The proverbial "Can of Worms" is now OPEN...

That's right, friends and neighbors... I am making a post about the upcoming Supreme Court case to review the DC Gun Ban as unconstitutional.

For our lurker readers out there, a bit of background on this Bund topic...

When the issue first arose within our circle, I was still a firm believer in the "collective" aspect of the 2nd Amendments protection. I felt that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms through the existence of a well regulated militia, for the security of the state. This is a common interpretation of the Amendment, and one shared by literally millions of Americans.

It goes without saying that F Ryan did not see my side of the argument.

The upcoming US Supreme Court review of the DC Gun Ban has been all over talk radio (at least when I am listening), and it has thus been on my mind a whole lot lately. One program in particular has been polling people on the street in the DC/Arlington areas, asking what they feel the 2nd Amendment means. This "man on the street" interview has shown me just how ignorant the nation as a whole, and myself only a few short years ago, really is. I am making this post to explain my position and why I think this is an important case for the USSC.

After Ryan and I had our (probably numerous) arguments over the "collective" versus "individual" aspect of the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment, I determined to research the question to better arm myself in my defense of the "collective" nature I was convinced was correct. Needless to say, all I did was convince myself that I was wrong.

The biggest factor in this "Loyolan" conversion was the fact that since 1920, no fewer than 16 Supreme Court decisions had determined that "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981). If the cops and police of the country have no direct OR general duty to the individual... then who does? If even the GOVERNMENT isn't answerable to the individual in matters of safety and protection... then who is? If no Federal, State, county or municipal authority can be held responsible for the safety and protection of an individual... then I have to believe that the primary provider for that safety and protection must be the individual himself, right?

Other factors in my change of mind came from the fact that the Founding Fathers used the same words and phrases in the other 9 Amendments as they did in the 2nd, and that includes the Amendments that DO specify individual rights, as opposed to collective public rights (the IV, V, and VI for example). Extra-Constitutional works such as the Federalist Papers and letters and correspondence from Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin also point to intention of individual protection under the 2nd Amendment, leaving no room for doubt, in my mind, that the 2nd Amendment DOES guaranty the Right of the individual to Keep and Bear arms for the defense of his person, family and property, thus insuring the security of the State by his own hands.

Since the news of the Court's review of the DC Gun Ban, I have heard MOUNTAINS of statistics about crime and violence in the US since the end of WWII (which seems to be a popular demarcation in the historic time-line of this issue... don't ask me why). These facts and stats come from both sides of the issue, seemingly equally, to be quite frank. So I chose to investigate these facts (as I did the original question), but chose to take only US Federal statistics as "usable" to remove or reduce the chance of the word "BIASED" entering into the equation. I can think of no more bureaucratic institution than the US Government, and nothing makes for arbitrary objectivity like a good bureaucracy.

One of the issues that I felt was an important factor in my former "collective" mind-set was the number of accidental shootings in the US. With organizations like the NRA so vocally defending the right of the individual to keep firearms in the home or on the person as a self defense measure, surely the rate of accidental deaths due to handguns and firearms must be reflected, right?

Here's the FACTS as presented by the US Federal government:

• Eight times as many children die from "non-gun" violent acts than from gun crimes. (BATF, 06)
• 83% of homicides to children age 13 and under were committed without a gun. (BATF, '04)
• In 2001, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released the figure that "each day in America, 13 children are killed by guns". This "fact" is based on the US Treasury and Justice Dept. report of 1999 that 68% of all gun murders in this country are perpetrated on 18-20 year old victims, and more than 40% of those committing these crimes are ALSO 18-20 years old. The fact that at no time in the last 65 years has it been legal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase or carry a firearm is completely disregarded by the Brady Campaign. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, '05)
• Since 1960, more than 22,000 NEW gun control laws have been passed at a city, state and federal level in this country, yet at no point since 1960 has the number of gun-related crimes FALLEN to pre-1960 levels, and in only 4 of those 47 years has it ever fallen PERIOD. (BATF '02)
• 90% of ALL violent crime in the US does not involve guns AT ALL, and 77% of the remaining crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally, meaning the gun-control laws never came into play. (BATF '07)
• MOST STAGGERING OF ALL... since 1995, every year in the US a legally obtained and registered gun is used in personal defense against criminals 2.5 MILLION times. That's 6,500 people a day defending themselves with a firearm from a crime. Of those 2.5 million acts of defense, the gun is actually FIRED less than 1% of the time. (2005, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology)

