I'm glad to see that Senate Democrats have dropped their attempt at a Federal assault weapons ban. The reasoning for my satisfaction is simple. Local democracy knows best. Nothing stops New Yorkers from electing politicians who will restrict assault weapons in their state. But Washington DC should not create a one size fits all model of restriction. In addition, Feinstein's assault weapons ban included unconstitutional (in my opinion) magazine capacity limits. That was an excessive and unjustifiable encroachment onto second amendment rights. I've consistently said that I would support common sense gun reform. But common sense is not decided by Senate Democrats, it's decided by a bi-partisan collection of Senators and members of the House.
1) The Israelis are increasingly uncomfortable with the evolving security situation in Syria. As the Syrian regime disintegrates, the risks of political instability escalate. For Israel, the primary concern (as evidenced by last night's IDF air strike) resides in the possibility of the Lebanese Hizballah accessing Assad's chemical weapons. Such a development would fundamentally challenge Israel's security/security posture. As I argued for the Huffington Post before Christmas, if Assad employs his chemical weapons, President Obama must order decisive US Military action. On a side note, with each passing day it becomes increasingly clear that the Syrian rebels will accept no outcome other than Assad's removal from power.
2) The Senate is currently hearing from various advocates on both sides of the increasingly polarised gun control debate. The left is trying to shred the second amendment and LaPierre, the PR nightmare to end all PR nightmares, retains false comfort in his self-created realm of delusion. Personally, I think that Congress should focus on improved background checks, better enforcement of existing laws and increased mental health information sharing.
3) The economy didn't have a great final quarter in 2012. The left are complaining that the cause for this retrenchment was spending cuts and that future cuts must therefore be avoided. In making this argument, they are obsessing over the short term. While in truth spending cuts will probably cause short term economic harm, without such cuts America will continue on a path towards the fiscal abyss. This would be a disaster. Ultimately, until we see comprehensive debt reform (cue medicare), economic growth will be suffocated by consumer/business doubt over the future.
4) The US Government is quietly improving its ISTAR/strike capability for operations against Islamist militants in West Africa. Because of the size and population sparsity that defines much of that region, drone platforms provide a crucial asset for on-going counter-terrorism efforts.
Enjoyed this. Earlier today, George Galloway was shut down by PM Cameron.
1) The President has announced his gun reform proposals. Some are pretty sensible and are likely to garner Congressional support. Unfortunately, otherproposals are the product of a willful and complete failure to understand A) guns B) gun owners.
First, what's good? Closing background check loopholes seems sensible. As does tougher enforcement of existing laws. However, it is noticeable about how little effort the President has made to address mental health issues. Apart from 'clarifications' on the law, Obama has offered very little. This should be the key,guns do not kill people. People kill people.
What's bad - First, I disagree with a federal assault weapons ban. As I argued for The Week a couple of weeks back (no pun intended), states should take the lead on this particular issue. Having said this, I do not believe that there is a constitutional right to assault weapon possession. Previous statements by Justice Scalia indicate that he would be unlikely to affirm such a right.
Second, and this is my main gripe, the call for a 10 round magazine limit is a serious mistake. In fact, I believe that such a limit is unconstitutional. In the 2008 landmark case of District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court held that civilians have the right to own weapons (including semi-automatic handguns) for the purposes of meaningful self-defense. Overturning DC's previoushandgun ban, the court held that ''The (DC law in question) prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for
defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the
standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional
rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at
400, would fail constitutional muster.'' The court also affirmed that the second amendment protects an individual's right for his or her firearms to be accessible and operational. When combined with the Court's stipulation ''There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home
defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible
in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an
attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength
to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand
while the other hand dials the police.'' it seems evident that the Supreme Court has held a private right not just to gun ownership, but to a gun ownership that provides for a practical and perceptible posture of defense.This understanding illustrates why I believe that Obama's (10) and New York's (7) magazine size limits are unconstitutional. If implemented, they would fundamentally alter nearly all semi-automatic weapons and would do so to a degree which excessively infringed upon established constitutional rights of self-defense. When confronted by a home invader in the middle of the night, an individual is unlikely to employ the highest levels of accuracy. When confronted by a group of home invaders, an excessive magazine limit is inherently and irrefutably precarious. Excessive magazine limits are in fundamental contest with the basic protections of the second amendment.
