And in 1995 it marked the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. So why is the date significant this year? Two separate, but equally disturbing Pro-Gun/2nd Amendment rallies are set for the 19th. First up,  the 'Second Amendment March' will be at the Washington Monument on the National Mall. This will be an unarmed gathering, due to D.C. law. The second, calling itself the 'Restore the Constitution' rally will be set at Fort Hunt National Park, just across the Potomac from the capital. This one is planned to be very much an armed demonstration, as VA law allows the open carrying of firearms.

I'm very much aware that firearms are something Americans feel a strong attachment to. That's fine and that's legal. I have no overwhelming desire to outlaw them, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with hundreds of armed citizens protesting at the doorstep of the Capital. If there is one type of gathering I'd rather not see armed it's a protest aimed at the government. It's not a good precedent to set. I don't even understand what they are protesting. I don't recall any recent legislation that assaulted gun ownership. In fact, there have been some dubious ones that are quite Pro gun, such as allowing train passengers to check luggage containing firearms, allowing guns to be carried in National Parks and the most bizarre of all carrying them in bars. There's nothing that makes me feel safer than a drunk with a Beretta! But setting aside the issue of shoot-outs over dart game disputes, what, exactly are they protesting?

I've lost a lot of my patience with this group of people. While I recognize their right to own firearms, the whole concept seems to have an almost religious quality about it that scares the hell out of me. It's not that some citizens want to own guns. It's the way many are struck with awe and reverence when the subject of the Second Amendment arises. Look, it's a 9mm semi-automatic pistol . . . not the True Cross! It doesn't take much to get the NRA crowd howling at the moon.  All you have to do is merely suggest that maybe, perhaps it should be more complicated to buy a gun than fill a prescription and devout gun owners will go up in flames. Do they really want to go back to some idealized wild west situation where everyone walks around with a Desert Eagle on their hip or an AR-15 slung over their shoulder? Will that make them feel safer, and if so, what are they so afraid of?

Based on some of the rhetoric coming out of the organizers and speakers at these two marches, it's fear of the Government. Daniel Almond, who organized the armed rally on the VA side of the Potomac, is determined to protect the Second Amendment, yet has no problem ignoring inconvenient bits of the Constitution like national elections. Almond explains, "I'm not really here to try and court majority opinion and win 51% support for my cause...even if that were necessary." In a truly surreal twist of logic he sees the Second Amendment as hedge against the "tyranny of the majority." I guess a government duly elected by the majority is 'tyranny'.  At least when you're the one in the minority. Kind of like being a fair weather patriot, isn't it? Democracy is great . . . unless your candidate loses. It's not even like the nation has been turned upside down either. Income taxes are at their lowest point in over a decade. The President just hosted the largest gathering of world leaders by a US President since FDR to discuss and take steps towards securing nuclear material. And legislation is going into effect that will stop health insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions thus opening the door for millions to finally be able to obtain insurance coverage. Contrary to what the NRA, self serving politicians, and the Mayan calendar might tell you, the world is not coming to an end.

The problem is not with most gun owners, but with this fringy element that sees their guns as a source of power and stability when the rest of the world is changing way too fast. This kind of thinking slots cleanly into the militia mentality, hence the re-emergence of militias after more than a decade of decline. These groups wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be arming to take back America. But who are they taking it back from? Are they talking about the 53% of Americans who voted for Obama? Am I the only person who wonders where these rallies were when the Bush Administration was tapping phones without warrants and expanding the power of the Executive branch? They seem to have a very flexible idea of what is intrusive. Warrant-less wiretaps are just to keep us safe, but changes to health insurance regulations are a 'Socialist Agenda' requiring armed insurrection? It's time to just call it like it is, these groups are really no different than one of these religious extremist groups. They are convinced that they are the only ones who see the truth about some nebulous evil in the world and they are willing to arm themselves and possibly even kill to get their way. It's domestic terrorism, though we prefer not to call it that. It's much more acceptable to use the term 'terrorist' to refer to someone from outside. Someone, not 'us'. But it was certainly pure and simple terrorism on April 19th, 1995 when 168 civilian men, women and children were murdered because Tim McVeigh thought the Federal Government was out of control. Seems like a very bad day to choose for an anti-government/Pro-gun march.