If these facts are to be understood in the context of such Supreme Court decisions as Warren v District of Columbia (1981), then I fail to see how ANY interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that denies the individual the right to keep and bear arms for self defense can have any reasonable weight with a rational person.

Anyway... just my thoughts.

Say what you will...

I don't agree.

In fact, I have issues with almost everything you wrote... but I'll mention the things I agree with first.

If the report is accurate and the Iranian nuclear program was dropped in 2003, then there is little doubt that American and international opposition to a new, regional WMD program prompted the change in attitude. As has been stated here before, the years since 2001 have seen Iranian regional security fall by orders of magnitude. Where once they faced only ONE enemy on their border (Saddam's Iraq), they now face the potential of having THREE (a US-friendly Iraq, a US friendly Afghanistan, and Pakistan... all "committed" to stopping terror). That is more than two-thirds of their land borders constituting a 'threat" of one kind or another to the current regime, added to the simple FACT that US naval power denies them any security from their shores on the Gulf. No one has accused the Iranian leadership of being stupid... only evil and belligerent.

I also give credit for the Administration, and Bush in particular, in having made this report public as soon as it was released... even though there was the distinct chance that it would make them look vulnerable in the eyes of the opposition. It seems that 7 years into the administration, someone has finally learned something from past experience.

Now, to points I disagree with...

At no point in the summary of the report (linked under "Articles of the Week") do you see the invasion of Iraq listed as a contributing factor. This doesn't negate the fact that the invasion probably did effect the resulting suspension of the program, but let's not stuff any more creme into this pastry than it can handle. If we are going to now use the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as proof positive that aggressive military actions against foreign nations can have a "deterent" effect on rogue nations, then we are walking down the path to a very long and costly conflict-ridden 25 years.

In fact, given the information found in the summary, I can now say that an invasion of Iran rather than Iraq might not have been justified, either (although all indicators show that Iran WAS actively pursuing nuclear weapons prior to 2003)... at least based on the information I had (as the single, LOUDEST advocate of that action in this group) as a "civillian". With no observable or measurable evidence that Iran had the capacity to produce or procure enough fissible material until 2015, I fail to see how they could have constituted any greater a threat to regional security (in a WMD manner) than any other rogue nation actively trying to secure a black-market nuke. That's not saying I still don't think that of the two countries, Iran wasn't the greater threat to regional security based on their open support of terror and anti-American actions... but if I am to trust this NIE, then it seems they weren't any closer to a nuke than Iraq was.

Next...

I have read Beck's An Inconvenient Book, and it is absolute CRAP! The facts he uses are (probably) irrefutable... unless he employs the same researcher as Ann Coulter... but his conclusions are so outlandish as to make the book nearly worthless. In fact, had the book not been a gift from a VERY liberal friend here in NEPA, and had I not been expected to return it knowing questions and comments would follow, I'd have stopped reading after the first two chapters.

His claims that the mayoral election results of the poorest cities represent a reflection on Democratic leadership abilities are asinine in the extreme, and very painful to read. I'm not claiming that a mayor doesn't have some control of a cities fiscal well-being, but I would hesitate to vaunt that "control" in cities the size of those listed... they have Councils and Borroughs that dictate the fiscal future of cities the same way Congress does the country, and NO consideration was given to how those groups were oriented politically. No mention is made of such Democratic success stories as Ed Koch, the FIRST and subsequently ONLY Mayor of New York since 1948 to EXPAND social programs while at the same time REDUCING crime and doing it with a BALANCED BUDGET... and he accomplished that in his FIRST of three terms. That's solid Democratic leadership, if you ask me.

