Monday, November 24, 2008

The difference between a citizen and a subject

"The armed man is a citizen. The unarmed man is a subject."

Statements like this have been the rallying cry of pro-gun advocates including people like Wayne LaPierre, Charleton Heston, and just about every other NRA member and devotee.

Yet on the opposite side of the coin, these people are depicted as violent, backwards thinking individuals, by liberal opponents of gun rights.

Let us take a look at some of the interesting points to this debate. Starting in earlier history with the foundation of the United States, the Constitution of the United States, and more specifically the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, are an explicit documentation of the natural rights of a human being as defined by the United States. They are, as follows in a brief summary:

1.) Right to freedom of speech, property, congregation, press, and religion (see Amendment 9)
2.) Right to keep and bear arms and a well regulated militia
3.) Protection from quartering of troops. (Private Citizens do not have to surrender their homes to the military to shelter troops)
4.) Unlawful search and seizure (Private homes and property cannot be searched or confiscated without due cause and a proper warrant)
5.) Right to Due Process, Protection from Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, and Eminent Domain
6.) Right to a trial by jury (as well as Miranda rights as outlined in the case Miranda v. Arizona 1966)
7.) Right to a CIVIL trial by jury
8.) Prohibition on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment
9.) Protection of rights not specifically enumerated. (Right to freedom of religion, etc.)
10.) Powers of the States and People (All powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are given to the individual states)

So why were such important rights debated over? Well the answer is that the rights themselves were not debated over. Both Federalists (people who opposed the Bill of Rights) and Anti-Federalists (people who supported the Bill of Rights) agreed on most of the freedoms outlined here. The question that divided them was a matter of implicit rights versus explicit rights.

In the English Commonwealth that America had so recently left and defeated (less than a decade before), there was no, and currently IS no explicitly enumerated constitution. The English version of the Constitution stems back to the Magna Carta signed by King John in 1215. Ever since that point, no other real major constitutional documents have come forward that included those rights as well as others, instead, dockets are created with centuries of court and legal precedents set out as constitutional law.

The Federalists wanted to follow this precedent from England, and allow rights to simply be 'understood'. Men like Alexander Hamilton argued that explicitly stating laws and rights such as this would limit people to only those expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, and thus actually constrain the rights of the people.

The Anti-Federalists including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry argued that since the rights were not implicitly stated as they weren't in English commonlaw, they could easily be forgotten or removed at the whim of the government.

History shows us that the Anti-Federalists compromised with the addition of the 9th Amendment and the Bill of Rights was approved and added to the United States Constitution.

Skipping ahead to the Reconstruction Era of American History (1865-1877), the NRA was founded in 1871 by Union Colonel William Church, and General George Wingate. The first president was former Union General and Rhode Island Senator Ambrose Burnside. Sorry southerners, the NRA was a Yankee creation.

Skipping ahead a bit further to more modern times, the NRA has changed its focus since 1871, which started as the training of people to improve marksmanship into a more educating organization, focusing on gun safety, education for hunters and gun owners, and even more recently since 1975, legislative action. This latter fact cannot be understated as George Stephanopolous (former Bill Clinton Spokesperson said), "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

Does this mean owning a gun is part of being a good citizen? Not necessarily. Plenty of people write, lobby congress, vote, and they've never owned or even touched a gun before. But is gun ownership critical to a person being allowed to be a citizen? Yes. But how can I say this? This is so blatantly pro-gun! Let us look around the world to another country and their gun laws.

Germany in 1928 passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition which overturned a previous 1919 law that banned outright all private firearm ownership. However, the 1928 Law moved from an outright ban to strict registration and control measures approved by the government. In 1933 when Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power, they extended and modified this law in 1938 to restrict firearm ownership to "... persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show need for a (gun) permit." People who expressly could not gain permits? Jews. People who were exempt from permits? Government workers under the Nazi Regime, Nazi Party members, and those holding hunting permits. November 11th, 1938 saw the passing of the "Regulations against Jews' Possession of Weapons." A very convenient way to disarm your political enemies, arm your political supporters, and regulate everyone in between who was not expressly one way or ther other.

In Russia under Stalin and Lenin, the laws were very similar, though indeed they were more honest as you had to be a party member to even own a gun. The Red Bolsheviks who fought the Russian Revolution against the White Armies wanted to ensure their power despite their numerical inferiority.

So why is gun ownership necessary to so many United States citizens? Why is it such a hot button topic? Why do we Americans need guns?

