The Link Between Dictatorship and a Disarmed Populous
Dictatorships, both past and present, follow common patterns. While their methods for attaining their powerful positions vary—Adolf Hitler and Hugo Chavez were freely elected, Joseph Stalin slowly developed his prominence within the ruling political party, and Mao Tse-Tung and Fidel Castro led violent revolutions--they facilitate their increasing stronghold on the population through similar measures. Most commonly, an aspiring dictator disarms the population, thereby facilitating an easy slaughter of the opposition. As a population, it is expedient for us to understand both historical and modern examples of how dictators have used civilian disarmament to attain and maintain absolute control that we might recognize instances evident in our society and immediately curtail such efforts.
During the ascension to power, most dictators gain popular support by exploiting the fears and desires of the people. The way Hitler gained control of Germany serves as an illustration of the pattern all prominent 20th century dictators used to secure absolute control. In the aftermath of World War I, Germany was left in ruins and was forced to bear the full blame and cost the war had wrought. The result was a nation where unemployment, food shortages and economic hardship were rampant. The German people were forced to finance reconstruction efforts, leaving them economically crippled. To add insult to injury, Germans were not allowed a voice on the international stage in directing those reconstructive efforts, leaving them socially crippled (Knapper n.d.). It was this climate of victimization that made fertile the soil in which Hitler would grow into power. Writing about a recent documentary on how Hitler was able to rise to power, National Review editor Dave Kopel, and Psychologist Richard Griffiths (2003), who specializes in researching gun issues observe that “[i]f we are serious about ‘never again,’ then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did”(p.1). Hitler began his rise to power by promising to redeem Germany, making her again a great power, forcing her to be esteemed in international circles, and by enacting dramatic social purifications that would create a more perfect society. Political desires to improve one’s nation are not uncommon, nor undesirable, the distinct difference between an honest politician and a dictator manifests in what they do after taking power.
Because the policies of Nazi Germany were carried and imposed upon every nation in occupied Europe, coupled with the direct aggression propagated by the Nazis, there is an abundance of information on Hitler’s policies to disarm civilian populations, thus examples from Nazi Germany are many, but the same patterns were followed by the other aforementioned dictators. Dr. Miguel Faria Jr. (2001), Who escaped Cuba as a political refugee after Castro seized control, describes the universal nature of this pattern:
"Frequently, when presented with these deadly chronicles [of the many dictatorships who disarmed civilians] and the perilous historic sequence – namely, that gun registration is followed by banning, confiscation, civilian disarmament and, ultimately, by authoritarianism – naïve Americans opine that it cannot happen here (p. 2)."
Germany’s prelude to significant disarmament began during the Weimar Republic, when expansive registration and recordkeeping requirements of firearms and firearm owners were mandated in 1929. On these policies Dave Kopel and Richard Griffiths write:
"Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law’s requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a “hunting” or “sporting” type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world’s first gun law to create formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. . .. Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms. . . In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy (p. 2)."
In 1938, after Hitler had taken power, he expanded the registration requirements and began to compile the data on firearm owners as well as the types and quantities of the firearms possessed. The original purpose of the Weimar registration requirements was to provide for public safety by controlling who could possess firearms and to allow the government to regulate their use. Antithetically, passive registration in the name of public safety gave Hitler the ability to begin complete disarmament.
In order to gain proper perspective on firearms and public safety, the modern American saga on this issue serves as a dynamic vehicle. Those in the United States who support the registration and restriction of firearms possession among civilians, the foremost of which is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, lay public safety as the primary reason for such restrictions, being here quoted from their website:
"In order to stem the flow of handgun violence, America needs a national system of handgun owner licensing. Handguns should be treated like cars in that owners would be licensed and handguns would be registered. Congress would establish minimum standards for the licensing system, which would be implemented by the states. . . . Licensing and registration will also provide law enforcement with the means to prevent individuals like. . .[here a list of several murderers is inserted] from obtaining guns (2007)."
The Brady Campaign website provides for similar restrictions on all other types of firearms as well, making distinctions between sporting and non-sporting firearms. Although it seems logical, one is still left to ask if gun registration and other restrictions really do serve the public safety and if they do in fact reduce crime.
