Gun Control in America

Ever since the tragic events that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School the gun control debate has taken a prominent place in the news, social media, and in public policy debates.  Given what has transpired I think a healthy review of our national stance on gun control is warranted.  Now, don’t mistake this as a call to disarm America or create greater restrictions.  I’ve made this statement because I find it irresponsible to assume that policies don’t need review or amendment over time.  What worked twenty years ago probably isn’t as applicable today, and regardless of which direction we take it’s beneficial to have periodic debate on subjects such as this.

For any of you who have read my blog you know how I feel about the limitation of personal freedoms.  As I stated in my Prologue and Same Sex Marriage entries I don’t believe the government has any right to legislate how I live my life beyond its function to protect the safety and freedom of myself and the citizens of this great country.  What makes the gun control debate so tricky is that safety and personal freedoms come in direct conflict.  This becomes a discussion on the right balance of the two rather than a statement that both must be upheld.  As usual, I don’t believe the answer lies at either extreme, but rather at a reasonable middle ground.

First and foremost, let us all remember that the 2^nd amendment directly, through Supreme Court interpretation and further legislation upholds our right to bear arms with certain limitations.  Fundamentally, I agree that Americans should have the right to own firearms.  I believe in my right to choose to own a gun in order to protect myself, my family, and my property from those who wish to commit crimes against me.  I choose not to utilize that right as I do not own a gun; however, I do believe I should have the choice to make that decision.

In the pursuit of explaining this stance there are a couple key points of that I’d like to address:  why banning guns won’t work, that there should be a limit on how much gun a person should be allowed to own, and how I feel we could reasonably regulate my view of legal gun ownership.

I think a fundamentally flawed argument that many Americans make is that we should just ban guns, because if nobody has them then we’re all safer.  The reality that should be pretty obvious to everyone is that just because you make something illegal does not mean it goes away.  We’ve been fighting a war on drugs for decades, and after god knows how many billions of dollars spent and lives lost I’m confident that anyone reading this article could get their hands on an illegal narcotic simply by making a few phone calls.  As such, by banning guns I believe we’re likely going to accomplish little more than to increase the size of the black market.  Moving even more to the extreme the government could shut down every gun manufacturer in this country and I’d argue that we’ll just become an even bigger importer of illegal arms.  In short, guns are going to be available no matter what laws we pass. 

We also must keep in mind that criminals who would steal and murder aren’t going to give considerable though to whether or not the gun they need is legal or illegal.  Why? Well because they are criminals, and criminals commit crimes to further their own end.  In fact, I’d be willing to bet that most violence committed through the use of firearms is committed using a weapon that is illegally obtained.  So, by banning guns what have you accomplished?  You’ve disarmed those law abiding citizens who are the least likely to use their gun illegally, and furthermore you’ve left them defenseless against those who would.  Furthermore, can you imagine the gall of an armed thief who knew that he was walking into a store or a home where the owner had no means of defending himself?  In short, if you revoke the 2^nd amendment you’re likely doing little to limit the availability of weapons to would-be criminals, creating a larger and more lucrative black market, and leaving law abiding citizens more exposed to becoming victims.

With the afore stated points in mind I now need to take a step back towards center and state that I don’t believe the right to own guns is applicable to all types of firearms.  With that said there’s a very valid counter argument to my opinion.  The 2^nd amendment allows for gun ownership as part of a militia, and given the circumstances of the time it is certainly reasonable to assume that this would be in defense of individual liberties against a “tyrannical” government.  Reasonably speaking, what you would need to defend yourself against the state is the heavy stuff.  A pistol or a shotgun is not going to do a lot of good when the National Guard comes pounding on your door with M16’s.  However, this is where I think common sense needs to take hold.  There is a much greater risk to the general public of an ill-intentioned person legally stockpiling heavy weapons than of the federal government illegally invading your home to dispossess you of your property and liberty.  In the end, I do believe in this instance that the risk to society outweighs the right of the individual to defend himself. 