He completely MISSES the fact that the contributor list of the DNC for the last 17 years has exceeded the RNC's list in the number and gross amounts of money donated by multi-millionaire by as much as 25%! That's right, the "Party of the Working Man" now has more multi-millionaires contributing and swaying the agenda than the RNC... people like Soros, Gates, Oprah, Turner, nearly every member of the Screen Actors Guild that can afford to contribute, Leno, Trump... the list is long and shockingly RICH... and VERY biased.

Trust me when I say... save yourself the $15.99 or whatever they are charging for the book. It isn't worth the paper its printed on.

N.I.E.

Today 16 separate entities, including but not limited to, the CIA, FBI, DIA, Navy Intel, Marine Core Intel, Army Intel, the Sate Dept, Homeland Security, and the Treasury Dept, released the National Intelligence Estimate for the coming year. The big news? Iran. It was revealed that Iran abandoned work on its primary nuclear weapons project (centrifuges, etc, although they are still seeking to enrich uranium) in 2003. Now, what event occurred in 2003 that we can all think of? It was in that region, it involved a neighbor of Iran .... oh that's right, we invaded Iraq and demonstrated to Ahmeddenajad et al that we could depose in a few weeks a man they couldn't beat in two wars over 25 years. Now the insurgency post war is a different group by and large, but the point is he saw first hand just what we could do with minimal forces. And the larger point is that had we not gone in it is highly likely that Iran would be nuclear by now, Saddam wouldn't have stood for that, he goes nuclear, we have to arm Jordan and the most incendiary region of the world flies full bore into a new arms race. What a disaster. And no, that was not the reason given for invasion, I'm simply pointing out that if current trends hold and even progress in Iraq, combined with scaring Iran into not going nuclear, add Qaddafi's about face and things are shaping up in a way that will cause history to look quite favorably on one GW Bush's overall action and results in that theater.

Of course opponents are jumping on this report saying that it shows that once again Bush & co were beating the drums of war over WMD's that didn't yet exist, but I find that a rather juvenile attack. Like the case with Saddam every Intel agency in the world believed Iran was heading towards nuclear armament (and they obviously were), but it was OUR intelligence agencies that, unlike last time, vetted the situation and broke the news that primary nuclear development was halted 4 years ago, and Bush held a press conference stating just that right away (earlier today), and noting that they will continue to push for the dismantlement of already made progress.

On a separate note Glenn Beck has a new book entitled "An Inconvenient Book" that is supposed to be a very comprehensive compilation of facts and figures on a wide range of issues, charts, graphs etc that, among other things, conservatives can reference in refuting liberal talking points and stereotypes. He was reading from it on the radio today and this got my attention ... of the ten most poverty stricken large cities in the US (including Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark, New Orleans and Toledo Ohio which Dennis Kucinich as mayor ran into the ground) the political affiliation broke down that on average Republican mayors governed for 8% of the time since 1965. In some instances such as New Orleans and Detroit there hasn't been a Republican mayor elected at all since that date. Isn't that interesting? These are the cities which are supposed to be the grand, shining examples of how a society should function once a cacophony of "caring" social programs are implemented and yet these people live in abject poverty.

Also, Registered Republicans give 30% more in charitable donations each year, and before you go saying it's because they're wealthier on average (a bit of a misnomer), let me add that out of the 25 highest donating states, 24 went red for Bush in 2004 - that's a lot of rural middle class Republicans with big hearts. Not to mention the majority congressional districts with the highest number of millionaire's per capita are Democrat held. So much for the stereotype of the greedy, unsympathetic GOP member, huh?
FR

The Prosecution of Global Terrorism

As promised, but I've got a hard deadline. Have to get the kids in 45 minutes and I'm working off the fly.

The problem with looking at terrorism as global crime as opposed to global war is our generation has the "War against Drugs" taste in our mouths. We all know how well that's gone. As I said to both Ryan and Badboy, prosecuting terror as crime is different in several ways.

