Guns and The Constitution: An Honest Solution

Okay, here is a modest proposal to end the debate about the 2nd amendment and to allow for different laws for gun control and gun liberty throughout this vast nation:

1. Let us recognize the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution does not give the right to the nation's people to own hand guns, hunting rifles or any sort of arm except for members of each state national guard (militia) and these people may possess and use military weapons in and from their own homes. (More on this later.)

2. Given this absence of a universal, national right to keep and fire weapons, the states are free to pass whatever laws they may desire. Texas can require elementary school principals to keep and bear arms to protect their students. South Carolina may permit legislators to pack heat in the state house and Arizona may arm private citizens who are members of vigilante posses run by Sheriff Arpaio.  But New York might ban all weapons within a fifty mile radius of the Empire State Building and Maryland might outlaw guns in Baltimore,  while permitting them in Frederick and Chincoteague;  and Washington, DC might ban guns altogether.

This would be the honest approach to the problem, so there's not a snowball's chance it will ever see the light of day. 

It would require the justices of the Supreme Court to actually read the 2nd amendment, which would be something akin to the second coming of the savior--much hoped for, not expected in our lifetime.

"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 abridged."

Which, put into 21st century English is: 1. We are going to explain here, as we do nowhere else in the Constitution, the reason we are granting this special right having to do with weapons.  2. The reason we are allowing certain people to keep arms is because they are part of a well regulated militia--not just any Syrian hothead group, mind you, but a militia regulated by, who else?, the government, the only thing which can regulate anything.  3. And this militia is necessary to preserve the state, the free state. 4. So, of course, we are talking about military weapons only here, for this one purpose.

Given that plain English, you got the right for some people to keep AR-15's in their homes, so they can grab these and run down to the town square and fire at the Redcoats or the Commies or whoever else is threatening the free state.

But you beer swilling, inbred killers, who want your hunting rifles to hunt, or your hand guns to shoot anyone who crosses your threshold without your expressed permission, (and maybe even if they have your permission, you might plug them,) well those hunting guns, those hand guns, those target practice guns, none of those is guaranteed you by the national Constitution, so go besiege your state legislatures and get those politicians to vote you your rights--they will only apply as long as you remain in your own snakepit of a state.

There now, isn't that better? We are now: 1. Honest about the Constitution 2. We can allow local cities and states do what they want to do. 

And we can choose where we want to go, knowing the local laws and customs.

 Is there any doubt what sort of laws Texas and Arizona will pass?  And they are welcomed to those guns down there. 

And the rest of us will have fair warning, if we want to plan our conventions or trade shows or vacations in those exotic,  God fearing,  gun toting places.

Grover Norquist: The Chauncey Gardiner of Our Time

President "Bobby": Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President "Bobby": In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President "Bobby": Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President "Bobby": Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President "Bobby": Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President "Bobby": I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

--"Being There"  (The Movie)

Listening to the pundits on TV this morning, I was struck by a memory of a women I interviewed years ago. She had been a highly visible ambassador and a cabinet secretary and she was a constant presence on talk shows. It became clear to me, after a few minutes, she was deep into Alzheimer's. She was careful to keep all her answers in generalities, and could not answer questions which required any detail, like, "What did you have for breakfast this morning."  You'd get, "Oh, the offerings of the kitchen are altogether pleasant."

Two weeks later I saw her interviewed on a Sunday morning talk show, and she answered in the same lovely, general phrases, and nobody seemed to suspect she had no clue where she was or who was in the studio with her.

And now, I see pundits, Congressmen and Senators interviewed who say we have to cut "entitlements" by cutting expenditures on Medicare and when asked how to do this we hear vague generalities about, "improving competition,"  and "streamlining" and gaining "efficiencies" and eliminating "fraud and abuse," and I know I am looking at people who do not have a clue. They are, like Grover Norquist, great on images and phrases. They want to drown government and its inefficiencies in a bathtub, but they have no clue what that actually would mean.