According to statistics posted on the Brady Campaign homepage (2007): In 2004, there were 11, 344 firearm related murders in the United States. This is a significant number of deaths, but when removed from isolation, it shrinks in its shock value. There are approximately 193 million legally owned firearms in about 80 million U.S. households (Kleck, Gertz, 1998), making each individual firearm statistically unlikely to be used in a murder. Furthermore, according to research conducted by University of Florida Professors and Criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, (1998) privately owned firearms are used between 1.2 million and 2.2 million times per year to prevent crime in the United States (p. 18), significantly outweighing the perceived costs of private firearms ownership. Further logical deductions can be made regarding the true dispositions of using gun control as a crime deterrent. First and foremost, criminals, or people who break the law, don’t care if a gun is outlawed. Thus, even when guns are completely banned, criminals are still armed. Secondly, registration information is used by law enforcement to investigate crimes, and has rarely, if ever, been used to prevent crime. Thirdly, law enforcement is rarely able to prevent violent crime, but typically arrive after the criminal has left the scene. In the United States, the most significant reductions in violent crime have occurred in the states that have removed restrictions on civilian’s right to carry a handgun (Kleck, Gertz, 1998. p. 11). Thus, public safety is not at all strengthened by the registration and restriction of firearms; in fact it is significantly weakened.
Firearm registration and restriction has seldom started after a dictator has gained absolute power, rather, the dictator exploited already existing laws. On November 9th, 1938, Nazi SS troops, armed with the lists of registered gun owners created under the Weimar government, raided Jewish homes enforcing a newly signed decree by Hitler, ordering, “all Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance, they are to be shot immediately” (Halbrook, 2001, p. 2). Once the confiscation was complete, on the 10th of November 1938, Nazis began to loot, burn, and destroy Jewish property, forcing the Jews either into ghettos or concentration camps. With no resistance, the operation was completed quickly. The Jews who were relocated in the ghettos were subjected to ever increasing restrictions on the possession on weapons, Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook Ph. D, J.D. Described this condition:
"All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: “Nazis Smash. Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples,” “One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter.” Thousands of Jews were taken away. Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males (p. 2)." [Quotations in original]
The Nazi raids on Jewish homes in Germany continued to intensify as WWII spread across Europe. In each country the Nazis occupied one of the first orders of business was to post a notice ordering the occupied citizens to surrender their firearms on penalty of death:
"It [the notice] is entitled “Regulations on Arms Possessions in the Occupied Zone” (“Verordunung Uber Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet”). . .the top of the double columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with and eagle and swatiska (sic) in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours. . . While the Nazis made good on the threat to execute persons in possession of firearms, the gun control decree was not entirely successful. Partisans launched armed attacks. But resistance was hampered by the lack of civilian arms possession (Halbrook, 2001, p. 3)."
Although the Nazis faced armed resistance in every country they occupied until the end of the war, the fact that “[o]ther European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. . . It was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents (Halbrook 2001, p. 3).” As the Nazis exploited firearm registration and licensing requirements, most opposition groups were severely crippled, facilitating the rapid spread of Nazism. In 1943, there was one such uprising in the Warsaw, Poland ghetto. Here several Jewish men, despite being woefully outnumbered, and armed with only a few old handguns, began to fight the Nazis. With the conviction to protect their lives and their families, this small band of armed men were able to fend off the Nazi forces for several days. Dr. Halbrook describes this act of astonishing bravery:
"Out of all the acts of armed citizen resistance in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportation and extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle (p. 5)."
Even though this particular uprising failed to permanently expel the Nazis, Dr. Halbrook asks: “What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings (p. 5)?” If not for the forceful disarming of the citizens, it is unlikely the Nazis could have been nearly as successful. Those Jewish men demonstrated that a lot of courage and a little weapon can do much to stem the prevailing tide of a monstrous dictatorship. But the failure of these courageous men demonstrated that the use of civilian disarmament was a very significant factor in facilitating Hitler’s murder of about 21 million people, excluding war casualties (Kopel, Griffiths 2003 p. 1).
Hitler’s use of gun control is in keeping with typical patterns for a dictator to seize control. Dr. Miguel Faria Jr. (2001), a political refugee from Castro’s Cuba, further describes how this pattern works:
"Unbeknownst to many Americans, who having seen and experienced mostly the goodness of America, gun registration is the gateway to civilian disarmament, which often precedes genocide. In the monumental book “Lethal Laws,” published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, we learn that authoritarian governments that conducted genocide and mass killings of their own populations first disarmed their citizens. The recipe for accomplishing this goal went as follows: demonizing guns, registration, then banning and confiscation, and finally total civilian disarmament. Enslavement of the people then followed with limited resistance, as was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (p. 2)."
