Gun Control

William Christensen 8/11/08 (14)

I was going to write about gun control, but I decided to let some other people tell you about it instead. Many of them are famous, and all of them are smart.

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.
Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

Senator Orrin Hatch: "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman,Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

George Orwell: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky: "There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them."

President Theodore Roosevelt: "The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!" –President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.

Louisiana Governor Mike Foster: "Most people don't ever want to use a gun to protect themselves — that's the last thing they want to do — but if you know how and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they've got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief."

Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."

James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop: "The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." - former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

Paul Hager: "One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity." – Paul Hagar, "Why I Carry"

Larry Elder: "Anyone who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders.

Law abiding people are the ones that obey Gun Control laws. The Criminals don't have to think twice before breaking another law. - Unknown

-Isms

Joshua Gardner 5/17/08 (18)
Conservatism Once upon a time the word meant conserving the old order (of government control). Now it means conservative moral values (and using government to promote them) and limited government restriction of business.
Conservative Parties: Federalists (some), Whigs, Republicans.

Liberalism It used to mean reducing government, period. (This is now known as classic liberalism) Now it means lax moral values and even using government to promote the immorality. Since the days of FDR and the New Deal liberalism has also stood for welfare statism and even socialism.
Liberal Parties: Federalists (some), Anti-Federalists, Democrats, Constitutionalists, Libertarians

Fascism Once a word that everybody uses. You can see fasces decorating Washington DC and other places quite a bit. Original idea is Roman in character. It signifies unity and in particular a forced union (like an empire). Fascism got a bad name when the National Socialists (Nazis) and Mussolini used it to describe their governments. Modern fascism includes government control of business, aggressive militarism, extreme conservatism, nationalism, and racism.
Fasicist Parties: Some Republicans, Some Democrats

Socialism Socialism is marked by complete government control of production and distribution of wealth. Socialists claim to seek quasi-anarchist utopias but in truth will bring Fascism. Rather idyllic. (Mind this is the Marxist definition of Socialism. The Lenninist definition is more like Communism.)
Socialist Parties: Some Republicans, More Democrats

Communism A relatively new *ism. The oldest are Conservatism and Classic Liberalism of some strain or another. Communism seeks to create a Conservative (Fascist) government by preying on the Liberalism of the people. It promises freedom (mostly freedom from percieved oppressors like employers, or freedom from a lack of money) through a massive government. It's something of a hybrid.
Communist Parties: Democrats, Communists, Socialists

The above are international *isms that the definitions apply more or less wherever you go. Below are America-only definitions.

Constitutionalism A strain of Classical Liberalism that seeks to reduce the American government to the scope that is outlined in the Constitution.

Libertarianism The modern embodiment of Classical Liberalism. While many Libertarians may be Constitutionalists, some advocate a looser confederation like the Articles of Confederation. Others would like to see complete privitization of everything, including private police and courts. Libertarianism varies quite a bit and the Libertarian Party is actually rather amoral (like the Democrats).

Compassionate Conservatism Compassionate Conservatism seeks to merge Conservatives morals with Liberal "compassion" for the poor and needy, i.e. Welfare Statism or Socialism. It's a centrist view designed to grab votes and when the view is exercised you get Fascism.

Neo-conservatism Word means New Conservatism. An attempted remix of Conservatism. It's something like a more potent version of Compassionate Conservatism but has globalism mixed in. Very popular currently.

© 2008 Joshua Gardner Some Rights Reserved
Creative Commons by-nc-sa

The Real ID Act

Matthew L. 5/22/08 (14)

The Real ID Act (an act concerning a National ID card) has faced great opposition since it was first attached to a military bill and made law. Could a National ID card really be as bad as everyone says it is?

History

The real ID act was originally written by Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin who managed to attach it to a necessary military bill. The bill passed the senate and, in 2005, the president signed it. On January 11, 2008 the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) released the final rule (see part 1 and part 2 by clicking on the links).

