A More Perfect Union

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 2 of 5

 

It wasn’t by accident that those who wrote “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union”, included the right of free speech and the right to bear arms. During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the new central government. The various state conventions demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. As a result The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”.

 

The Second Amendment says “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 doesn’t say it’s okay to own a single shot black powder rifle but not a semi-automatic rifle: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a revolver but not a pistol: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a hunting rifle but not a self-defense rifle. It clearly states the right of The People to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. Remember too that whereas the word militia has been repeatedly invoked to challenge firearm rights, it has been upheld as referring to the people.

 

I realize that the constitution can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society, and in this same way the Bill of Rights can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society. However, it is a very slippery slope, and the government will have a tough time selling a change to the Second Amendment while “promising” not to mess with any of the others. I don’t think it’s a good idea, and I especially don’t think it’s necessary.

 

Nevertheless, many people still refuse to accept that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with private firearm ownership, pointing out that “None of the gun owners they know are part of a well-regulated militia”. They go on to say that “Even if the 2nd amendment is interpreted to apply to private ownership, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions on behalf of public safety”. They argue that the 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are far more precious, and yet we can't yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, or slander others, and even assemble with others and wave signs near anyone protected by the secret service.

 

I would suggest that similar to the regulations on free speech and free assembly there are already plenty of laws restricting and regulating firearm ownership and use. Applying more gun controls to law abiding citizens is not going to reduce crime.

 

I will however, agree and admit that the Bill of Rights argument is weaker today than ever. The country we live in is different from the country our Founding Fathers formed and it may no longer make sense to protect the right to own firearms on that ground alone. Our firearms are not going to protect us from a government that is trying to take our freedoms. If it comes down to that, no matter how many guns we have we will be bringing small arms to a very big gunfight. They will have tanks, armored vehicles, bombers, missiles, and drones, and they will simply confiscate our guns from our cold dead hands.

 

That doesn't change the fact that the loss of freedom has happened many times in other countries and it almost always followed the confiscation of guns: It can happen (again) in the United States. If you don't think so remember the plight of the American Indian, and more recently the internment camps full of Japanese American citizens who lost everything. The fact is our government panicked and the citizens of the US were separated into us and them categories which resulted in the loss of freedom for Americans on their own soil. I understand that the internment camps were a reaction to an outside threat and that today we can say we learned our lesson, but don't tell me it can't happen again or that later reparation makes it all right.

 

I understand why some people think firearms are woefully under-regulated. The AR-15 is a fascinating weapon, and frankly a lot of fun to shoot, but so is a tank and I don’t own a tank. My point is that once we start down the path of registration and confiscation of “scary looking” firearms we are at risk of losing our freedom; either from the inside or the outside. For that reason, acknowledging that I've resisted organizations like the National Rifle Association for years, I now feel compelled to support the NRA, The National Association of Gun Rights, The Liberal Gun Club, and other organizations like them.

It's Not OK

Meta Data Madness

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 1 of 5

 

Any time we react in fear instead of relying on our core beliefs and principles, bad things happen. We live in a time of relentless fear mongering by the government and the mainstream media, and it's only natural to react to those fears. We all need to make, as best we each can, dispassionate decisions in the face of uncertainty. As example, many unprepared people live happily with the small risk of encountering an intruder; after all nothing in life is risk free.

 

It seems to me that hate-mongering and scapegoating are tools used by the 1% (to use recent Occupy terminology) to keep the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves rather than uniting against the forces that are impoverishing so many people. The government and mainstream media continually distract us with issues that don't impact the bottom line of the 1%. Firearm ownership is one of these issues and frankly I don't think that those in power care; they just want us distracted so that far more important matters can be settled unreported and behind closed doors.

 

For example: The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed in the House despite a campaign against the bill from civil rights groups who say the sharing of such information threatens online privacy. CISPA would provide sweeping liability protection to private companies that share information about cyber threats with the Federal Government, including the internet activity of private citizens.

 

Congress is using the recent events in Boston to push the CISPA legislation which it considers to be urgent. “In the case of Boston, they were real bombs. In this case they’re digital bombs. These bombs are on their way. That’s why this legislation is so urgent. For if we don’t and those digital bombs land and attack the United States, and Congress failed to act, then Congress has that on his hands”. It sounds too much like CYA instead of good policy, and luckily (this time) the Senate has given little indication that the bill will come up for consideration.

 

But don’t relax, the federal government is already using a program to monitor online internet traffic and enforce CISPA-like data sharing between Internet Service providers and the Department of Defense. Although it’s often quoted that “Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws”, it’s actually a secret Federal Justice Court that renews this access. Every three months they also re-authorize the collection, storage, and analysis of telephone “meta data” for almost all phones. Evidently this has been going on for the last seven years, without our knowledge.

 

The Pentagon has explained to internet service providers (ISPs) and other system administrators how to let their customers know that their traffic is being fed to the government. The Defense Department’s Defense Industrial Base cyber pilot program has been renamed to Enhanced Cybersecurity Services. It “expressly covers monitoring of data and communications in transit rather than just accessing data at rest”, and it goes on to say, “That information may be disclosed for any purpose, including to the government”.

 

In the meantime the Justice Department is under investigation for secretly collecting the phone records of Associated Press (AP) reporters; including their work, home, and cell numbers. The AP is protesting what it calls a massive and unprecedented intrusion into the process of gathering news. It says the Justice Department is flouting 1st Amendment rights in its attempt to prosecute what it calls a criminal leak investigation. The Justice Department’s response is, “We’ve been doing this for the last seven years, what’s the big deal”.

