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.