Newtown and the second amendment

"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.

How conservatives should redefine social conservatism

My latest piece for The Week.

North Korea missile test

From my perspective, the latest North Korean missile test raises three immediate points.

1) North Korea's decision to fire the missile over Okinawa is a deliberate challenge to the United States (the US has a major military presence on the island). The US response must be clear and robust. While it is likely that this test is partly the result of Kim Jong Un's desire to flex his muscles and in so improve his credibility with the North Korean generals, it's also important that consequences follow this provocation. As such, the United States should summon a UN Security Council meeting to condemn North Korea and to begin moves to tighten international sanctions against the regime. The North Korean leadership must be made to understand that every action like this one, drives them further away from a detente with the international community. A detente that North Korea desperately needs in order to strengthen their presently shambolic economy.

2) North Korea's ballistic missile capability is improving. The regime's paranoia and predictably unpredictable behavior mean that North Korea will become an increasing international security challenge in at least the near-medium term future. The United States and the international community must ensure that we do not neglect the need to be vigilant in the face of increasing North Korean aggression. International security does not begin and end in the Middle East.

3) Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their destructive enabling components (for example ballistic missiles) presents the key security concern of our age. As I've noted with regards to other parts of the world, we must be attuned to this threat.

Michigan's fight for the right to work

My latest piece for The Week.

Hamas, Israel and a lasting peace

Khaled Meshal, the Hamas Chairman (leader) paid a visit to Gaza yesterday.  He had some interesting things to say, including the line below.

“Palestine, from the river to the sea, from north to south, is our land, not an inch of it can be conceded.”

Many commentators like to argue that Hamas has moderated its tone and substance in recent years. They suggest that Hamas is more open to compromise and negotiation with Israel in pursuit of a durable, long term two state solution. This analysis is flawed. For Hamas, the solution for peace is to drive Israel into the Mediterranean Sea. In short, the group retains an existential commitment to the destruction of Israel.

This commitment was first enshrined in the highly anti-Semitic 1988 Hamas covenant. An organizing statement which included the affirmation that:

'[Peace]  initiatives... are in contradiction to the  principles  of the Islamic Resistance Movement...  There is no solution for the Palestinian problem  except  by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.'

There are positives - the fundamentals of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement are already largely agreed upon - see David 2000 and Olmert 2008. Unfortunately, the ability to reach a final deal is made exceptionally difficult by intransigents on both sides. I say both sides, because when Hamas spouts its idiocy about the destruction of Israel, those words empower Israeli extremists who also oppose peace.

While I believe that a peace deal will be achieved in the next fifteen years, I also strongly believe that such a deal will be impossible until Hamas either loses power or relinquishes the most extreme tenets of its ideology or, is just ignored by the Palestinian Authority.

War on the Young - Democrats and Republicans are punishing America's future

Whatever reforms they produce, the debt negotiations will fundamentally alter the future relationship between the federal government and younger Americans. In short, under-35 Americans will have to work substantially longer, pay more tax and will receive less benefits in retirement. In part this evolution is unavoidable - demographic and economic realities mean that major changes to the social-government contract are needed. However, young Americans should not have to repair our sinking national ship alone. The need for balanced sacrifice makes intellectual sense – it helps us find the minimum $4 trillion+ ten year trend savings we need, but it also it makes moral sense- our national psyche is embedded in a notion of shared sacrifice in pursuit of common national interests. Unfortunately at the moment at least, ‘shared balance’ is a phrase that neither Democrats nor Republicans have any interest in hearing.

The Democrats seemingly have little interest in serious entitlement reforms - they believe that the rich can somehow pay down the debt without necessary structural reforms to Medicare. As this video illustrates, a ludicrous presumption. On the flip side, Republicans only want to reform entitlements for those over 55. And while both parties argue that their positions are reflective of ‘fairness’, nothing could be further from the truth. Today’s Medicare beneficiaries will receive an average of three times the amount that they paid in. This reaches into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. And the money has to come from somewhere. Where better than from young Americans who lack the AARP style organization to mount a meaningful political resistance? 

Young Americans didn't build the national debt and we shouldn't have to bear the weight of its relief.

The Week

From today, I will be contributing to - The Week.

Huff Post Live Discussion on Syria

Earlier this evening I was on a Huffington Post Live panel discussing Syria. The link can be found here.

 I speak at 10.32, 15.23 and 22.25

How the US Should Respond to Assad's Chemical Weapons Threat

My latest piece for The Huffington Post - How the US Should Respond to Assad's Chemical Weapons Threat

 

A debt deal, the fiscal cliff or the economic abyss?

In the absence of a major deal on debt reduction IE - $4 trillion+ ten year new revenue/sustaining trend savings (or at least a $2 trillion pay down with reliable future negotiations), the fiscal cliff would be the least bad option. Ultimately in the absence of a comprehensive deal, the economic outcome would be far worst. In this scenario the debt markets would continue to lose confidence in the future of the US economy. An ensuing confidence crisis would reverberate throughout the economy with continued restrained hiring by companies, as well as reduced capital purchases. In addition, the political landscape would be characterized by even greater partisanship and imbued negativity. In essence, the economy would become increasingly leeched by a growing condition of doubt - a doubt that would require resolution by a major debt deal or would inevitably result in the 'abyss'. What would the abyss mean? the economy would be characterized by a market induced risk premium on debt (leading to v. high interest rates), significant inflationary pressures, a collapse of the entitlement system and an evaporation of the already challenged trust in government. In addition, because of the Fed's present monetary policy to restrain interest rates, the abyss would occur in the context of higher interest rates and therefore an excess annual interest repayment level for the Federal Government of about $200 billion.

     In short, where the 'cliff' would be an economic tropical storm, the 'abyss' would be a category five economic hurricane.