Finally, in order to have a legitimate discussion on gun control I believe we must discuss who should be allowed to possess firearms and how we regulate said ownership.  All the great philosophy in the world is pretty meaningless unless we can actually apply the logic in real life.  With regards to WHO should be allowed to own a gun I believe that if you’re convicted of a felony or a violent crime you should be on the outside looking in.  Referring back to prior points we want to avoid arming dangerous criminals.  Regarding age, and this is another topic for another day, if we feel that 18 is the age a person becomes and adult and can join the military and defend their country then I feel that they are mature enough to buy a hand gun.  Now of course the tricky part is the HOW.  I don’t think that guns of any sort should be sold without a cursory background check that should only take a day or two to complete.  If that means missing your hunting trip because Wal-Mart can’t sell you a deadly weapon right out of the case that seems like an acceptable trade-off to risking the arming of a criminal.  Furthermore, assuming semi-automatic or automatic weapons are legal in your state I believe that you should be required to undergo extensive background checks, psychological screenings, and training if you wish to own one. 

Last of all, I believe some acknowledgement that there’s inherent context in this discussion with regards to Sandy Hook is important.  Beyond the incredible tragedy of twenty-seven killed, twenty of whom were children, this disaster has made for a very unique circumstance in the gun control debate.  The reason why is that no amount of traditional gun control would likely have changed the outcome in any meaningful way.  The reality is that whether he was using a M16, AR15, or 9mm hand gun the extent of the damage would have almost certainly been the same.  I think that’s why revocation of 2^nd amendment rights has jumped to the forefront of this debate.   The argument is that the only way we could have avoided this tragedy is if there weren’t any guns whatsoever.  However, referring back to my prior points I don’t believe any measure of gun control would have stopped this horrible person from doing what he did.  He was sick and motivated, and even if it wouldn’t have been as simple he would have found the means to commit these awful murders.  Therein lies an important point that I believe should be considered as the left and right alike engage in this debate:  sometimes there isn’t a way of preventing once in a lifetime tragedies.  As such, I would urge any and all to approach this discussion as a means to try and find the best outcome for this country, not to try and find the solution for what happened at Sandy Hook.

In the end, it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and we need to ensure we balance the right of Americans to defend themselves while ensuring that those who mean to do us harm cannot easily use guns as a means of harming the innocent.

Right to Work and Why Unions are Declining

First and foremost, kudos to the state of Michigan for being the 24th state to pass Right to Work legislation. I suppose someone will flip this as a victory for "big business and "evil corporations", but I really have a hard time seeing it that way.  Unions used to make sense and they used to be an important tool for equality, but as a developed nation the model has outlived its usefulness.  In the past unions were needed to ensure workers were compensated fairly, in the present businesses need to be allowed to pay fair compensation.  The system moved past equality and now needs to have the freedom to move back to center.  Everyone shouts and screams about outsourcing of labor, but nobody is willing to own the fact that it's not just high priced labor, it's unfairly priced labor that motivates companies to look internationally.  In this economy and with the globalization of industry (and competition) American companies cannot afford to be forced to overpay or retain incompetent employees.  There are more jobs and more pay when companies can make a profit, reinvest, and compete.  That's better for everyone.

Also, lest us not forget that Right to Work gives workers the OPTION to join a union.  When you put this entire thing in that context it seems all the more off kilter.  If you're a organization that benefits your members and ensures better wages then is this really threatening?  Union dues are what, 1%-2%, do you really need a mandate to compel membership if you're in any way beneficial?  I've already posted about dangers of clinging to old traditions, so I won't rehash that, but this feels more like fear of change than anything else.