2) Algeria. AQIM appears to have kidnapped a number of foreign energy workers in Algeria. I expect that the 1st SFOD-D ready-alert ''bowstring'' squadron is already half way across the Atlantic. AQIM would be well advised to release the hostages now. Delta Force doesn't mess around.
3) The French Military is engaged in serious fighting in Mali. French soldiers are well trained professionals and their current tasking is justified and necessary. But because European welfare states have sucked away EU defense spending, European militaries are terribly underfunded. As a result, their ISTAR capabilities have been seriously degraded. As in Libya, once again the US will have to fill in the gaps. EU defense policy is a joke.
The
Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. July 28, 1795.
From the
standpoint of his above quote, George Washington would not be happy with today’s
Democratic Party. It’s hardly difficult to understand why. Following his
revolutionary victory, in order to establish an American government checked by
balanced of power, Washington
turned down the opportunity for absolute personal power. Washington understood that in
order for American democracy to survive the ages, the various mechanisms of our
government would have to operate in respectful equilibrium. In response, the founding
fathers gave us the Constitution.
Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party has
become the standard bearer of Constitutional absurdity.
First, let's look at the
Judicial component.
Taking Democrats
at their word, you’d believe that their judicial philosophy has an overarching,
unifying objective- the pursuit of core public interests and the protection of
individual freedom. But this isn’t the case. Instead, for many Democrats, Constitutional interpretation has become a fundamentally subjective venture.
Just check the record.
This Supreme
Court session, considering two relevant cases, the Justices will decide on a major Democratic priority-
1) whether gay couples have a Constitutional right to marriage and/or 2) whether they
have a right to the same benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.
Generally, Democrats believe that the government has no right to grant or deny
rights on the basis of moral judgments concerning intimate, adult
relationships. Recognizing the Constitutional right to
equal protection under law, I support this understanding (at least as it relates to the second case). However, Democrats are far from consistent
when offering their legal support for individual freedom. For one
example, consider gun rights. As decided by the Supreme Court in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), the Second Amendment
grants an incorporated right to all Americans, to possess handguns in their
homes. Unfortunately, in their present pursuit of bans on all semi-automatic weapons (including handguns), imposing stringent magazine capacity limits
(ten rounds or less) and requiring prospective handgun purchasers to submit fingerprints, many Democrats are actively challenging established Constitutional
rights. While many conservatives (myself included) recognize that gun rights
are not absolute, the
boundaries of the law are clear: American citizens have the right to possess (at least some) semi-automatic weapons, without suffering excessive government obstruction.
It isn't just guns though.Consider the Democratic Party position on government
power re- private conduct. When, in 2012, the Supreme Court upheld
the Federal Government’s right to impose taxes on individuals who fail to buy health
insurance, Democrats were overjoyed. Yet, as exemplified by their
infinite outrage over the 2010
Citizens United ruling, Democrats also apparently believe that the government has the
right to gag political speech. Under this warped Constitutional theory,
government can seemingly compel both consumer purchases and political silence.
This is a legal framework without credibility.
Ultimately, there is no Constitutional logic to a
judicial interpretation which resides upon inconsistent, subjective whims of
the moment. This is anathema to the Constitution’s existential purpose. The
Constitution doesn’t exist as a kind of political ‘phone a friend’- a tool for
difficult situations, but one to be ignored when so desired. It requires lasting respect.
Sadly, it’s not simply case law where Democrats are ridiculing the Constitution.
Consider the
on-going interactions between the Executive and Legislative branches of
government. Before he entered the Oval Office, Senator Obama railed against
President Bush for putting ‘more and more power in the executive branch’. However, since then, he's had a change of mind.
Whether concerning
Libya, executive privilege,
energy policy, immigration, or
now
guns, on various critical issues, this President has no qualms ignoring
congressional authority when he so desires. Not a great record for a former Constitutional law professor.