1) It requires no war powers on the part of the President. All intelligence agencies, military, law enforcement, you name it, gather the information and our people either a) initiate a surgical strike or b) snatch the bad guy for trial. None of this needs blanket authority that the Patriot Act or the Defense Authorization Act gives the President.

2) It keeps Congress in the loop. As has been done since WWII, high level congressional members are briefed on operations. This ensures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, fosters a cooperative atmosphere, and diffuses partisan bickering at the top levels of the two branches.

This in no way removes how we view "rogue" states. My personal favorite example is Lybia in 1986. Rome and Vienna have bombs detonated in their airports. Reagan drops the warning. The disco in Germany gets bombed and within 24 hours Quaddaffi has bombs punching skylights in his palace roof. That required no war powers act, no trampling of Congress. It was decisive, effective and had minimal collateral damage. This scenario becomes particularly pertinent when dealing with "satellite" states like Syria. Make the support of terrorism supremely expensive and all of a sudden Damascus isn't so hip on the idea any more.

In the case that an invasion becomes necessary, (the example I used was the North Korea exporting a nuclear device used in a terrorist attack) then the President stands before Congress and says "We're in this together. This is what it means. This is what we need to do. Are you with me?" As opposed to once again, riding over Congress and dismissing the balance of power designed into the Constitution.

Another example I used with Ryan was the Reagan gem of manipulating Congress as opposed to ignoring them. Reagan would plop down in the Oval Office, chat with the American public about what he wanted and why Congress was opposing him, ask the public to call or write their congressmen to vote with the President on the proposed legislation, and cause Tip O'Neal to lose his mind. That's manipulation, and there's nothing illegal about that. One could almost argue that George W. is treading the thin ice at the edge when it comes to casual dismissal of Congressional authority. And the Patriot Act and Defense Authorization Act crack that thin ice.

Gotta boogie. More later.

Testing ...

HA! That computer thought it could stop me? I think not. Chaulk one up for my improved computer literacy.

Ryan, political suicide, and other topics...

Well, somehow, Ryan and I are going to have to figure out what aspect of his computer illiteracy is so hampering his ability to post on this blog. I haven't heard from him (as in a phone call) in more than 6 months... but put a glitch in his posting schedule, and he calls me four times in an evening. My friend, that's called OCD, if you were wondering.

As you can see, the "I blame Ryan" setting is still positioned at MAX. Hehe...

I know Ron Paul is a bit off center with the rest of the GOP... perhaps not in principle, but certainly in applicability in this day and age. I have also noted that he makes many grand plans for a Paul Presidency... but offers no solid, measurable means to achieve them. He seems to have taken a page out of the Democrat's play-book there.

Still, this ties in nicely with what James had mentioned as an important point in his post... the manner in which we (as a society and a government) view terrorism. Declaring war on terrorists and nations that support and sponsor them is fine, IF we are willing to do whatever it takes to WIN that war. This nation OBVIOUSLY isn't going to stand by as books of ration-stamps are distributed from the Post Office, dictating that only 40 gallons of fuel will be sold to each American household for private use. We still haven't stopped BITCHING about having to take our shoes off at the airport security checks, for the love of Pete! Forcing the American people to save and turn in old cooking oil or recyclable materials to support and pay for the effort is completely out of the question... even for Ryan, it seems.

Prosecuting terror as a "crime" has its advantages, too. I have thought about this a lot since Jambo posted it. I won't list the advantages yet... only because the hurdles need to be addressed first.

There has never been, nor is there going to be anytime soon, a UNIFIED code of international law by which terrorists would be prosecuted in the event of capture or detainment. Extradition is a nightmare in normal circumstances, but on a global stage and on a nearly daily basis... the logistics and coordination needed are mind-boggling. The level of cooperation needed between so many countries is unprecedented... and I do not use that word lightly. At no point in world history has the global community been THAT coordinated and together in purpose and prosecution, so there is little hope of seeing it anytime soon.