By virtue of the fact that this identical pattern of civilian disarmament is found at the root of virtually every mass killing in the 20th century, modern governments should be very careful when contemplating firearm registration and restriction requirements. The importance of gun control measures to the dictators themselves is revealed in the writings of Mao Tse-Tung, when he wrote:
"Firearms are the most important of all weapons, and it should be guaranteed that they are in the hands of the armed forces of the workers and peasants. Undertaking an investigation and banning privately owned firearms, and carrying out the registration of firearms constitute important tasks in ensuring the victory of the revolution (Schram, 1992, p. 378)."
As the “most important of all weapons,” the possession of firearms is in reality the possession of power. Dictators cannot subdue an armed population, and an unarmed population cannot overthrow a dictator. Consider the following photo:
Note: go to http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mmm.htm and look for the Troops Obeying Orders Picture.
Although it is a rather graphic illustration, it is important that the danger facing an unarmed population not be just an abstract sentence. These are real people being murdered by their government.
Modern efforts to require the registration and restriction of civilian firearms come from many fronts, from organizations like America’s Brady Campaign to the United Nations. Even though we may not perceive a direct threat of impending dictatorship, the pattern of how they begin is well in motion. And perhaps the most effective reminder to any aspiring dictator is that armed citizens are capable and willing to fight for a democracy any dictator is seeking to usurp.
During the past year, Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has declared that he is “temporarily” taking complete control in order to quickly move his country toward a more independent and more prominent world position. He has already taken control of all Venezuelan oil and utilities, and has made moves to decrease the voice of his opponents by restricting political representation to those who agree with him. Venezuela already had mandatory firearm registration and many restrictions, and although Chavez had yet to take any overt action against those who do possess firearms, he certainly has all the tools he would need to do so. In the space of only a few months, Chavez has gone from a freely elected democratic President, to a socialist autocrat. Illustrating the use of an armed population to protect a nation from dictatorship, James Madison, (1987) one of America’s Founding Fathers, said in the Federalist Papers:
"Besides the advantages of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of (p. 301)."
It was well understood by America’s Founding Fathers that the only way a nation can remain forever free from the tyranny of dictatorship is to maintain an armed population. History shows that the cost of disarming civilians is very high. Conservative estimates put the number of unarmed civilians killed by their own governments at over 56 million people in the past century (Harvey, n.d.).
History has given us many examples to clearly show the pattern dictators use to seize and maintain control. Modern politics in both domestic and international arenas are beginning to show a widespread increase in the prevalence of the dictatorship pattern and civilian disarmament. If the populations of the world are to resist dictatorship and if we truly desire to “never again” allow monsters like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to seize power, the most basic protection is the ability to give armed resistance. The people of the world must never be disarmed; we all need to recognize this insidious way that a nation can rapidly slip from freedom to tyranny. As a means of self preservation, and to preserve our freedom, we should all be armed, trained, and vigilant in killing the seeds of tyranny that are being sown by those who would disarm us.
References
Knapper K. (n.d.). Germany After the First World War. Retrieved 23 November, 2007
from http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year9links/wwii/afterwwi.pdf
Kopel D. & Griffiths R. (2003). Hitler’s Control. National Review Online. Retrieved
18 November, 2007 from http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp
Faria, M. (2001). National Gun Registration—Paving the Road to Tyranny. Newsmax.
Retrieved 18 November, 2007 from http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/2001/8/31/200747.shtml.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (2007). Retrieved 24 November, 2007 from
http://www.bradycampaign.org
Kleck G. & Gertz M (1998). Carrying Guns For Protection: Results From the National
Self-Defense Survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 35 (2),
19bhamm3-224
Halbrook, S. (2001). Registration: The Nazi Paradigm. American Rifleman. 149 (6) 53-
59.
Schram, S.R., & Hodes, N.J., (Eds. ). (1992). Mao’s Road to Power: Revolutionary
Writings 1912-1949. London: East Gate.
Madison, J., Hamilton, A., Jay, J., (1987). The Federalist Papers. London: Putnam
Harvey, P. (n.d.) Are You Considering Backing Gun Control Laws? Retrieved 20
November, 2007 from http://graham.main.nc.us/-bhammel/GOV/guns.html
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Genetically Modified Crops
As the world population continues to grow, the task of feeding these populations too often fails. Excessive heat, drought, crop destruction by pests, salinized irrigation water, and excessive poverty form some of the most common reasons for such failure. The most prevalent solution to this problem has thus far been the development and use of crops that have been given some degree of immunity to these issues through genetic modification (GM). The benefits of GM crops, however, must be weighed with the dangers they pose. GM crops pose health risks, force the advancing of pest populations that are highly resistant to pest control measures, eliminates non-GM crops through cross pollination, and are financially prohibitive for developing nations. Thus, GM crops fail to deliver the solution they promised to create.