That topic goes into a long discussion regarding more modern phenomena including use of force in arrests, police brutality, excessive force, and other such periphery issues. But let us look to United States examples in the more modern day.

2005 marked one of the greatest disasters our country (United States of America) has ever seen with the landfall of a Category 3 hurricane, Katrina, slamming into the city of New Orleans.

In the wake of this horrific event, anywhere from fifteen percent to thirty three percent of the New Orleans Police Department went AWOL. The rest were stretched thin and often powerless to prevent the rape, murder, vandalism, looting, and brawls that occurred throughout the ruined city of New Orleans. This presented police with a real problem, and indeed, it presented Mayor Ray Nagin with a huge problem: What to do with the remaining police?

So what did Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Eddie Compass do to help crack down on gun problems? They played their hand on the wrong side of the bench. Rather than go to the dead center of the city where these crimes were happening, and getting tough on crime, Ray Nagin and Eddie Compass sent the officers out to the higher surrounding land where crime was not occurring, and ordered people to surrender their guns.

Wait-what?! Instead of tackling, shooting, and/or arresting criminals who were only contributing to the horrors of Katrina and the aftermath, they go after law abiding citizens on the outskirts of town? People like Patty Konie, a frail, 58 year old (at the time) woman found out just what that meant. Especially when Patty Konie, who by this video photographs I'd estimate to be around 100 pounds (and that's a pretty liberal estimate). Gets tackled and bodyslammed by a police officer weighing easily more than twice her weight when she displayed and dropped an unloaded handgun, putting it on the floor in front of her after Police asked her if she had any guns in the house.

This was a 58 year old woman in a house on dry land with a decent stockpile of food who was in her home owning a legally licensed and registered gun. Police did NOT have a search warrant and were acting under directorship of a Police Superintendent and a city Mayor. They entered this woman's home, and assaulted her. Meanwhile across town, we can't truly say how many rapes, murders, beatings, or other such illegal activities were going on in the center of New Orleans.

Moral of the story? Take it away Ben Franklin!

So why do we need guns? Why do Americans feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves? Because of people like Mayor Ray Nagin. One city Mayor gave the order to violate one of our oldest national laws, the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and did he get away with it? In a manner of speaking, yes he did. Because while US District Court Judge Jay Zainey ordered an immediate cease to the seizure of legally owned firearms and the immediate return of confiscated weapons to their lawful owners, the bureauocracy of New Orleans has since prevented the return of these weapons. The NRA filed suit against Nagin and his government appointees for contempt of court for violating the consent order which was handed down to return those weapons to their owners and cease confiscation. Two men, two conspirators, took advantage of a crisis and circumvented Federal law, resulting in the disarming of innocent, law abiding citizens in favor of allowing the criminal element to wreak havoc on the innocent citizens of New Orleans.

Thankfully, in the years since these incidents, states such as Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana have passed "Katrina Laws", upholding the Second Amendment freedoms from local authorities like mayors, county officials, and others that might try to remove a citizen's right to bear arms.

The question remains however, does a gun allow a man to be a citizen? Does a weapon allow a man to be more than a subject? It does. How? Well let's go up and enumerate what was violated in the case of Patty Konie.

1.) Second Amendment Rights obviously.

2.) Fourth Amendment Rights (Police had no search warrant or probable cause to enter or seize the weapon or Ms. Konie. Even under Martial Law in the United States, only Habeus Corpus (producing the body of evidence for imprisonment) is suspended. New Orleans was not under Martial Law at any time during Hurricane Katrina).

3.) Tenth Amendment Rights (The State in this case violated an expressly enumerated right of the Federal Government, also contradicting the Maysville Road veto legal precedent of 1830)

4.) Fifth Amendment Rights (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation)

5.) Fourteenth Amendment Rights (The 14th Amendment specifically enumerates that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.", effectively reinstating the 10th Amendment and Maysville Road Veto ideals).

Five of her Constitutional rights have been violated in one way or another by a City Mayor and a Police Chief.

When faced with the tyranny of a tiny minority such as the radical left wing Mayor Ray Nagin, it is the only defense of the law abiding innocent civilian. Police and military power rest with the executive branches of government. If we are concerned about our rights as human beings, remember that our Bill of Rights is just that, a billet of RIGHTS, not privileges, then we must be prepared to defend ourselves against the possibility of the government stepping in to separate people from their rights.