These are the empty men and women, with brains of mush, who appear on our TV screens and get paid big bucks for looking and sounding presentable. We make them into what we need and we follow them over the brink.

Where Is Mr. Obama's Thaddeus Stevens?

As Mr. Obama dickers with Mr. Boehner, he may well imagine himself in the position Abraham Lincoln found himself, trying to horse trade and wheel and deal to get the 13th Amendment passed into law,  but, of course, nothing Mr. Obama is looking at approaches the historic importance of the 13th amendment.  They are just talking about money, and who should pay what, not about the idea of whether or not our nation believes one man can regard another as property, not a human being, whether or not our government can regard human beings as property.

So the stakes are not as high in Mr. Obama's current dealings with Mr. Boehner.

But that should mean, Mr. Obama cannot be forgiven for giving up important principles, sacrificing less important principles for an over riding principle when the only principles here are: Can we get the Republicans to disavow their pledge to Mr. Grover Norquist and actually agree to govern?

Giving in on lowering the threshold to $250,000 for the 39.5% tax rate is caving in. Giving on on cost of living raises on Social Security is caving.
Who is playing the Thaddeus Stevens role of sitting in the kitchen with the President, looking across the table and saying, "We need a real leader. Someone who will lead. That means saying, 'No,' when you have to"--who is saying this to Mr. Obama?

Now, if you can just get Mr. Obama on the phone, Mad Dog will be happy to say it.
Maud, might say it. She's a fan of Thaddeus Stevens.
Will Joe Biden say it? Will Harry Reid? (And could you hear him if he did?) Will Tom Harkin? Will Nancy Pelosi?  Is there a Democrat, male or female on Capitol Hill or in the White House with any balls?

Second Amendment Protects Only Assault Rifles

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.
--Second Amendment, United States Constitution

With Antonin Scalia and his fellow "strict constructionist" justices, the Constitution has been elevated to the status of a holy book, and all the answers are found in the writings of antiquity. So it is strange that, looking at the actual sacred text, there is little ambiguity: The only weapons our 18th century founders guaranteed to the people are military weapons, i.e., weapons needed by militiamen.

It is really remarkable how much meaning is packed into a single sentence. The purpose of guaranteeing the right of American people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated: To provide security for the state, for a free state. Not to provide security for the individual. The individual is nowhere mentioned. The right is extended to a group, "the people." And not just any people, but the people who are members of a militia, and not just any old militia, but a "well regulated militia." So the powdered whig founders precluded guns for Syrian wild type militias. You had to be a militia which is out there to protect the state, the free state. 

Do you really need 3 years of law school to read this sentence and interpret its meaning?  Do you need a black robe or a spot on the supreme court to understand this sentence? 

Once you read the various Supreme Court opinions which get you from this sentence to the idea that what this sentence means is every single individual in this nation is entitled to buy, stockpile and carry ("bear") attack rifles, grenade launchers and Sig Sauers, you have got to understand how determined the Scalia gang has been to arrive at a place which was never even dreamed in the minds of the authors of the holy scripture Justice Scalia claims as his sacred text.

So, it is clear  the concealed handgun is not protected, because you cannot use a Sig Sauer to defend a state--for that you need a rifle, or an AR-15. Cannot imagine a company of militia charging across a field firing Glock 9's at the Redcoats or the Hessians.

The AR-15 can be fitted with a grenade launcher easily, and would be a very effective part of a militia's mission.

This morning, on The Squawk Box, a Congresswoman from Connecticut debated a conservative commentator. The conservative commentator noted that with the last assault rifle ban, which lasted 10 years, the Department of Justice studied the "effectiveness" of the ban in reducing deaths  by assault rifles and found no efficacy. The law had no buy back provision--simply outlawed new sales. He suggested the solution is to allow psychologists to report potential crazy mass murderers to the police. The Congresswoman said the solution to the problem was to ban assault weapons without abridging second amendment rights, and also to place a trained expert psychologist in every school to identify potential mass murderers. 

The psychologists have been all over the idea that more money ought to be sent the way of psychologists:  Pay for a psychologist in every school  in the country.