In the United States, one of the largest producers of GM crops, the process of determining end-user safety of GM crops involves comparing modified proteins in the GM plant with same protein of an unmodified plant. A typical example of this process is found in the ongoing safety evaluation of soybeans being conducted by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)(2007), which states, “Proteins will be extracted from seeds using the modified TCA/acetone method and separated using 2D-PAGE, analyzed using image analysis and in those cases when unique protein spots appear in any treatment, further characterization using MALDI-TOF-MS will be undertaken.” Under such conditions, it is assumed that if the protein looks identical, it will behave identically when ingested, and although that may be true in some cases, no one is certain it is universally true. As Dr. Margaret Mellon (2007), director of the agricultural and biotechnology program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said:
“Lots and lots of people -- virtually the entire population -- could be exposed to genetically engineered foods, and yet we have only a handful of studies in the peer-reviewed literature addressing their safety. The question is, do we assume the technology is safe based on an argument that it's just a minor extension of traditional breeding, or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it's safe (PBS, 2007).”
Opinions regarding the safety of GM crops tend to be strong on both sides of the argument, and because of the polarization of opinion, proof of GM crop safety is necessary. Despite the regulatory acceptance of the current protein isolation technique for determining crop safety, it has one significant flaw, the fact that even when a protein appears chemically identical, it can behave very differently when ingested by a test subject. A team of scientists working for the Division of Molecular Bioscience at the Australian National University in Australia discovered while testing a GM pea they had developed to be resistant to the Pea Weevil. By isolating a gene in a common bean that disrupted the reproductive ability of the Pea Weevil and splicing that gene into the pea, they were able to successfully create a pea that was resistant to the Pea Weevil. During the safety testing, they found that the transgenic protein in the GM pea was chemically identical to the one in the common bean. This is as far as most accepted safety testing of GM crops would go. However, this team went further and fed the GM pea to test mice. During this testing, they found that the protein behaved very different once ingested, and the mice fed the GM pea developed serious allergies and other significant health problems. As a result of these finding the pea weevil resistant pea project was discontinued (Prescott et al., 2005). This case creates enough doubt on the effectiveness of current safety testing practices to warrant retarding the widespread implementation of GM crops, proving more testing is required before GM crops can be considered safe for consumption.
Because current testing procedures fail to adequately determine the safety of GM crops, the risk of cross-pollination with non-GM crops must be addressed. According to a study on GM cross-pollination done by Drs. Markus Schmidt and Gurling Bothma, of the University of Vienna (2006), areas that have historically been used for traditional farming tend to hold significant genetic diversity. This diversity is essential to protect against changes in various diseases and pests that threaten these crops (Pg. 1). By holding many combinations of genetic data in the natural crop selections, the likelihood that a pest of disease will destroy the entire crop population is slightly decreased. According to the Schmidt-Bothma study on gene flow within sorghum crops and related weeds in central Africa, it was discovered that no barrier existed to prevent the flow of genetic material between fields of crop and surrounding weeds (pg. 2). The study concluded that:
“The outcome of this study shows that gene flow in sorghum will take place, and introgression of transgenic characteristics into crops and wild relatives in likely. Some of the novel characteristics (e.g., pest, disease, and drought resistance) envisioned for future transgenic development could favor the survival of hybrids with crop wild relatives outside the agroecosystem (Smith and Frederickson, 2000; deVries and Toenniessen, 2001). Further research should therefore also focus on the prevention of gene flow from transgenic sorghum to other sorghum crops, landraces, and wild relatives before hand, e.g. by using adequate buffer zones and the possibilities (and limitations) of cytoplasmic male sterility (Schmidt, Bothma. pg. 8).”