Limiting the "War" on terror to nations that support or promote it (i.e. the Taliban, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc) has its own problems... we can't agree NOW (as an international community of nations) what constitutes support and aid. Pat Buchannon has been pissing and moaning about our association with the likes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for years... how often has he mentioned the lack of zeal our "allies" are employing in fighting terror within their own borders? The Saudi Royal Family is STILL paying families of suicide bombers in Israel for each Israeli soldier killed... yet we still list Saudi Arabia as an integral part of our coalition against Terror. I'm still waiting for an explanation on that... and it's not very often you'll find me agreeing with Pat Buchannon, let me tell you!

I just don't know that a change in paradigm concerning HOW the nation views our efforts against terrorists and the states that aid them is a good idea right now. We fought an un-declared war against Communism for 65 years... and won. As much as I could HOPE that the War on Terror won't last that long... it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

A good point was brought up on a BBC talk show I was listening to on the sat-radio (calm down, Ryan... they do occasionally have CONSERVATIVE discussions on the BBC). NATO requires its signatory members to treat attacks and threats on ONE member as an attack or threat on ALL. This should not mean that it is only the US that responds to these threats, however. If nations like Poland, Turkey, the Ukraine, et al want to remain member states, then they will need to pick up some of the slack. We currently have about 35% of our active forces deployed between Afghanistan and Iraq, and the UK has about 11% spread over their respective theaters of action... no other nation has even 1% of their available active troops in theater.

The same show also brought up this point... perhaps the US needs to separate the war in Iraq from the war on terror. I agree in as much as we are IN Iraq up to our eyeballs, and we MUST be able to walk away knowing a stable, legitimate government is in control. If that course of action is going to require 100 to 150 thousand troops for the next 2 to 5 years, then it is going to seriously curb our ability to exercise military operations in other theaters or regions. The extended War on Terror, outside of Iraq and "the 'Stan", will simply have to remain a more diplomatic effort (unless something major changes in the interim). This hearkens back to our argument that by throwing the full weight of our armed forces and their capabilities at Iraq and Afghanistan, we can finish the job faster (and, I firmly believe, at a lower cost in lives and equipment) and better implement what we learn in the larger military scheme of things. If it means doubling the number of troops, but reducing our time in theater... then so be it.

On this same point, James brought up a good point. The PotUS has, since 2006, the authority to do just that WITHOUT Congressional approval... if he chose to exercise it. All he would sweat is the funding after the initial "surge". Not a small point, in my eyes.

Anyway, just my thoughts...

Due to Technical Difficulties beyond our control...

F Ryan's post is being made by Titus:

"I've Been Busy..."


Well, late last month my ability to log on was functionally disabled, Jambo has since told me a way around that. Also, my significant other had her purse stolen while shopping, with no less than $875 in it ... don't ask me why she was carrying that kind of cash, and undoubtedly this will get an "I told you so" from Badboy with his disdain for this, the only city you can see from space.

At any rate,

Ron Paul ....

We've discussed this. The first 80% of what he says is a fantastical journey in conservatism, then the last 20 is mayor of a little place I like to call "kooksville." And did I mention he's practically neighbors with one Ross perot - need I say more? Now, your primary beef is that if we, as so called "conservatives", do not support Ron Paul then we must find a name other than "conservative", because what he espouses is the text book, historical definition of a "conservative." Okay, fine. And some have labeled our brand as "neo-conservatism." But what you're forgetting is that the definitional goal post for these terms, "conservative", "liberal" etc, has constantly moved throughout the political history of our nation. I could make the same accusation of the term "liberal" in its classical sense. The Democrat presidential hopefuls, and many others on that side, are sounding more like Buchananite isolationists rather than classical interventionist democracy spreading liberals. "A threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere " rings a bell. If we are to suspend the reality of constantly shifting definitions, and insist that classical descriptions be adhered to then I will be forced to demand that Hillary, Franken et al cease from identifying themselves as "democrats", let alone "liberal."

****

The cooking stuff T ... sooooo gay. I'm aware that the best chefs throughout history have been men, but anyone subject to the occasional "Trevor" or "Niles" joke should perhaps rethink being braggadocios with his apron strings.