Finally, it's hard to discuss this topic without touching on the tactics employed by some of these union members.  There was a lot of banter on twitter today about "there will be blood" and the unfair treatment of groups like the tea party, and while I certainly don't disagree I'd rather not dive deeper into that spin zone.  The fact is that the actions of those individuals today was appalling and speaks volumes of how ignorant so many of these people must be.  Violence is the tool of the weak-minded, and was in full display by fools that were so incapable of expressing and defending their views that they had to resort to throwing punches and ripping down a tent.  I mean seriously, that display reeked of 13 year old bullies running a muck on the playground.  Here's a little advice to union leadership: build a solid product, use ethical tactics, and create enough value that members want to be a part of your organization.  That's what the economy you want to be a part of was built on.

Legislating Morality - Same Sex Marriage

As introduced by my prior post, the Prologue, I take real issue with the voting majority using the political process and legislative branch to limit individual freedoms.  Fundamentally, I believe this is what makes me a Conservative more than a Republican.  In short, I believe the government exists to perform necessary tasks that cannot be efficiently or effectively carried out by the private sector, to maintain our safety and freedoms, and otherwise has no place limiting John Q. Citizens right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This view of government underscores my distaste for inviting big brother to play an oversized role in many areas:  Economics, Foreign Policy, etc.  However, I find the most offensive example of the big government problem in the same sex marriage debate.  I feel this way not because same-sex marriage, SSM, impacts the literal size of the government, but because the opposing side is trying to expand the role of government to legislate their view or morality.

As we discuss the issue, I believe there are two key points that need to be addressed:

The first point is that we as humans are very slow to willingly accept changes to our fundamental views (how marriage is defined).  As such many traditionalists will say that homosexuals can’t wed because marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  Many will cite historical precedent that because it’s always been it needs to continue to be; however, I have a very hard time stomaching that centuries of oppression are grounds for a solid argument.   I don’t understand how this is any different than saying “women don’t deserve equal rights because for centuries (millennia?) they couldn't vote, own property, and didn't have access to higher education.”  Despite the logical fallacies we all know that many times our nation has had to overcome hypocrisy of this sort in seeking equal rights for our citizens.  So now, after we've been here so many times before why is same sex marriage such a challenging national debate? 

This brings us to the second key point; unlike many past equal rights battles religion plays a key role in the same-sex marriage issue.   Embracing civil rights and women’s suffrage at least had the benefit of the moral high ground.  Their effort was to overcome generations of prejudice, racism, and oppression, which are all generally viewed as “bad” things.  However, religion is generally viewed as a “good” thing, and this is where it gets messy.  Advocating for same-sex marriage means you’re not just fighting the inertia of time and tradition, but you’re contesting the will of God, and let’s face it; working against a dogmatic religious following with the reassurance of moral certitude is a mountain exponentially more difficult to climb.  This religious zeal and “moral high ground” have provided SSM opponents with a political platform and a resulting voice in law making they should not have.  We cannot allow gay rights to be ignored because there’s a unique religious enthusiasm to the opposing view.  Doing so is an affront to the basic civil liberties this government is supposed to uphold.    

In the end, this debate will rage on with the same push and pull of prior equal rights battles; however, the religious element must be kept in check.  We as a country must resist the temptation to vote for the legislation of our personal morality.  We must remember that our nation was founded on the premise of equal opportunity for all.  It will be hard as we ask detractors to not only overcome a stereotype, but practice tolerance in the face of what they will view as a sin against their god.  And, in doing so we must put aside out own political biases and do what’s right for our nation.  In the end, I’m not here to tell anyone that they should be in favor of same-sex marriage, but more-so to advocate for the support of individual freedoms.  Many of us reading this blog need to acknowledge that we cannot pick and choose when we wish to apply our advocacy of small government.  This is no time for hypocrisy. 