Once a transgenic trait offering resistance to pests is introduced into a population, natural selection gives favor to the plants possessing that trait. As a result, the genetic diversity diminishes. The genetic diversity that allows some plants to possess genes that give it natural resistance to pests, but because there are still plants that are susceptible to pests, the populations of pests that are resistant to either GM or natural pesticides are not favored. Without genetic diversity, there is a problem when one examines pest populations using the basic principles of natural selection. If a GM crop is developed and deployed that has a resistance to a pest, then the majority of those pests will die off, while those that survive have a genetic trait allowing them to be unaffected by the GM trait. As the pest population increases, each subsequent generation will favor those with a stronger immunity to the GM trait, thus rendering the trait ineffective against the pest. Because the GM trait was initially favored, the genetic diversity is likely to have been diminished through cross-pollination, so as the new genetically superior pest increases in population, the crops, which now all carry the same genetic profile, will be destroyed. The only way to avoid the destruction of genetic diversity is to inhibit the ability of the GM crop to reproduce with either natural crops or wild relatives. There are two ways this can be accomplished, first is the isolation of GM crops, and second is the development of GM seeds that are sterile, and thereby cannot reproduce. Both of these solutions create some difficulty for developing nations, and neither can prevent the increase in GM-resistant pests.
Within most developing nations, where the need for affordable food is the direst, quality farmland can be rare, and all but the most meager lots are far too expensive for the majority of the populations, as Dr. Peter Rosset, an agricultural ecologist and the executive director of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy, being quoted at www.globalissues.org points out:
“First, where farmland is bought and sold like any other commodity and society allows the unlimited accumulation of farmland by a few, superfarms replace family farms and all of society suffers.
Second, where the main producers of food - small farmers and farm workers - lack bargaining power relative to suppliers of farm inputs and food marketers, producers get a shrinking share of the rewards from farming.
Third, where dominant technology destroys the very basis for future production, by degrading the soil and generating pest and weed problems, it becomes increasingly difficult and costly to sustain yields. (Rosset, n.d.).”
With the rise of such “superfarms,” the subsistence farm becomes more difficult for the most needy to obtain, and when it is obtained, it is virtually impossible to adequately isolate natural crops from GM crops, thus destroying the genetic diversity of the region and making reliance on segregation to prevent such destruction non-viable.
As an alternative to relying on crop segregation to protect genetic diversity, some producers of GM crops are developing plants with sterile seeds. As Wendy Hollingsworth, Science, Technology and Innovation Specialist at the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in Barbados (n.d.) explains:
“Terminator genes prevent crops from producing fertile seed, this means that farmers growing these crops would have to buy new seed each year rather than saving part of the harvest to plant the next years (sic) crops. The terminator technology from a scientific perspective is a brilliant development of the creative process. However, where the technology runs off course is in its application. Proponents of the technology argue that it would be a useful method of preventing infringement on any patent rights or plant breeder's rights granted and could also be used to minimize environmental risks of GM crops (Hollingsworth, n.d.).”
In terms of preventing cross-pollination and negating environmental impacts on genetic diversity, such “terminator technology” works very well, although it will not inhibit the advancement of GM-resistant pests. The fundamental flaw with this technology is that the farmers who would be in the greatest need of such crops are the poorest farmers in the world. By requiring the purchasing of new seed every season, control of food supplies is taken away from farmers and placed in the corporations that produce the GM seeds (Hollingsworth, n.d.). As prices increase, and the ability of poor farmers to buy seed diminishes, starvation increases and the ability of developing nations to create sustainable and independent food supplies is destroyed.
When the financial conditions in the developing world are viewed in context with food supplies, it becomes clear that the solution to world hunger proposed by the widespread use of GM crops is neither effective nor financially viable. It can be argued that monetary limitation, not inadequate food supplies, are the principle cause of widespread hunger as Dr. Rosset (2007) explained:
. . . [M]ountains of additional food could not eliminate hunger, as hunger in America should never let us forget. The alternative is to create a viable and productive small farm agriculture using the principles of agroecology. That is the only model with the potential to end rural poverty, feed everyone, and protect the environment and the productivity of the land for future generations (Rosset, 2007).
In light of the observation that the cause of world hunger has far less to do with the food supply and more to do with socio-economic conditions in the developing world, the proliferation of GM crops is not as optimal of a solution as initially thought. With the effectiveness of current safety testing procedures having been proved inadequate, and the fact that no good solutions to prevent cross-pollination exist, any benefit that may be gained from the widespread use of GM crops pales in comparison to the risks. There are no valid reasons for the widespread use of GM crops.
References
USDA (n.d.). Evaluation of the quality and safety of transgenic soybeans. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=410447
PBS (2007). Harvest of Fear. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html
Prescott et al. (2005). Transgenic Expression of Bean a-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity. Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 53, 9023-9030.
