Would the Feinstein et al's "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" infringe on the people's ability to counter a tyrannical US Government?

By 6am, January 26, 2013, Dianne Feinstein's office had posted the full text of the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" (within two days of the Bill being introduced on the Senate floor on January 24th).   The full text can be found at:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

The first line of the main text, just below the words "Bill", states the purpose of the bill and these words are sure to enflame concerns of U.S. government tyranny and efforts by the government to further unbalance the power between the government and its people.  The purpose, as stated, is:

"To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes"

In my opinion this poor choice of words will doom this Bill.   

For those of us in favor of a limited form of gun control, this misstep is inconceivably out of touch with the reasonable concerns of the gun rights contingent.  So let us consider whether this statement supports the gun-rights advocate's premise that "they" want to take away the people's rights to keep and bear arms so that political uprisings may be more easily suppressed.  

For the sake of discussion, let us just say that this ridiculous objective DOESN'T kill this Bill.  Let's say that by some unforeseeable mechanism the bill passes both houses and is signed into law.  Would the particulars of this bill significantly reduce the effectiveness of a civilian insurgency against the US government and its military (assuming also that the executive, legislative and judicial branches stay aligned with the military)?  

I would argue that the passage of the bill would have little or no effect.  Why?  Because if that insurgency were to occur, it certainly would be a guerrilla conflict and not a conventional war.  The existing weapons (exempted by applicable grandfather clauses included in the bill) added to the armaments that would surely become available to the insurgents by international enemies of the current state would easily outnumber the civilian combatants physically or emotionally capable of using them. 

For illustration, lets do some simple back-of-the-envelope calculations to see how many guns we currently have on hand in the event we needed to arm an insurgent militia (does not count supplemental arms from international sources):

As of January 26, 2013, the estimated US population was approximately 315 million US citizens.  (Population Est Ref: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html )

And

As of late 2012, The rate of private gun ownership in the US was approximately 89 guns (all types) per 100 US Citizens.  (Rate of Gun ownership 2012 Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/gun-ownership-infographic_n_1762059.html#slide=221477. )

This means we have an estimated 280,350,000 privately owned guns in the US that we could (conceivably) use to arm an insurgent militia.

[315,000,000 US Citizens * 89 guns/100 US Citizens = 280,350,000 guns.]

Now, lets see if we have enough people to deploy them.

According to:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel,  the rate of military and paramilitary personnel deployed (of course) varies widely by country and time so I have selected from the reference two examples, the highest rate (for S. Ossetia at 34 troops per 1000 citizens) and the rate for the US (4.4 troops per 1000 US Citizens).

Applying these rates to determine how many insurgent militia troops we might have to deploy we get: 

315,000,000 US Citizens * 34 military/1000  US Citizens= 10,700,000 militia 

(S. Ossetia)

or

315,000,000 US Citizens * 4.4 military/1000 US Citizens = 1,386,000 militia (US)

So, if we evenly distribute our available guns amongst them, we get a range of between 26 guns per militia soldier and 202 guns per militia soldier.

[280,350,000 guns / 10,700,000 militia = 26 guns per militia (minimum)

280,350,000 guns / 1,386,000 militia = 202 guns per militia (< maximum)]

OK!  Stop yelling! I hear you! "Too simplified!!!". Yes, I agree, but consider a modest adjustment to make this napkin exercise a tad bit more realistic.  The number of available US Citizens is over estimated here as I did not account for those not able (young children and the very elderly).  If we do that, the number of guns available to each able-bodied militia soldier increases, probably by a considerable margin.

As a matter of opinion, the only way I see that we would be short armaments is to require that our insurgency arms be of equal or better quality than the US military has, but recall that this would not likely be a conventional war, thus the argument fails (See also my previous blog post).

A different problem with this model lies in the heterogeneous distribution of the privately owned guns in the first place.  An insurgency would immediately face the problem of redistributing the available weapons and I doubt that would be an easy task seeing as how those weapon would either need to be voluntarily contributed to the insurgency or taken by force, which would likely weaken the force beyond repair.  In any case, the hoarding of weapons in personal arsenals would (or should be) a primary strategic concern.