Politicians are falling all over themselves, looking for experts who have answers, or at least places to spend money with great alacrity so they can hold up something, anything, to the TV cameras to show  how "proactive"  they can be. They are proposing spending more money to prevent the next mass murder event. Plans for this money vary.

Mad Dog is still out here listening to his neighbors, some of whom are gun enthusiasts. The gun enthusiasts say things like,  "You'll have to pry my dead cold fingers off my gun,"  and they like shooting things, making big bangs, feeling big, and their guns are a big part of their self esteem. They also like playing video shoot 'em up games and posing for photographs with their guns.

Mad Dog says:  1. The Constitution is a "living document," which means we can decide the 2nd amendment means whatever we want it to mean in the 21st century--which is exactly what the four thugs in black robes on  our Supreme Court have done.  2. We can ban all weapons, if we want to.  3. We can hire psychologists and make them report whatever they learn about potential mass murderers to the police, to the school board, to the media, to whomever we want,  if we want to. 

Mad Dog is not sure if any of this will help, but at least it may make us all a little less pickled in horse manure.

Love Your Gun More Than The Children

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.
--Second Amendment, United States Constitution

One of my neighbors asked me to go out on a walk through the salt marshes on the border between Hampton and Hampton Falls, where the Seabrook Nuclear plant sits. He had planned an early morning excursion, just after sunrise, and he planned to bring his dog and his rifle. 

"You can shoot a gun there?" I asked amazed. "There're houses along the salt marshes and there's a road.
"Yeah, it's fine," he told me. "It's legal."
I declined the offer.

Now an article in today's New York Times comes the report that the Newtown police commission tried to get an ordinance passed to limit shooting of guns to 500 feet from occupied buildings. It was defeated. People in Newtown had disturbed their neighbors by firing weapons which sounded like machine guns from morning into the night. There was no ordinance to prevent it.  Mary Ann Jacob, the librarian at Sand Hook Elementary who saved many lives, had been part of the petition to enhance the ordinance. "Right now," she had testified, "If you're standing on your property and my house is 20 feet away, you can shoot." 
One of the incidents which prompted calls for the ordinance was gun fire in a wooded area on Cold Spring Road, right across from an elementary school,  A police commission member testified, "I've hunted for many years, but the police were getting complaints of shooting in the morning, in the evening and of people shooting at propane gas tanks just to see them explode."

The meetings to consider the new ordinances occurred last August and the representative of the National Shooting Sports Federation said there was greater danger of swimming accidents than shooting accidents. "This is a freedom that should never be taken away. Teach kids to hunt, you will never have to hunt your kids."

Say what? Hunt your kids? Catchy, though.

Another Newtown resident, owner of a shooting range, Scott Ostrosky, said, "Guns are why we're free in this country." 

Funny, I would have thought the Constitution is why we are free, but then again the Constitution as interpreted by Justice Antonin Scalia and his fellow "orginalists"  the "strict constructionists" may give me pause.

I have read the arguments about the history of the 2nd amendment, from its creation in the 18th century, and the origins of the concerns which led to its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. Academics  date the idea of a free society requiring an armed citizenry back to the 1600's in England, when a Catholic king tried to disarm Protestants, but all that sounds like academic masturbation to me. 

The fact is, as I read the Constitution, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2nd amendment is the only place in the entire document where the founding fathers actually tell you the reason they grant a right--the right to keep and bear arms is there because we want to be sure militias function to preserve a free state.  They did not have a standing army, just militias and there was no defense budget then, so if you wanted a militia you had to have private citizens buy their own guns for that purpose. 

But as Antonin Scalia has it: 
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.

Well, that's very nifty, Mr. Scalia, but completely irrelevant and immaterial. We are talking about a unique set of sentences, one in which the authors tell you why they are providing a right and saying, quite clearly, it's for one purpose and one purpose only, and they define the right as belonging to a specific category of person--that person who would be part of a militia to protect a free state, not to protect himself personally.