Schmidt, M., & Bothma, G. (March-April 2006). Risk assessment for transgenic sorghum in Africa: crop-to-crop gene flow in Sorghum bicolor (L.) moench. Crop Science, 46, 2. p.790(9). Retrieved November 10, 2007, from Academic OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE
Rosset, P. (n.d.). If Biotech Industry Is Serious About Solving World Hunger, It Is Poorly Attacking Symptoms Only. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GEFood/Hunger.asp.
Hollingsworth, W. (n.d.). Intellectual Property Right and Genetically Modified Organism. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.consumer.gov.tt/link/link7-8.htm
In the United States, one of the largest producers of GM crops, the process of determining end-user safety of GM crops involves comparing modified proteins in the GM plant with same protein of an unmodified plant. A typical example of this process is found in the ongoing safety evaluation of soybeans being conducted by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)(2007), which states, “Proteins will be extracted from seeds using the modified TCA/acetone method and separated using 2D-PAGE, analyzed using image analysis and in those cases when unique protein spots appear in any treatment, further characterization using MALDI-TOF-MS will be undertaken.” Under such conditions, it is assumed that if the protein looks identical, it will behave identically when ingested, and although that may be true in some cases, no one is certain it is universally true. As Dr. Margaret Mellon (2007), director of the agricultural and biotechnology program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said:
“Lots and lots of people -- virtually the entire population -- could be exposed to genetically engineered foods, and yet we have only a handful of studies in the peer-reviewed literature addressing their safety. The question is, do we assume the technology is safe based on an argument that it's just a minor extension of traditional breeding, or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it's safe (PBS, 2007).”
Opinions regarding the safety of GM crops tend to be strong on both sides of the argument, and because of the polarization of opinion, proof of GM crop safety is necessary. Despite the regulatory acceptance of the current protein isolation technique for determining crop safety, it has one significant flaw, the fact that even when a protein appears chemically identical, it can behave very differently when ingested by a test subject. A team of scientists working for the Division of Molecular Bioscience at the Australian National University in Australia discovered while testing a GM pea they had developed to be resistant to the Pea Weevil. By isolating a gene in a common bean that disrupted the reproductive ability of the Pea Weevil and splicing that gene into the pea, they were able to successfully create a pea that was resistant to the Pea Weevil. During the safety testing, they found that the transgenic protein in the GM pea was chemically identical to the one in the common bean. This is as far as most accepted safety testing of GM crops would go. However, this team went further and fed the GM pea to test mice. During this testing, they found that the protein behaved very different once ingested, and the mice fed the GM pea developed serious allergies and other significant health problems. As a result of these finding the pea weevil resistant pea project was discontinued (Prescott et al., 2005). This case creates enough doubt on the effectiveness of current safety testing practices to warrant retarding the widespread implementation of GM crops, proving more testing is required before GM crops can be considered safe for consumption.
Because current testing procedures fail to adequately determine the safety of GM crops, the risk of cross-pollination with non-GM crops must be addressed. According to a study on GM cross-pollination done by Drs. Markus Schmidt and Gurling Bothma, of the University of Vienna (2006), areas that have historically been used for traditional farming tend to hold significant genetic diversity. This diversity is essential to protect against changes in various diseases and pests that threaten these crops (Pg. 1). By holding many combinations of genetic data in the natural crop selections, the likelihood that a pest of disease will destroy the entire crop population is slightly decreased. According to the Schmidt-Bothma study on gene flow within sorghum crops and related weeds in central Africa, it was discovered that no barrier existed to prevent the flow of genetic material between fields of crop and surrounding weeds (pg. 2). The study concluded that:
“The outcome of this study shows that gene flow in sorghum will take place, and introgression of transgenic characteristics into crops and wild relatives in likely. Some of the novel characteristics (e.g., pest, disease, and drought resistance) envisioned for future transgenic development could favor the survival of hybrids with crop wild relatives outside the agroecosystem (Smith and Frederickson, 2000; deVries and Toenniessen, 2001). Further research should therefore also focus on the prevention of gene flow from transgenic sorghum to other sorghum crops, landraces, and wild relatives before hand, e.g. by using adequate buffer zones and the possibilities (and limitations) of cytoplasmic male sterility (Schmidt, Bothma. pg. 8).”