Setting that aside for the moment, let us consider another very real problem for any budding insurgency-- and it is not access to a sufficient number of guns.  It is, rather, access to a sufficient quantity and quality of ammunition.  Assuming that this imagined insurgency were reasonably lead and cohesive, the supply of appropriate ammunition must be not only established and maintained but geographically and strategically distributed.  This would seem a key vulnerability which the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 simply does not address.  The proposal suggests limiting access to large quantity clips but remains silent on the accessibility of the bullets themselves.

Thus I continue to wonder why, when faced with the potential passing if an assault weapons ban, gun rights advocates ever resort to the argument that the ban would unbalance power. It is my contention that the proposed bill would do absolutely nothing in that regard.    But when facing or discussing this practicality, it has been my observation that the debate erodes first into a dance between differing reasons for maintaining the right and finally to emotional fisticuffs.  This is wholly unfortunate because the legitimate arguments on both sides get lost in the shuffle.  This must stop if we are to find an equitable and robust solution to the impasse.

So let us move on from this argument and make progress toward understanding the true concerns.  For good or bad as I said at the outset and in my opinion, this particular bill is unlikely to pass.

President Obama's "Now is the Time" Proposals.

On Thursday, January 17th, 2013, President Obama released his proposals for reducing gun violence.

(Reference: 2013. Office of the President of the United States. "Now is the Time: The President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence".  Dated January 16, 2013.   http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/556943/white-house-now-is-the-time.pdf)

In the wake of the proposal's release, I was dismayed to note the vitriol posted to my Facebook Newsfeed, including weakly veiled calls for secession from the United States by reference to the Declaration of Independence.  Other posts suggested impeachment.

Friends, let us remember that this is a series of PROPOSALs that must be passed by Congress before they can become law, not a presidential coup.  For reference, first let me quote the four elements of the proposal package:

1. Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands;

2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence;

3. Making schools safer; and

4. Increasing access to mental health services 

(See http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/556943/white-house-now-is-the-time.pdf for the full text)

Now, elements three and four are very general and I suspect can find consensus among the various parties. So, let us focus on elements one and two.  Are either of these elements worthy of either impeachment or secession?  Let us evaluate each of these two proposal elements separately.

Proposal element 1: Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands

I have to admit that I do not understand the objection to this one.  It seems to me that the existence of inconsistencies between background check requirements as required for retail sellers compared to no checks required of private vendors renders the checks from retailers relatively inane.  Why, if I am a nefarious sort, would I EVER choose to purchase a gun from a retail vendor?  The inconsistent requirement simply enables the criminal user and, as far as I can tell, does nothing to favor the law abiding gun owner.  Please offer comments to help me understand the objection to this proposal.  Until I can see the factors informing objections to this, I cannot hope to assess whether this plan element would constitute reasonable basis for either impeachment or secession.  Please comment.

Proposal element 2: Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence

It is my general understanding that this is the offending proposal element.  Let me know if I've missed the mark on this.  Perhaps I am opening myself to ridicule for being uninformed or naive, but I believe that honesty is the best policy so here is one possible list of reasons why people might feel that this proposal element is objectionable (as currently understood by me): 

The 2nd amendment to the constitution states:  "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".   If I understand the objection properly, we must also assume the 2010 "Standard" Interpretation which is explained as follows:

According to a general description from the (admittedly secondary) reference Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"Under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment. This interpretation was consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.

The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere."

and

"Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.

Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

~~~~~~~~

So, if we accordingly accept the Supreme Court's decision to base its position on this Standard interpretation, indeed, the 2nd Amendment allows the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.  I begrudgingly acquiesce to the wisdom of the court on this, preferring the minority's interpretation better from my own reading.  But, let us accept the court's decision.  If that is the case, then the next question is what constitutes the definition of "Arms".  In this, I think it can be clearly accepted that by virtue of the mention of a well-regulated militia, we must assume that the arms in question must be useable as a military instrument.  I would personally venture additionally that the available arms must also be relevant to the times and of equal or better in quality than any foreseeable foe, domestic or foreign.

If the answer is that the people shall be so armed as to raise a viable counter-measure to a well equipped opposing military force (foreign or domestic) then all manner of arms should be rightfully kept, including any manner of military-style small or large arms.  To allow only half measures in this would be wholly ineffective as a military deterrent.  Thus, we must assume that individuals should, logically, under the standard 2010 interpretation of the amendment, be allowed to keep arms of equal quality as the U.S. Military, including functional artillery pieces, rockets, mortars, all forms of military projectiles, military small arms and potentially chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Yes, I realize that this is the argument ad absurdum, however, I use it to illuminate that if the relevant argument is that the government must fear its people rather than the other way around, then in this day and age, our civilian militia had best prepare to be effective against arguably the only remaining superpower military force, and that means bearing WMD.   This is clearly absurd.  So the next question is, what arms ARE reasonable for the type of civilian reprisal that would be required to take down a U.S. Police State?  I do not know the answer to this question.  Do you?

If, on the other hand, we expect a "Mad Max" scenario, what arms would be required then?  I would argue that they would be either the same ones applicable to a full out police state, or some middle ground.  Is that the scenario we anticipate?

Or, are we anticipating a scenario where rule of law has broken down and the streets are controlled by small gangs or representatives of organized crime "families".  Same deal as above, I am afraid.  "Chicagoland".

Or, what of a simpler scenario, such as an existent but ineffectual police force?  Perhaps the scenario where one might anticipate having to defend a home and family.  What arms would be appropriate then?

I admit, this argument ad absurdum makes me uncomfortable in many ways because it points out, in stark detail, the black and white perspective.  If you desire to limit the people's constitutional right to keep and bear (appropriate) arms against a police state or other significant foe, then you must allow for heavy fire power.  

But, there is another side to the argument: What is the social price for assuming that these scenarios are inevitable?  The argument that other, pre-existing societies have fallen just after citizen disarmament is based on a fallacious appeal from probability; specifically that an outcome's likelihood is taken for granted because it would probably be the case, (or might possibly be the case).  That is not to say that a society should not learn from history but one should be certain that all relevant conditions exist that affect the probability of the happening before jumping to the conclusion that it is inevitable.  

Not surprisingly, this discussion can quickly tumble into a "Slippery Slope" argument.  According to Wikipedia, "a slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.  The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground."

So, here are a list of suggestions (4 for each side) that I think may make the whole dialog go more smoothly and perhaps, if we are wise and strong, it may lead us to a peaceful and constructive resolution:

For the advocates of gun restrictions; 

1) It behooves us to recognize that there is a warranting concern in a portion of the population concerning the possibility, however unlikely WE may feel it is, that  government tyranny and a police state may come upon us.  If we hope to have a reasonable conversation, we must recognize the warrant argument for both its merits and demerits.  If we don't, we will never be able to counter a slippery slope argument.

2) It also behooves us to provide persuasive evidence that a middle ground is not only a possibility, but a reasonable extrapolation of shared American ideals.  This includes a reasonable, respectful consideration of what weapon types can be accepted by all sides as suiting a reasonable purpose within the context of constitutional rights and possible future threats.  And by this I mean threats from ALL comers; the sociopath/psychopath, the gangs, drive-by shooters, organized crime, social disintegration, and lastly, REAL AND UNIMAGINED government tyranny.

3) We must recognize that even those of us who eschew personal firearms have a responsibility to defend our country's ideals as well as our own constitutionally provided right to pursue our happiness in a manner that speaks to our sensibilities.  Speak your ideas carefully after much introspection and even more effort understanding the opposing arguments.

4) RESEARCH ALL SUPPORTING FACTS AND PRESENT THEM WITH RESPECT, HONESTY, AND CANDOR.

For the gun rights advocates:

1) In order to avoid the perception of paranoia, we must build a water-tight case WHY there can be no middle ground.  What social scenarios can realistically be expected and what arms would be rationally needed to SUCCESSFULLY counter such condition(s).  Without this, our argument is doomed to waffle between needing one class of weapons for one scenario and needing another for a different scenario.  Waffling of this sort leaves the impression that the underlying basis for keeping and bearing arms is a rather frivolous personal want rather than a legitimate, rational requirement to address an ACTUAL threat to personal or societal security.