What it is

The act sets minimum standards for ID cards and drivers licenses set by the federal government. These requirements include:

● Your full name

● Date of birth

● Signature

● Gender

● Photograph

● Physical security features

● Address

● Driver's License

As opposed to what some people think, these requirements do not include RFID technology. The final rule says "DHS is not requiring that States employ RFID in REAL ID Act cards; rather the only technology required by the final rule is the use of the PDF4 17 bar code, which most States already use on their cards." However the barcode lets whoever is scanning it in (law enforcement officers) can see if the information on the card has been duplicated or not. What if hackers got into it?

The Issues

It is in question whether the real ID act is constitutionally correct. In the tenth amendment it states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Wikipedia Quotes Anthony Romero who says "... Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states' dual sovereignty and consolidates every American's private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves."

Some people who don't agree with the real ID act say that it could eventually become necessary to have in order to do basic things, such as open a bank account and vote. In response, the DHS Final Rule says "DHS... understands the concerns raised in the comments about how a REAL ID might be used outside of the defined "official purposes" identified in the Act and this final rule. DHS does not intend that a REAL ID document become a de facto national identification card. Whether States choose to require presentation of a REAL ID for State purposes is not within the purview of DHSYs authority under the Act - which applies to documents that Federal agencies can accept for official purposes - and thus is outside of the scope of this rule making." This is what DHS says, but couldn't this evolve over time?

Another big issue is the way that the real ID act got in. As I have mentioned, it was attached to a must – pass bill. Congress did not revue or debate the real ID act. How James Sensenbrenner got this through is wrong and should not be allowed.

Also a point of controversy is the problem of how the state is supposed to pay for the real ID. This was a question until the federal government promised $79.8 million to assist the states. But the question is: will it be enough?

State Opposition

According to Wikipedia, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Utah are all opposed to real ID while other states are considering it. The reasons they aren't complying include some of the aforementioned issues. Isn't this enough to make federal government realize that this is a problem?

Presidential Candidates Views

Ron Paul strongly opposes the real ID act, saying:

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

Hillary Clinton says that the act needs to be reviewed, saying:

I believe we need to seriously re-examine Real ID and make changes that take into account legitimate concerns raised by states. I have long expressed concern with the Real ID Act, dating back to its initial consideration in the Senate in the spring of 2005.

Had there been an opportunity to properly consider this legislation, it would have been revealed that the Real ID Act imposes dramatic new burdens on our states and substantially changes our immigration and asylum laws in ways that deserve critical examination.

Among other things, Real ID's driver's license provisions impose a massive unfunded mandate on states, while ignoring our broken immigration system.

But there never was an opportunity to consider it properly. Senate Republicans brought this legislation up for a vote without holding hearings or engaging in serious debate, and by tacking it on to an emergency spending bill for our troops. By employing these tactics, Republicans revealed that they were determined to bulldoze this law through without serious discussion. I support a comprehensive review of Real ID to determine whether its various ID provisions make sense in light of our very real security needs and the challenges facing our states.

Barack Obama is opposed to the Real Id act. When asked about it, he said "I do not support the Real ID program because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program."

In support of real ID, McCain says:

The 9/11 Commission recommended that the federal government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Consistent with these recommendations, the Real ID act established federal guidelines to prevent fraud in the issuance and acquisition of identity documents. I support full implementation of Real ID but understand that states need to be given enough time and funding to implement the requirements.

Summary – My Opinion

I myself do not think that the actual real ID act is an entirely bad thing. The bad part is what may come after the real ID goes into effect. It may evolve into a citizen tracking system or something like that.

Please note: The real ID act will go into effect in 2011. A real ID card will be required for air travel and entering federal buildings.

If you feel something in this article is false or you would like to know more, please refer to the real ID final rule.

Part 1: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real_id_final_rule_part1_2008-01-11.pdf

Part 2: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real_id_final_rule_part2_2008-01-11.pdf