Next to "obfuscation" in the dictionary, place a photograph of Mr. Scalia. Either the man is being willfully blind, or he simply has not read the relevant amendment, or if he has read it, he has not understood plain speech.

What you really have to wonder about is how many of our neighbors and citizens so adore blowing up propane tanks and firing weapons they are willing to endure a quarterly blood letting of six year olds so they can thrill to the excitement of shooting their guns.

They are correct, that simply passing a law against AR-15 guns, the attack rifle favorite of both mass killers and gun enthusiasts who simply love blowing things away, will not prevent the next maniac from getting his hands on one, on his mother's or his brother's or his friend's gun.  To clamp down on this exceptional sort of disease event you'd need to do more than just make an antibiotic available; you'd need public health measures to identify the likely perpetrators, institutions to confine them,  security cameras to watch for them approaching schools and day care centers. And even then, there will be "events." 

I do not believe, at least not yet, that passing a single law would prevent rampages by maniacs. But just looking at who is on the gun side of this debate, I'm prepared to vote with Maud--screw the bastards. Make 'em all illegal.

Meaningful Action

The news from Newtown, Connecticut is one of eleven reports of over 11 murders in  a single event by gun fire since 1984, one of 19 over the past 5 years of multiple deaths in a single shooting incident.
President Obama's statement was masterful, but, through no fault of his, incapable of ameliorating this sort of disaster; having said that, I cannot think of another President or leader who has ever done better--even Reagan addressing the Challenger explosion, was still just an actor playing the part. Mr. Obama was through and through, authentic, not milking this for anything, simply expressing what every parent is thinking.
The news media, you would think, would have figured out by now  what to cover and what not to say, but, as usual, the reporters, columnists, TV news show producers have been insufferable. (NPR's Scott Simon being my personal migraine--he seems to just love wallowing in these moments with that syrupy, unctuous voice he does, to tell you just how deeply he feels for your loss, as if nobody in the country could possibly feel as badly as Scott does about this.) Interviews with distraught witnesses, people hugging, interviews with clergymen, interviews with "trauma psychologists" and with social workers, saying things like, "This is a tragedy,"  clips from the governor and police chiefs.
As if any sort of authority figure has a clue about what to do about all this.
And then there are the men and women who are paid to swing into high gear because they work for the National Rifle Association, the Republican Party or for some gun control group.
All of the "experts" sound like imbeciles. The office holders are simply unable to say anything of value. The world will little note nor long remember what they say. 
The prize imbeciles are the NRA faithful who say we ought to arm more people, so Next Time, someone in the crowd will pull a gun and shoot the shooter, just like in old Westerns. 
Right here in New Hampshire the legislature debated and may, for all I know, have passed a law to be sure legislators could carry their guns into the statehouse.
Has there ever been a case when an armed citizen truncated a murderous spree by shooting the shooter? 
It reminds me of the days when AIDS was arising, before anyone knew much about the virus, and before there were any drugs to treat it.  It was already out there, having infected hundreds of thousands, and we heard interviews about how this was all the government's fault for not spending enough money on the problem.

 People from the National Institutes of Health were saying, "It's not money we need: It's ideas."

But AIDS turned out to be a single--albeit ever mutating--virus. While it has not been successfully eradicated, on the scale of polio, it has been managed.

We are not managing gun violence of the Newtown type.

If we stopped the manufacture and sale of another gun of any sort tomorrow, we would still be pickled in guns--over 300 million by some estimates, extant in this nation as we speak.
How do you control access to guns by deranged people, when there are more guns than McDonald's restaurants, when guns are like automobiles--ubiquitous, and the only reason there are not even more deaths is the self interest and will of the operators in possession of these instruments of destruction?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ever the fresh minded thinker, suggested we give up on restricting access to guns, but attempt to restrict access to bullets. Even Chris Rock picked up on that idea as a way to restrict gun violence in the ghetto, saying, "Can you imagine if a bullet cost $5000? Ain't no way no brother going to shoot more than one round, and only at close range. Then he'd go dig it out." 
Somehow, though, I cannot imagine the well planned shootings at schools would be much deterred by expensive bullets.  And you can steal bullets as easily as stealing guns. 
I need ideas. I agree with the President, we ought to take meaningful action, if only I had a clue what form that might take.