2) In order to not appear to hold an air of superiority over those who chose to remain gun free, we must engage in respectful dialog.  We must recognize the value of the non-violent among us, and NOT characterize them as mindless, cowardly, sheep.  We must afford them EQUAL RIGHTS under the constitution.  As much as the constitution provides for our right to keep and bear arms (whatever those may turn out to be) the constitution also provides for their right to pursue their dreams also and that means leaving some of the public square violence free.  As an example of what I mean by this, we as a nation, have agreed to certain rules of war, including the idea that medical facilities in the theater of war are to be considered fire-free zones.  If we can agree to these conventions in war, why can we not agree to similar conventions behind the lines?

3) We must be extremely careful if/went we threaten secession or impeachment.  This must ONLY be done if we can realistically support the necessary accusations.  Emotional threats undermine persuasive arguments.

4) RESEARCH ALL SUPPORTING FACTS AND PRESENT THEM WITH RESPECT, HONESTY, AND CANDOR.

I love my country, 

I respect my fellow countrymen and women,

I will not give up on the American Dream,

I recognize I will have to fight, negotiate, and possibly give ground, in order to achieve a long-term and lasting peace,

I will think hard, consider deeply, and act justly.

I hope you choose similarly.

"The View from the Flock"

I was first informed that I was a sheep by one of my very favorite people--a retired U.S. military officer of considerable rank.  I truly love this man.  I admire him both personally and professionally and enjoy, beyond measure, his wisdom and humane advice.  So, when he introduced me to the philosophy that there are but three types of people in the world; wolves, sheepdogs and sheep [ an idea popularized by Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Dave Grossman], I was.... well... nonplussed.  I respectfully pointed out that to be described as a sheep was rather condescending.  He replied "Not at all!  Our society needs sheep!"  Being excellent friends with this good-hearted fellow, I decided to defer my more vigorous counter-arguments to a time better suited to my purpose (which, at the time, was truly unknown to me for how could I have anticipated such a label?) 

Well, this original exchange occurred approximately three years ago on a worksite where I was one of the lone civilian professional technical senior staff members.  And although I took a few weak stabs at my friend's position, I really had no idea how to present a composed retort.  In his presentation, indeed, I fell into the category of "sheep" --despite my denials.

Years have passed since I first learned of my sheepiness and it still rankles, but for the most part I had put it out of my mind.  That is, until about three months ago when it reared its head in a series of very ugly Facebook exchanges prompted in the aftermath of the tragic deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  But before I try to summarize my thoughts on these exchanges, first let me introduce you to the man who popularized the "Wolf, Sheepdog, Sheep" model and how it has come to be embraced by so many and unknown to so many more...

The following is an excerpt from LTC Grossman's website http://www.killology.com/bio.htm

"Biography: Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman

LT. COL. DAVE GROSSMAN, U.S. Army (Ret.) Director, Warrior Science Group, www.killology.com: Member, American Board for Certification in Homeland Security; Member, American College of Forensic Examiners Institute

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime.

Col. Grossman is a former West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger who has combined his experiences to become the founder of a new field of scientific endeavor, which has been termed “killology.” In this new field Col. Grossman has made revolutionary new contributions to our understanding of killing in war, the psychological costs of war, the root causes of the current "virus" of violent crime that is raging around the world, and the process of healing the victims of violence, in war and peace.  He is the author of On Killing, which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize

Col. Grossman is an Airborne Ranger infantry officer, and a prior-service sergeant and paratrooper, with a total of over 23 years experience in leading U.S. soldiers worldwide. He retired from the Army in February 1998 and has devoted himself to teaching, writing, speaking, and research. Today he is the director of the Killology Research Group, and in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks he is on the road almost 300 days a year, training elite military and law enforcement organizations worldwide about the reality of combat."

[I do not own, claim ownership, or derive any monetary or other benefit from citing this section of LTC Grossman's website and include it here in order to recognize his extensive and admirable resume.  Please visit http://www.killology.com/bio.htm for the complete bio  he offers there.]

Now, in his well cited book:

Grossman, D., On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Little, Brown and Co, 1995 (hardback), 1996 (paperback, in 18th printing as of 2008). Nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction, 1995. (Published in German, Japanese, and Korean;On the USMC Commandant's required reading list.)

and in more detail in an article for the online magazine "The Daily Caller" at http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/on-sheep-wolves-and-sheepdogs/

LTC Grossman expands on the idea of Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs":

Article Title: "On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheep Dogs"

Article Author: LTC(Ret.) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of “On Killing.”

[Excerpted here for brevity: For the full text, please see http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/on-sheep-wolves-and-sheepdogs/. Again, I do not own, claim ownership, or derive any monetary or other benefit from citing and/or excerpting this section of "The Daily Caller" website and include it here in order to provide the most accurate definition of the model.]

"One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:  'Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.......

....... They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

'Then there are the wolves,' the old war veteran said, 'and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.' Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.

There is no safety in denial.

'Then there are sheepdogs,' he went on, 'and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.'  If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.” Until the wolf shows up.

Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog......"