Once a transgenic trait offering resistance to pests is introduced into a population, natural selection gives favor to the plants possessing that trait. As a result, the genetic diversity diminishes. The genetic diversity that allows some plants to possess genes that give it natural resistance to pests, but because there are still plants that are susceptible to pests, the populations of pests that are resistant to either GM or natural pesticides are not favored. Without genetic diversity, there is a problem when one examines pest populations using the basic principles of natural selection. If a GM crop is developed and deployed that has a resistance to a pest, then the majority of those pests will die off, while those that survive have a genetic trait allowing them to be unaffected by the GM trait. As the pest population increases, each subsequent generation will favor those with a stronger immunity to the GM trait, thus rendering the trait ineffective against the pest. Because the GM trait was initially favored, the genetic diversity is likely to have been diminished through cross-pollination, so as the new genetically superior pest increases in population, the crops, which now all carry the same genetic profile, will be destroyed. The only way to avoid the destruction of genetic diversity is to inhibit the ability of the GM crop to reproduce with either natural crops or wild relatives. There are two ways this can be accomplished, first is the isolation of GM crops, and second is the development of GM seeds that are sterile, and thereby cannot reproduce. Both of these solutions create some difficulty for developing nations, and neither can prevent the increase in GM-resistant pests.
Within most developing nations, where the need for affordable food is the direst, quality farmland can be rare, and all but the most meager lots are far too expensive for the majority of the populations, as Dr. Peter Rosset, an agricultural ecologist and the executive director of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy, being quoted at www.globalissues.org points out:
“First, where farmland is bought and sold like any other commodity and society allows the unlimited accumulation of farmland by a few, superfarms replace family farms and all of society suffers.
Second, where the main producers of food - small farmers and farm workers - lack bargaining power relative to suppliers of farm inputs and food marketers, producers get a shrinking share of the rewards from farming.
Third, where dominant technology destroys the very basis for future production, by degrading the soil and generating pest and weed problems, it becomes increasingly difficult and costly to sustain yields. (Rosset, n.d.).”
With the rise of such “superfarms,” the subsistence farm becomes more difficult for the most needy to obtain, and when it is obtained, it is virtually impossible to adequately isolate natural crops from GM crops, thus destroying the genetic diversity of the region and making reliance on segregation to prevent such destruction non-viable.
As an alternative to relying on crop segregation to protect genetic diversity, some producers of GM crops are developing plants with sterile seeds. As Wendy Hollingsworth, Science, Technology and Innovation Specialist at the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in Barbados (n.d.) explains:
“Terminator genes prevent crops from producing fertile seed, this means that farmers growing these crops would have to buy new seed each year rather than saving part of the harvest to plant the next years (sic) crops. The terminator technology from a scientific perspective is a brilliant development of the creative process. However, where the technology runs off course is in its application. Proponents of the technology argue that it would be a useful method of preventing infringement on any patent rights or plant breeder's rights granted and could also be used to minimize environmental risks of GM crops (Hollingsworth, n.d.).”
In terms of preventing cross-pollination and negating environmental impacts on genetic diversity, such “terminator technology” works very well, although it will not inhibit the advancement of GM-resistant pests. The fundamental flaw with this technology is that the farmers who would be in the greatest need of such crops are the poorest farmers in the world. By requiring the purchasing of new seed every season, control of food supplies is taken away from farmers and placed in the corporations that produce the GM seeds (Hollingsworth, n.d.). As prices increase, and the ability of poor farmers to buy seed diminishes, starvation increases and the ability of developing nations to create sustainable and independent food supplies is destroyed.
When the financial conditions in the developing world are viewed in context with food supplies, it becomes clear that the solution to world hunger proposed by the widespread use of GM crops is neither effective nor financially viable. It can be argued that monetary limitation, not inadequate food supplies, are the principle cause of widespread hunger as Dr. Rosset (2007) explained:
. . . [M]ountains of additional food could not eliminate hunger, as hunger in America should never let us forget. The alternative is to create a viable and productive small farm agriculture using the principles of agroecology. That is the only model with the potential to end rural poverty, feed everyone, and protect the environment and the productivity of the land for future generations (Rosset, 2007).
In light of the observation that the cause of world hunger has far less to do with the food supply and more to do with socio-economic conditions in the developing world, the proliferation of GM crops is not as optimal of a solution as initially thought. With the effectiveness of current safety testing procedures having been proved inadequate, and the fact that no good solutions to prevent cross-pollination exist, any benefit that may be gained from the widespread use of GM crops pales in comparison to the risks. There are no valid reasons for the widespread use of GM crops.