Does everybody in the world need their own fully automatic version of an M16 for home protection? No. Does every citizen need to have a stockpile resembling a US Armed Forces Armory? No. Does every citizen need to be prepared for the eventuality where they might need to defend themselves against a criminal or against governmental corruption and tyranny? Yes. How does one defend oneself from these nightmares? A gun.

There's a reason that the Samuel Colt .45 caliber Army revolver was known as "Peacemaker".

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Inouye, a synonym for real Americanism

The date was April 21st, 1945. Second Lieutenant Daniel Inouye, part of the US Army, Company E, 442nd Regimental Combat team was ordered, along with the men of his company, to attack a heavily defended ridge beside a road in San Terenzo, Italy. As the company moved up the hill, three German machine gun nests opened fire, pinning the company down. Inouye moved in. Throwing a grenade, he was shot in the right side and didn't even realize it until his own men pointed out he was bleeding. Once it exploded, he moved in to wipe out the gun crew. The first gun nest was destroyed. He continued up the hill, throwing two more grenades into the second gun nest, destroying it. He fell in weakness from a loss of blood. Yet Daniel Inouye, not yet even 21 years old, crawled to the third nest. He pulled his last grenade, and stood to throw it. At that moment, a German soldier fired a rifle grenade which hit Inouye in the right elbow, almost tearing off his arm. Prying the grenade out of his own dead right fist, he threw it at the third bunker, lurched forward, and fired his Thompson submachine gun left handed, but not before yet another German shot hit him in the leg. He refused evacuation until he was certain that the hill was secure. The remnants of his right arm were amputated. He finished college, studied law, and is currently residing in both Hawaii and Washington D.C. as one of the two Senators from Hawaii. He was the first Japanese-American elected to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He was given the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award in the United States, on June 21st, 2000.

The man works for the Democratic Party.

Now I've been told by some that I have a slant to my blog entries here. That I hate Obama simply because of his party. That I supported and voted for McCain and Palin simply because they were Republican and that it must be because I'm somehow rich and not poor (I've been unemployed since late April 2008 with the exception of about 2-3 weeks of work in August, barely living off of student loans).

So in an effort to bring some balance to this blog and prove a few people wrong about me (which I must admit, gives me a certain warm joy in my heart), I offer this particular entry regarding the appointment of Daniel Inouye to the position of Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

People talk about the color purple as being the true wonder of politics. And it is. It is the spirit of compromise, of freedom, of teamwork, and has brought unity to this great nation a number of times. President Elect Barack Obama even used this metaphor for his own campaign, calling himself a candidate who in the Senate, did a lot of 'crossing the aisles'. Yet for all his bluster and muster, President Elect Obama has a record of voting that shows which side of the aisle he's really on.

Perhaps he could take a lesson from a real compromiser and politician like Inouye. "Many insiders regard him as a team player, often doing what the Democratic leadership wants but not shying away from telling his superiors to do what he thinks is right." From all accounts, Inouye is a rather quiet compromiser, preferring back room deals and calm phone conversations to the rhetoric of Senator Robert Byrd, his predecessor.

Well that's great and all, but what do the Republicans think of him?

“I have never had occasion to go to him and ask for something reasonable that he did not respond [to] in a positive way. I feel so comfortable with him,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

"Inouye will hold the gavel of the powerful committee without his friend [Republican Senator Ted Stevens], whom he calls “brother.”"

Brother? In a political world like America, that terminology is dangerous to use, especially towards someone convicted of corruption charges. Yet he continues to stick by Ted Stevens. Loyalty? In a politician?? To his friends??? What a concept!

Both Inouye and Byrd voted against the Iraq war, yet only Byrd has received funds from liberal organizations such as MoveOn.org. Why? Because Inouye actually does something called compromise? While Byrd and other Democrats, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden have voted against war funding bills, Inouye has expressed his concern for the fighting men and women in Iraq, and done his best to ensure that they have the supplies they need.

Quiet courage is something that often goes unnoticed in our world today. When rhetoric, celebrity, and showmanship count for 9/10 of politics, true character is often pushed to the background in favor of 'razzle dazzle politics'.

It's written in the Gospel of John, Chapter 15, Verse 13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

For compromise. For loyalty. For dedication to the American Armed Forces. For dedication even in giving your own blood for a freedom that you believe in, for all these things and more, I salute, and indeed invite you to salute a REAL compromising politician and a REAL American, Senator Daniel Inouye. There are a lot of people who could learn from his example on both sides of the political equation, and I certainly hope that, although Senator Inouye is quiet, that they take notice of the 'still small voice' from Hawaii and follow his leadership.