****

As to "blaming Ryan." I can think of no higher honor within our group then to be repeatedly referred to by name when assigning blame for running people off. This is my territory, my group (ours), and if you, Titus, are going to insist on routinely introducing people that show up for a battle of wits unarmed, then I'm going to slam them. Not to mention, "they" need to understand that when I take time out of my busy day in order to respond to leftist rantings (like that kid), it is a compliment ... to them. There are scores of people I run into that have these rather insane, "Bush & Cheney were in frog suits setting detonations on the leveys" theories, that I don't even bother engaging. There's no fun in that, they're not operating from the same reality playbook and they might as well be speaking to me in Mandarin. So, for all those that have or will venture on to our site that ideologically oppose me (neo-conservatism with a dash of moderation), my advice is to suit up in your steel bloomers, and quit crying like a girl. We've had these fights face to face - no electronic medium as a barrier - how do you outsiders think that went? High tea at noon? Hardly. Try Miller High Life and horse throats at 2 a.m.

****

On Hannitty's "hypocrisy", or his inability to "fess up" to associating with Coulter's brand of political rhetoric ... you asked how it could help the GOP to engage in the same extremist trype that we so often (and accurately) point out the left is guilty of? I can only say this ... YES Ann Coulter, while cute, is a political shock jock, no question. She's sells a lot of books and gets very wealthy that way. Faldwell, quite frankly, is dead. The difference is that Coulter is not considered the mainstream or primary voice of our movement. The fringe doesn't run our side as it does the left. There is no equivalent to the "Code Pink's" or "Move ons" that garner presidential hopeful attention. Hillary et al attend rallies of these extreme elements, bend to their will, and are careful not to offend them. In contrast has even ONE GOP presidential candidate been on Savage, or appeared jointly with Coulter? No. And there's my only point here - the extreme left runs that party, the extreme right does not run ours.

****

Global warming ...

A Manhattan style project for new sources of energy is fine, and has in fact been advocated by me. The rest of what you wrote is Carteresque nonsense Titus. Price regulations have been tried and met with disastrous results. I no more want to bring that 1970's disaster back then bell bottoms, disco's, or bad pornos.

The man-made global warming frenzy, and it is a frenzy, is fueled by a previously established template - in other words if you (I'm talking about people in general) are prone to think that companies are "evil" entities, that capitalism is the lowest form of human behavior, and that rich nations like America are full of greedy, heartless fat cats that get rich on the backs of poorer nations then you will be prone to "believe" in the religion of global warming. It fits the template and guess what, you get to attack from a position of "do-gooderness."

It's fake, it's a farce, and it's widely believed, and that makes it dangerous. The next president (it clearly won't be this one) should push a "moon shot" agenda for alternative fuels and new technologies, absolutely, and he should base it and publicly sell on national security. About half our country believes in this farce, but I would presume around 90% would agree that dependency on energy from the Middle East is dangerous. I'm telling you, this is a gimmie for any politician with presidential aspirations. In the mean time, if you want to ACTUALLY lower the cost of gasoline, forget price controls (I'm having trouble believing you even suggested that "malaise"), and suspend the gas tax for the coming winter - what's that, like an immediate .50 cents a gallon drop? And cut down on the federal purification blend standards, that's another roughly .40 cents off the top of my head. THAT is how the government should affect the price, rather than setting arbitrary price controls just because bashing oil companies is popular, and easy.

****

On Naomi Wolfe ....

I spoke to Jambo on the phone earlier, he was averting my breaking the key board by putting the post in a proper context, so my response will be shorter since we talked for about an hour. I understand his point that the book was historically rooted, thus interesting, and this gives him hope that the Dems will drift toward a more civilized, intelligent conversation of the issues. However, if she, whom draws clear comparisons from Bush to Gobbles or Hitler himself, is the best example on the left of a mature and responsible discourse, then that is an indictment of the entire party. And unfortunately for her people like Jambo quickly point out that bonifide American icons (i.e. Lincoln and FDR) fit her description of "despots."

****

Badboy - excellent post on the cyclycal nature of freedom to bondage. I found that quite interesting, and disheartening.

FR