~~~~~~~~

Ok, so now you know what my friend meant when he said I was a sheep.  Does this explanation satisfy emotionally or factually?  It is a question worth asking because most likely you, dear reader, are a sheep too.... according to this model anyway.  So, to make one more commentary that I have been told but have not been able to confirm, "the lesson of the three types" is an integral part of LTC Grossman's educational programs and lecture series, primarily aimed at military and police forces, i.e. the Sheepdogs, or at least the governmentally sanctioned part of them... (See http://www.killology.com for a listing of his speaking and educational offerings).  Funny though, that for the most part, those people who I have discussed this with and who recognized the philosophy were in fact all military, military retired, police or police retired.  The sheep amongst us appear to be wholly unaware of the categorization.  Perhaps we cannot read... or.... may there be another reason? Are we in denial?  Is this model functional and/or constructive? Well, I surely didn't know any details until I faced my first Sheepdog... and it was in that confrontation that I began to sense a most distasteful inkling... that the Sheepdogs might be maintaining a barely disguised contempt for us sheep.  The words from LTC Grossman's own writing wherein he states "the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours" apparently only extends to bodily harm.  In my personal experience of late, there are precious few other restrictions applied.  To be fair, the ex-officers I encountered first appeared to honestly have no idea that a sheep might have more than a modicum of consciousness or have any capacity for self-determination.  The discussion was horrific and when I objected to being reminded that I was a sheep and they were sheepdogs and retorted against what I believed were under-valuing characterizations, my ideas were identified as "irrelevant", "thin-skinned", self indulgent and, in so many words, cowardly.  I exited that conversation completely devalued, most certainly harmed, and terribly confused.  And I was furious--completely enraged.  

My first response was to swear.. quite loudly in fact.  My second response was to post on my own feed a more thoughtful retort... a short body of text where I could wield my swearing in a more dignified yet indignant fashion.  In fact, I'm surprised the Facebook Police didn't censor me, at least temporarily.  My third response was to pack up my toys and go home... so I set a date and time at which I would disable my Facebook account (at least temporarily) and posted my Facebook epitaph in advance, so as not to alarm my many friends there, but I didn't go into specific details about why I was leaving... at least initially.  In response, my friends deluged me with pleas to stay.  Again, to be fair, some of those supporting me were beloved, cherished sheepdogs... but most were sheep, like me.  Most of the pleas came as written entreaties but one was an 11th-hour personal and direct request.  By the time my intended Time-of-Facebook-Demise had arrived, I acquiesced and didn't pull my own plug.  I decided to get back up and get back in there... If sheep were capable of butterfly-like metamorphosis, I was emerging from a (rather short-lived) chrysalis.  But what does a sheep metamorphose into exactly?  To my eye, I still looked exactly like a sheep, if the model was to be hypothesized for later testing.  I wasn't a wolf, surely.  And I had no badge or epaulets...  Yup, still a sheep.

Being back in the ring now, there came a series of additional confrontations that continued to shake my resolve, but a germ of coherency was growing.  The conversations were almost conveniently consistent in form and content and I began to notice those detractions that niggled me the most and I began to form words and then partial sentences!  Good heavens, a talking sheep!  Who woulda thought!?

So, with my new found capacity for erudition, I set about to write a Facebook "Note".  After much thought on substance, construction, respectfulness, and tone, I composed my masterpiece and published it to my feed.  And..... exactly nothing happened.  Oh, there were a few comments of general support, but nothing longer than a sentence.  But then, a week later, I learned the hard way what it feels like to hurt someone unintentionally, someone very special. A very cherished friend took offense to one line of my note and I crumbled like a week-old cookie.  Yes, I make light of it for the moment... it still stings.  And again, I withdrew, but this time I gave no warning.  No wiggle room.  Just ... gone.