What's Eating Labor Unions?

Howard Zinn, One of Mad Dog's Heroes

I should begin by telling you where I am going with this:  I think labor unions are essential, healthy, a very positive social force. Without them or with their power substantially diminished all but the upper 1% are less free.

But...
Like liberals and Democrats, labor unions have been negligent about marketing their message. Labor leaders have been guilty of a certain arrogance in believing their arguments are self evident, that they do not have to convince anybody their cause is just.

Consider some examples from Mad Dog's own family album--and this is a family, which whether or not  its members know it , owes a great deal to labor unions.  Let us consider some items...

1. Mad Dog has a son who worked as a medical student at two hospitals:  One had a union, which negotiated for an hour for its workers to clean up operating rooms between cases; the other hospital's maintenance crews were not unionized,  and cleaned up between cases in 30 minutes. The non unionized hospital could schedule 8 cases per OR per day; the unionized hospital could only do half as many. That, multiplied by twenty OR's, 5 days a week,  meant the difference in millions of dollars a year, the difference between a robust hospital balance sheet and red ink. And beyond that, the sight of cleaning crews standing around after 20 minutes, doing nothing,  made Mad Dog's son's blood boil and destroyed, in this gestating surgeon, all  sympathy. And Mad Dog, would have to echo his father: "I'm all for the workers--but these are not workers."

2.  In a movie about Marilyn Monroe, she is shown on set, and she moves a chair from one place to another, only to incur the wrath of the stage workers' union chief, who places the chair back in it's original spot, until a union stage hand can pick it up and carry it five feet to where Marilyn had placed it.  This may be fiction, but it is a scene which resonated with most Brits.
4.  State police officers in Massachusetts have filed grievances to be sure a unionized state trooper is paid to park his car at road construction sites to observe traffic go by, at union wages, when an entry level lower paid worker, non unionized or unionized, could stand out with his or her fluorescent yellow jacket and flag to wave at approaching cars.
5.  National Football League football players make millions of dollars a year and they are represented by a union. Are these millionaires really "workers?"  Or are we watching, now and then, millionaires argue with billionaires--in which case, who cares?
Most of  these instances are examples of  enforced inefficiency, stupidity and pissing contests, and they alienate the American public from labor unions. 
But then there is another type of problem, one of middle class people thinking they have been denied what they want because union workers have got cushy deals for their own workers. Middle class workers may feel offended to learn a teacher who has been identified/accused of being incompetent can be sent to a lounge and get paid for not teaching classes for a year.
A great town for a national nurses' convention is Chicago, but owing to union wages, prices for hotel rooms, convention space makes  Chicago unaffordable for nurses's conventions; these nurses are middle class workers who resent not being able to get what they want because a union got for other workers what those hotel workers wanted.

In these instances, the man in the street, who is not directly involved,  sees a union fighting with bosses and managers as an inconvenience to himself, rather than as a group of underdogs standing up for themselves, demanding their contribution to a productive nation be recognized and fairly compensated.

Arrayed against the unions is a powerful set of controlling forces, including the Koch brothers who congenitally loath anyone who is not rich, the Republican party, which is compromised of elected officials who are bought and paid for by those who hate unions--the bosses, the owners and the corporate CEO's,  who act as if paying fair wages is a threat to their stockholders rather than a benefit. And union wages should be seen as a benefit to all--a way of keeping an well trained work force happy and well fed.

What Mad Dog would argue:  Organized labor, believe me, we love you. But you are not making it easy to defend you. 
Go find yourself some phrase makers, some office on K street with an auditorium and an oval desk at the front.  
Do us all a favor:  Zip up your fly and shave, stop dragging your knuckles on the floor, and spend some time thinking about how you look and sound.