In the context of
their previous complaints about Bush's executive, you might have expected at least a little
hesitation from congressional Democrats over Obama’s executive reach.
Conversely, congressional Democrats have become subservient allies to
Obama’s expansive executive. A good example? The evolving battle
over the March debt limit. Faced with congressional Republicans who
understandably want entitlement reform in return for debt limit increases
(without reform, we will continue our proud, national dive into the fiscal
abyss), Democrats have offered a unique three-part alternative to honest
negotiation.
First, to demagogue against Republicans for not capitulating to
the President’s demands. This first element is particularly bold, considering
that former House Speaker Pelosi felt entitled to her own abysmal (really worth checking this link!) foreign policy during the Bush Presidency.
Finally, if all else fails, ignore the Congress and its Constitutionally granted power of the purse.
Sidestepping Congress, what do Democrats suggest in return? Proposals, which
are so utterly ludicrous, they appear to be the product of Monty Python movies. Suggestions of $1
trillion coins and intoxicated readings of the 14th Amendment are not acts of
proud Democratic legislators; they are the product of a delusional deference to
executive power. This is the obsessive pursuit of power as an end in itself.
Liberals like to
claim that conservatives are to blame for our national political dysfunction
and I’ll admit,
we have to share some blame. However, in substituting cartoonish surrealism for
the Constitution, Democrats are attacking the basic essence of American
democracy.
Our country faces
profound national challenges. It's understandable that difficult
political dynamics will burden our efforts to find solutions. However, the
Constitution should never be treated as a casual partisan tool. Over hundreds
of years, our balanced system of government has guided us through the pain of
civil and foreign wars, the misery of economic depression and the strife of
great social upheaval. While Democrats played a crucial part in this national
journey, the journey isn’t yet over. We still need the Constitution and it
continues to deserve the Democratic Party's respect.
The defection by the head of Syria's Military Police to the rebels represents another step towards Assad's collapse. As I predicted a few weeks ago (I speak at - 10.32, 15.23, 22.25), defections will increase as momentumcontinues to root more firmly with the rebels. While because of the sectarian make up of Assad's power base, certain elite units are unlikely to withdraw their support for the dictator, Assad's days are nonetheless numbered. He simply has insufficient financial, military and popular power to sustain against the rebel onslaught. The United States must exert increased pressure on Russia to end their support for his regime. We want to ensure that he departs Syria as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.
2) Debt Negotiations
President Obama's return to Washington is as much a political stunt as it is a gesture towards resolving the debt impasse. He should never have gone to Hawaii amidst such a serious financial crisis. Unless Obama is willing to offer Boehner serious entitlement reforms and unless Boehner offers Obama increased tax revenues, there will be no deal. Hopefully we can get some kind of short term deal to avoid the sequester cuts. With regards to defense, I have argued that these cuts would be catastrophic. A short term deal is far from ideal. However, perhaps the new Congress can act more seriously than its predecessor?
3) Hezbollah Christmas Message
Hezbollah's greeting to Christians illustrates the importance that the group places on the maintenance of a cross-sectarian support base. The organization seeks to maintain an image of a Shia liberator allied to the ambitions of ''the oppressed" across the Middle East - not just for Shia, but for all. The problem for Hezbollah is that by supporting Assad's continuing murder in Syria they have undercut this narrative. Ultimately, I still believe that Hezbollah will abandon Assad before the end. The truth is that Hezbollah is an extremist terrorist group dedicated to the assertion of an authoritarian and fundamentalist Shia theology. They might have a better PR strategy than Al Qa'ida, but their pretense of affinity for democracy is not real.
4) Russia
Putin's Russia offers the US no meaningful relationship. We must be much tougher on Putin. I will have an opinion piece on this issue in the coming days.
5) Piers Morgan
The deportation petition against Piers Morgan is stupid. He is lawfully present in the United States and he has the right to freedom of speech. True freedom of speech doesn't exist in the UK. We must ensure it continues to exist here.
"These are people we know and love. So loved by their parents, so innocent, and their death is so senseless." Rabbi Shaul Praver, Newtown.