In my note, I had made a good faith effort to communicate why I objected to "The Three Type" model but I had failed.  Here is what I wrote (including what failed--see contents of curly brackets):

According to me: 

"We, as a society, have adopted many levels of defense that are (over the long term) ensured principally by committed volunteers.  Those volunteers provide civil and national defense plus humanitarian aid in situations where the loss of life is a distinct possibility, yet those champions persevere and deserve our lasting gratitude for which there can be no doubt.  In the service of their chosen contribution to society they learn a variety of methods to defend against our enemies, including the recognition that enemies do exist and in many forms.  We, the defended, are generally spared the constant exposure to physical and mental traumas seen by the defenders and again, we are indebted. We can not deny the daily peace these men and women provide us, even if we did not actively seek out their services.  They are mostly anonymous and their efforts often deep gifts of the heart.  They are our physical defenders; they watch, they listen, they intercede, they fight and they die: forever conditioned for unremitting vigilance.  For some, this burden leads to a life of nightmares while others carry the burden at a less damaging personal cost.  I have witnessed first hand the damage that can be wrought: damage to the warrior, damage  to the spouse, to the children... to the friends.  Again, the gift can not be overstated.

That being said, it would (at first glance) suggest that two things must also coexist with the defender; first there must be an enemy or a reasonable expectation of an enemy and secondly, there must be the defended.  The defenders are trained to detect and guard against enemies... {that is their job}, and for the vast history of human kind there have indeed been enemies.  Unfortunately and as much as I might wish it were otherwise, I doubt this is unlikely to change any time soon.  So, it seems quite reasonable that defenders are a requirement.  As such, they deserve the finest tools of the trade-tools of violence that we the defended are spared from much consideration, except as potential hobby activities or as a focus of our contempt. While we the defended may gripe amongst ourselves about the applications, rights, circumstances, etc surrounding these tools, it is doubtful that we would be sustained long in this world without them.  

This, rather conveniently, brings us to the second necessary coexisting player: the defended.  In my recent discussions with my detractors, I have been surprised and rather disappointed to discover how seemingly homogeneous a people the defended are perceived to be-- by all sides-- including 1) the enemies and predators, 2) that portion of the defenders who (perhaps rightly) feel disrespected, unsupported and justifiably bitter and 3) almost unbelievably, segments of the defended population who see other members of the defended as a homogeneous mass of "those other guys".  To be pointed about this, I refer to the self appointed civilian defenders who, for whatever reason, are not formal militia but affiliate themselves with the defenders anyway.  In my discussions with members of all of these groups excepting "the enemies", a common thread appears to bind their positions together.  Specifically, they hold tightly to the philosophy that physical acts of self defense against inevitable threat is a civil imperative, a responsibility that, if shirked, relegates a defended to the despised class of "coward". Worse, they may be characterized as social leeches, living the good life while the volunteers suffer in their defense.  In truth, I have heard one defender suggest that defenders are entitled to more voting rights than the defended because their service and exposure to hazard has earned the extra privilege.  And it is at this expressed perception (and in my opinion dereliction of duty) that I part philosophical company with those who have adopted this stance.  It seems that the argument stems from the premise that the defended are passive bystanders, void of conviction or character or the will to risk the self in defense of an ideal.  I hold that this is a wrong-headed idea entirely.  I put to you that it is quite plausible that a member of the defended class may, quite consciously, elect to risk bodily injury, torture or death before doing violence to another being, even if that being is a known enemy.  Our government recognizes the philosophy of the conscientious objector and while it may be a reprehensible position to some minds, it is not one indicative of a lack of courage or commitment to ideals.  If I tell you that I have enlisted in a branch of our county's military and serve valiantly, I am a hero.  However, if I die defending my constitutional right to pursue happiness as a non-violent individual, I apparently have allowed myself to be "victimized" and am a coward, perhaps a traitor to community.  I ask you to consider that one can be valorous in peace.  That one can be courageous in ridicule.  And one can be just as much a value to the ideal of a moral and civilized community as any physical defender.   