 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is also currently under investigation for applying extra scrutiny to applicants with statements that "criticize how the country is run" or that sought to educate the public on how to "make America a better place to live". An IRS official admitted that the agency made "mistakes" in the past few years with tax-exempt status applications submitted by groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names. In New York all public cameras are networked into a central location, where software can keep track of suspicious behavior, and Oakland California is beginning a similar project. Civil defense camps, phone monitoring, and drones over American citizens are only the things we know about.

Liberty Lost

Lady Liberty

As everyone in the world knows, Lady Liberty stands on Liberty Island in the middle of New York Harbor. It is a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. A broken chain lies at her feet.

This statue is not only an icon of the United States it is an icon of freedom. Lady Liberty still personifies freedom from despotism: She still stands for political independence, autonomy, self-determination, self-government, and self-rule; but the freedoms she respresents are being threatened.

Freedom from arbitrary, unjust, or despotic government or control.
Freedom from external or foreign rule.
Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, etc.
Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint.
Freedom or right to frequent or use a place.
Freedom of choice; such as liberty of opinion and liberty of worship.
Freedom to deliberately deviate from normally applicable rules or practices.
Freedom to act or judge on one's own.
Freedom to act, believe, or express oneself without externally imposed restraints.
Freedom from servitude, confinement, or oppression.
Freedom to engage in certain actions without control or interference: Specifically the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

"When liberty becomes license dictatorship is near." [Will Durant]

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" [Patrick Henry]

"Liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or human happiness or a quiet conscience." [Isaiah Berlin]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." [Thomas Jefferson]

"Liberty is precious; so precious that it must be rationed." [Lenin]

Outraged

Red Fish, Blue Fish

About 6 in 10 Americans accept the idea that “humans and other living things have evolved over time”; but as with so many other issues the answers to even this question have taken on partisan colors. According to a survey released by the Pew Research Center in the spring of 2013, 3 in 10 Americans say that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time”.

 

This division of American views was staying fairly constant until recently, but over the last few years the gap between Democrats and Republicans has widened. In 2009, a majority of Americans accepted the evolution side of the argument, with 64% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans agreeing that humans have evolved over time. However in this recent survey Democratic belief in evolution rose to about 67% while Republican support fell to about 43%. The previous 10-point gap between the parties has grown to a 24-point gulf.

 

What’s most interesting is that the growing partisan gap seems to reflect politics itself, rather than other factors. Although Republicans include a high percentage of evangelical Christians and Democrats attract many secular voters, religious differences don’t explain the gap between the two parties. Even when the Pew researchers factored out race, ethnicity, and a person’s level of religious commitment, partisan differences on evolution remained.

 

The differing views of Democrats and Republicans, even on this question about evolution, are part of a consistent pattern. People who identify themselves as Republican have become significantly more conservative on a range of issues in recent years, while people who identify themselves as Democrat have become somewhat more liberal.

 

As you’ve no doubt noticed, this trend of the two parties moving away from each other is negatively impacting the proper role of government and solving national problems is becoming an impossible task. The major obstacle to progress in America is that we're losing our ability to cooperate with one another. Republicans are saying, “We will never raise taxes”, while Democrats are saying, “We will never reduce benefits”. Actually they are not just saying it, both sides are now yelling it across the aisle and waving their arms at each other.

 

When it comes to American politics the pace of the gap is widening as well, like our universe both sides seem to be accelerating away from each other. According to the Pew Research Center poll, the ideological gap between the right and left is a chasm that separates most American voters (no surprise there). However, over the last 25 years common ground has eroded even on issues that once had strong support in both parties. It seems like everything, including the role of government, is becoming deeply partisan.

 

In this great divide I see old ghosts. In the town squares and cemeteries found in the Eastern part of this country, memorials to Union and Confederate soldiers are ubiquitous. In Boston Massachusetts, a towering column stands topped by a goddess of democracy. This memorial gives tribute to the soldiers who, as the inscription declares, “kept the Union whole, destroyed slavery, and maintained the Constitution.” In Charleston South Carolina, a similar goddess stands behind a muscular male figure carrying a sword and shield. This memorial is dedicated to, “the Confederate defenders of Charleston.”

 

These two statues, with their 180-degree difference in perspective, currently symbolize the state of our nation. One side is fighting for change and the authority of federal government, while the other side is fighting for liberty and limits on federal government. Once again, a century and a half after Americans slaughtered each other by the tens of thousands; a similar philosophical divide defines the American people.

 

No matter who wins in the next election, nearly half the electorate will feel the country has been stolen from them. It's no longer blue versus gray, or North versus South, it is blue states versus red states. Now it is Vermont and Massachusetts versus South Carolina and Kansas, San Francisco versus Birmingham, and Seattle versus Dallas. Regional differences are tolerable and charming and rivalries between sports teams are fun, but political differences are running so deep today that the people on the other side are beginning to look less like countrymen and more like the enemy.

 

Our politicians continue to behave like a bunch of arguing children on a runaway train, so focused on supporting their side and converting the other side that they don't see the danger outside their private railcars. They are unaware that the bridge ahead of them is gone. Unfortunately, We the People, trapped in the boxcars, are so distracted by our own red and blue ideologies that we can’t cooperate long enough to stop the train either.

 

This country is in deep trouble! As long as we allow reckless political behavior to be rewarded with re-election, politicians will always vote to protect their own jobs; regardless of what it will cost you and me. The time has come for us to insist that politicians never say “never”, and learn to cooperate again. We the People can't allow our politicians, or ourselves, to continue accelerating away from each other; because if we don't get our act together and behave as countrymen, this train accident and the blood shed it causes will be inevitable.