Quick note on Fiscal Cliff - We Need Solutions, Not Politics

It's is more a plea than a post. Could everyone please take five minutes to understand the key points of the fiscal cliff discussion:

1. Higher revenue through higher tax rates on the rich (Rich defined as individual over $200K and households over $250K)
2. Preventing the reinstatement of higher payroll taxes (the supposed middle class tax cuts)
3. Allowing the President unilateral ability to raise the debt ceiling (our credit limit)
4. Promised spending cuts to existing government programs (I.e. - social security, Medicaid, SNAP, and various entitlements)
5. Whether more stimulus money should be invested

This is important because the Left is playing off voters' ignorance. You're going to keep reading and hearing about how Republicans refuse to keep us from going off the fiscal cliff by voting against middle class tax cuts (#2). This is like saying your boss is a tyrant because he won't give you a 3% raise, and forgetting to tell everyone you also asked for 3 more weeks of paid vacation.

When everyone refuses to question what they hear and just wants to be right about the team they support (see polarization from prologue post) this is what you get. This is how we the voters allow politicians to make their jobs an exercise in game theory rather than problem solving. Whatever your opinion make sure you know exactly what you support and what your side is voting for. We don't all have to agree on the issue, but we all should agree that the running of our country she be treated like a job and not a game.

Legislating Morality - Prologue

This is a hot topic with me on twitter, so I figured I'd start with the government's (mostly the right's) obsession with legislating morality.  I think this is a good issue because across various subtopics there's anywhere from a stark divide to near universal agreement.  Now of course, one can certainly argue that nearly all laws are a means of legislating morality; however, that's not what I want to get at.  For the purpose of this thread I plan to discuss morality that is specific to certain groups like religions, and how & when those issues affect the political and legislative process.

Using the ten commandment as an example, there are plenty of religious moral codes that are perfectly applicable as part of social morality and law:  don't kill, lie, and steal, then there are a few in-between that are more like moral guidelines:  don't covet, don't commit adultery, honor father/mother, and then there's the rest that fall into the "believe what you want to believe" category:  don't create false idols, observe the Sabbath, don't take the lord's name in vain, etc.  With this in mind, far too few people forget the fact, and this is where the trouble starts, that the government is here to protect religious freedom, not to ensure it's more popular principles are upheld as a matter of law.  Each of us would do well to remember that one of the things that make this country great is our ability to worship as we please, which is maintained in-part through a stark division of church and state.  Pivoting to the legislative and judicial processes, the founders, among many things they did very well, structured the system so the wants of the many would not trump the rights of the few.  So, when you get a large group together who think "separate but equal" is a good idea, there is a system in place, the Judicial Branch, to make sure laws passed by simple majority can be struck down.

Is the system perfect, no.  Are there examples of failures in the system, yes.  However, overall I think it's fair to say the notion of how things are supposed to work is solid and generally effective.  Now, to what I actually plan to discuss in upcoming posts: examples of where major political issues would attempt to fly in the face of individual freedoms, and where voters expect elected officials to impose their personal moral compass as part of the legislative process despite, what I will argue, are violations of someone else's fundamental rights.  In essence, keep your god away from my laws.

Please tune in for my next post:  Legislating Morality - Same Sex Marriage

Why We're Here

I'm starting the blog because I need an outlet to discuss all the shortcomings I see in our politics, parties, economic policy, and general approach to solving our nation's many problems.  Amid all the screaming, posturing, name calling, and gaming there has got to be a better way of moving ourselves and this country forward in a positive direction.  I have an underlying fear that form is trumping function, messaging is besting results, and framing is overcoming accountability, and I want to discuss this.  I view this country as rapidly embracing information overload by simply listening only to those that reinforce their own perspective.  The polarization is clearer and clearer, and with it many seem more concerned with being right than being well informed.

This is how I fee today, and it's very likely this blog will evolve over time if I find it to be a good means of sharing my ideas and getting input from others.  Please keep in mind the idea is for healthy conflict and debate; ideas should be challenged and doing so is welcome here.  I will make every effort to be respectful of other's views and I expect others to do the same; however, if you act like a moron you can expect to be treated as such.  Lastly, all are welcome here; the name of the blog serves to self-identify my political views, not to filter the readership.

If you prefer my thoughts in 140 character or less, please follow me on twitter @JHarri31

Enjoy!