So, do not call me coward because I do not wield a gun or a knife or a sword.  Do not assume the mantle as my defender because you assume that I am weak.  Do not conclude that I fear death or that the fear of becoming a victim enslaves me to a life of never ending vigilance. Because I do not feel empowered in victory by superior fire power.  And if I die naive... if I die by surprise... if I die seeing it coming with my eyes open.... feeling it taking me... know that I knew it might come and went anyway.  Because I am willing to commit my body, my blood and my pain in an effort to treat others with a gentle hand.  It is not cowardice, it is as much a patriotic act as any defender makes in pursuit of our nation's highest ideals.  If you feel your path requires a gun, you have that right and though I say "go in peace", I know that you may choose not to.  But as you go please also know that I have the right to carry our flag too.  There are many types of defenders in this world and I am one."

~~~~~~~

I had purposefully avoided using the comparison to animals in this note in an effort to avoid offending, but I failed anyway.  I failed because I did not understand or convey in the text the conviction and sense of purpose with which many defenders carry out their dangerous efforts.  This failure to understand was surely my own and I felt the pain and regret of getting it wrong.  In retrospect, I wish I could have written it differently.  But along with this lesson came another lesson and yet another after that.  The first extra lesson was about the existence of evil in the world.  The second was that there exists an expectation of how evil should be dealt with once it is found... or rather, once it finds you.

The first extra lesson directly addresses the perception that sheep are in denial about the existence of evil in the world.  This seems to me, a significant over simplification.  I will admit that there are likely to be many people who simply accept the benefits of having a formal military and civilian police force.  Most of us simply grew up with them being there and we became complacent.  But, to apply that assumption to all is not only unfair but misses an important component of a civilized society.. another kind if warrior-- a warrior whose tools for change are words.  Words that teach, words that persuade, words that compel.  This warrior stands in equal measure with the physical warriors in resolving conflicts.  For instance, where in "The Three Type" model would Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. fit?  Sheep both (by model rules), but hardy sheep in reality.  The model fails by over simplifying (or simply ignoring) the contributions of other key players.  The model is not only unbalanced in its representation of the players for good but it is equally unbalanced in its representation of evil.  Bernie  Maddoff committed evil acts without even a nod to hand-to-hand combat.  Yet, if Maddoff were to be categorized as the wolf that he is, it is quite possible that the armed combatant would never register him as a target.  Evil comes in many forms. A truly prepared defense force recognizes this as a fact and employs Human Intelligence as adeptly as it does physical or armed prowess.  The model casually wastes potential resources from its very midsts by under-estimating the capabilities and potential contributions of the non-combatants.

Additionally, "the Three Type Model" effectively conditions the so-called sheep to be increasingly unaware of the world's worst atrocities.  Simply by being protected, the blinders go on.  This is easily seen in today's policies of not permitting media broadcast of graphic images of casualties and victim remains of violent crimes.  When it comes to facing reality, even a little repulsion goes a long way.  So, when one considers that the accusations of denial and/or cowardice comes from the very sector that enables it, one should immediately clear the acrid stench of hypocrisy from ones nostrils.

Thus, the first extra lesson is that the apparent denial of evil is (at least in part) a convenient social construct that maintains the status quo.  The so-called Sheep become ever more sheeplike and sheepdogs stay sheepdogs.

The second extra lesson focuses on how evil should be put down.  Here again, the inherent bias in favor of violent suppression is obvious from the start.  As the model has no other categories of contributing skill sets than "sheepdog", there will never be a consideration of alternate solutions.  In my opinion, this model is inherently maladaptive.  The behemoth social structure that it prescribes can never hope to achieve lithe controlled counter measures because it is structurally unsuited to paradigm shifts or strategic cleverness.  An opposing force with an engaged analytical unit and strategic counsel will ultimately emerge victorious, even if significantly out numbered.  Waste not, want not.  

~~~~~~

In my view, it is a fundamental premise that ANY citizen of a community infused with the  idealism of OUR jointly held and beloved Constitution, made logistically practical by OUR Bill of Rights is bound by honor to bring their particular gifts to the table in defense of our nation and its people.  I think the line goes something like "WE the PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect Union....", not "SOME of the PEOPLE...".