Diplomacy, UGH! What is it good for?

Now that I'm done making probably half the hippie population in the world roll over in their graves with that simple title, I'd like to sincerely ask the question: "What IS Diplomacy good for?" Reading a news report dated November 19th, 2008, the article explains how Iran has increased its stockpile of nuclear material from a reported (by the IAEA) 480 kg of uranium to 630 kg in the span of about 3 months. This news comes on the heels of a news article which displayed new missile technology implemented in a test firing from Iran with a missile that can reach Israel. Iran is currently under the leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is the same person who has been quoted as saying “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.” and “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." and "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

So let us take stock of what we have.
Iran under an Anti-Semitic President.
Iran increasing its nuclear stockpile of Uranium, enough that early next year it could have enough to enrich and construct a nuclear device.
Iran threatening the nation of Israel.

So let us go back through the pages of history and investigate. How likely is a muslim state to use weapons like this on a nation like Israel?

June 5 1967 - June 10th 1967: The 6 Day War wherein Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt simultaneously acted to attack Jerusalem interests and blockade their access to resources such as the Red Sea.

Sept. 5-6 1972: The Munich Massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Summer Olympic Games 1972.

Oct. 6-26 1973: The Yom Kippur war wherein Egypt and Syria launched a simultaneous attack on Israel.

1991: During the Gulf War, Iraq fires 39 Scud missiles into Israel, a neutral nation which had no presence in Iraq.

It occurs to me that in the history of Israeli/Arab relations, that Arabs... don't like Israel. Yet it also occurs to me that of all the nations in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel are the three most pro-Western countries there, with Saudi Arabia's reputation being tarnished by repeated human rights violations including amputations, floggings, and other punishments.
And please, let us not forget the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981.

All of these events perpetrated by Arab, largely muslim nations against non-muslim states make me wonder what President-elect Obama is really saying here versus here. Is Iran a threat? Or isn't it? Is it a threat to the United States? Probably not with a conventional nuclear attack. But since when have Islamic terrorists (that Mr. Obama has recognized time and again are supported by Iran), used conventional means? The last major terror attacks that the world has seen have been surprise attacks carried out by civilians. These attacks of course include the 9/11 /01 attacks on America, the 10/12/02 Bali nightclub bombing, the 3/11/04 Madrid train bombings, the 7/7/05 London bombings, not to mention the innumerable bombings made by Palestinian and other Arabic nationals on Israeli soil.

Will Iran launch a nuclear warhead that will wipe Washington D.C. off the face of the map? Not likely at all. Would some of Iran's nuclear material 'happen' to fall into the laps of an extremist group that could create a smaller nuclear device that could be transported somewhere populous? It's definitely within the realm of possibility.

In history, we have seen racial extremists such as Mehmed V, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Milosevic attempt to eradicate people. Mehmed V for eradication of Armenians from 1915 to 1918. Hitler for his massacre of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays, and any other dissenters in the Holocaust (Which Iran denies ever happening), Stalin in his attempts to purge Ukranians in the Holodomor from the Soviet Union, Hussein in his 1988 Anfal campaign, and Milosevic in his roles for inciting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia.

We now have an Iranian president with missiles that can reach Israel, who continues to increase his nuclear stockpile. Tell me please, when we attempted diplomacy with Hitler (which failed), Stalin (which failed), and other leaders like Hussein (which failed), and Milosevic (which failed), WHY would we even think that diplomacy is going to work now with President Ahmadinejad?

This is a man who received his degree in Political Science from Columbia University in 1983, with a focus on international relations! Has he forgotten the history of the 20th century genocide attempts? For the sake of the lives of innocent people everywhere, I sincerely hope and pray that President Elect Barack Obama will realize that in terms of Iran? Diplomacy and negotiation are truly not options. The history of negotiating with dictators and extremists is clear. It does not work. The history of genocidal maniacs is clear. They do not listen to reason and humanitarianism. The history of the Arab world is fairly clear. They despise the West. Reasons being what they may be, the situation at hand is the one to deal with. Iran is not going to stop its nuclear buildup. Iran funds and supports terrorism. Iran wants to destroy or see destroyed, pro-Western Israel and any nation that recognizes it. I do not honestly know how things could be any clearer than that.