20 elementary school children and 7 others massacred. Friday was a truly horrific day for America. Amidst such terrible loss, the victims and their families now deserve our honesty. Those of us who support gun ownership must openly explain why we do so. We must also suggest solutions to help reduce the probability of future gun related atrocities.
In the aftermath of the Aurora massacre, I stated that my support for the right to gun ownership had three roots. While I stand by this affirmation, in light of the Newtown massacre, I feel it's necessary to provide a more developed reasoning for my position.
So here it is.
The first reason I support the right to bear arms- democratic preservation. The original motivation of the second amendment was to establish a timeless guard separate from government, against tyranny. Recent Supreme Court rulings have upheld this viewpoint. While some argue that the right to bear arms is a dated relic, I disagree. Faced with high technology capabilities which offer government an unparalleled potential for intrusive power, though remote, the threat of tyranny is not extinct and must not be discounted. An armed citizenry protects against tyranny. In essence, the second amendment provides a physical capability to complement the ideological framework of our founding documents. Put simply, arms are the mechanism that would allow "the people" to "throw off'' a government that sought to detain us under "absolute despotism". However, it isn't just the capability of arms that's important for our functioning democracy. When Government knows that the people have weapons to defend themselves, government is more closely restrained to democratic conduct by this understanding.
Second- personal protection. The most basic human right is human security. The Supreme Court has found that the operative clause of the second amendment grants an inherent right to bear arms. This is especially important in terms of the security that firearms can provide to more vulnerable members of society like the elderly or infirm. In contrast, where gun ownership is excessively restricted, public security is left almost entirely to government authority. In this reality, individuals are placed in physical danger and psychological fear. This often understated psychological element is crucial. For example, during the August 2011 London riots, in the inability of the Police to control the disorder, an undercurrent of helplessness and a palpable sentiment of fear spread across the city. Abandoned by government, people were forced to resort to extra-legal action. In a democracy we are due not only the right to feel secure, but also the individual means to provide ourselves with effective security (the police cannot be everywhere at once).
On the counter side, gun control advocates like to claim that the United States suffers from an unmatched position of violent crime. This isn't true. While we have a comparatively high murder rate (and must do more to address this problem), common violent crime levels are extremely high in much of Europe. In addition, access to firearms doesn't necessarily drive gun related criminality. Firearm related homicides are higher in South America than in the United States, yet South America has more restrictive gun laws than the US. Gun laws in Connecticut are some of the most restrictive in the nation - but as the Newtown massacre and the ongoing tragedy in gun law restrictive Chicago illustrate, laws alone cannot provide a condition of security.
My third reason for supporting the second amendment - culture. Guns are an important element of the ideational traditions which define many American communities - hunting, range shooting, decoration etc. These activities may be distasteful to some, but for others they are deeply personal expressions of individual freedom. They deserve the tolerance of public authority.
Clearly each of my three components has its imperfections. For one notable example, fringe anti-government groups often excuse their illegitimate violent intentions by claiming a warped interpretation of the constitution.
BUT there is a route that allows for an effective balancing of gun rights and public protection.
We should work to ensure that where an objectively substantial cause for concern exists (IE - a combination of threats and comprehensive medical evaluation) mental health records can be used to restrict access to weapons.
We should more actively prosecute those who engage in the illegal transmission of arms to others.
We should aggressively punish those who carry arms when they have no right to do so (criminals with violent records etc).
We should improve RICO laws to enable greater action against gang leaders who allow their subordinates to carry weapons.
We should improve security at schools - with new Federal laws and funding if necessary. For example - providing teacher with firearms training and allowing those who pass such courses to have weapons at their disposal.
Finally, we should ensure that beyond the basic constitutional right to bear arms, states are given a wide latitude to determine the contours of gun control in their respective locales. Local democratic will should determine much of American gun law. In the aftermath of national tragedies like the Newtown shooting, we must find a commonality of balanced purpose. Protecting the innocent and preserving the right to bear arms are both imperatives, but they are not mutually exclusive. Update - My other pieces on guns for The Week, The Guardian and my blog.
From 9/11 remembrance but Newtown made me remember it.