References
USDA (n.d.). Evaluation of the quality and safety of transgenic soybeans. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=410447
PBS (2007). Harvest of Fear. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html
Prescott et al. (2005). Transgenic Expression of Bean a-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity. Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 53, 9023-9030.
Schmidt, M., & Bothma, G. (March-April 2006). Risk assessment for transgenic sorghum in Africa: crop-to-crop gene flow in Sorghum bicolor (L.) moench. Crop Science, 46, 2. p.790(9). Retrieved November 10, 2007, from Academic OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE
Rosset, P. (n.d.). If Biotech Industry Is Serious About Solving World Hunger, It Is Poorly Attacking Symptoms Only. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GEFood/Hunger.asp.
Hollingsworth, W. (n.d.). Intellectual Property Right and Genetically Modified Organism. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.consumer.gov.tt/link/link7-8.htm
More on Global Warming
The global climate is warming. This warming may be caused by human activity, but there is no evidence thus far that conclusively supports that claim. The primary documents advocating human activity and CO2 emissions as the primary cause of global warming are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, of which several have been released since the organization was founded in 1988, with the most significant one being assessment 3, released in 2001. It was in this assessment that the now-famous “hockey stick” graph, as it now often called, which depicts global temperature as primarily flat since 1900 then spiking sharply toward the end of the 20th century, was first introduced and presented as clear evidence that human activity is forcing global warming. In offering a careful evaluation of this data, there are a few key tenets of this theory that must be called into question. First is the objectivity and level of consensus of the IPCC scientists. Second are the methods used to derive the “hockey stick” model. Third is the raw data on CO2 levels and temperature. Finally, the drastic predictions and policy recommendations made by the IPCC in order to deal with climate change.
The scientists that made up the IPCC during the drafting of assessment 3 were all appointed by their respective nations. Because the outcome of the IPCC report has such a weighty influence on environmental policy, it would be quite naïve to assume that neutrality was at the forefront of the selections process. It is this strong political influence in the IPCC, which is a political entity, not a scientific one (note that the IPCC did not conduct any research, but rather the participants selected which studies to give weight to), which undermines the scientific integrity of the organization. Regarding the claims made by the IPCC that their report has the strong consensus of many scientists, David Holland (2007) writes of the IPCC process when he states in a paper published in the Journal Energy and Environment:
“We are frequently assured, without further explanation, the WGI [working groups within the IPCC structure] view represents the consensus of a large number of experts. This claim needs to be treated with severe caution. Large numbers of persons were indeed involved, and may assent to the assessment as a whole, but individual chapters for each working group, each of which deals with many potentially controversial issues, and are written, reviewed and edited by much smaller groups (pg. 3-4).”
By remembering that the members of the IPCC were hand picked by politicians, and that even they individually had little direct input into most of the assessment, should draw one to question the consensus. Especially when one considers that outside of the IPCC within the scientific community, there is a strong air of skepticism regarding the theory of human-caused global warming.
With the understanding that the IPCC has strong political bias, be now review the “hockey stick” model. According to Dr. Holland (2007), the shaft of the hockey stick was derived almost exclusively by using the size of tree rings to estimate global temperature in past ages. This technique was principally authored my Dr. Michael Mann, who received his Ph. D. in 1998. This technique causes concern because it is “comparatively new and untested” (pg. 8). Dr. Holland (2007) continues to point out that the blade part of the “hockey stick” was derived using instrument data from 1902 to present. presenting a single, seamless, model using two very different data sources and splicing them together cannot depict an accurate model (pg. 8). The reliance on unproven techniques and blending data with different reliability rates without noting the change represents poor quality control, so why would the IPCC have done that? In an article published on 5 November, 2007 in the Sunday Telegraph, a reputable British newspaper, an article by Christopher Monckton quotes U.S. Geoscientist Dr. David Deming, who testified before The U.S. Senate that:
“With the publication of the article in Science [on borehole data], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’ (Monckton, 2007).”
The testimony of Dr. Deming reveals the political forces that drive the IPCC report, and it also reveals a significant adulteration from scientific principles in the development of the IPCC “hockey Stick.” Mr. Monckton (2007) says:
“Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion (Monckton, 2007).”
Despite the fact that the science supporting the document has been proven erroneous and the intentional removal of a medieval period warming trend was confirmed, the IPCC continues to use the graph to support it’s stance on human caused climate change, further evidence of the political forces driving the report.
The conclusion drawn by the IPCC from analysis of the “hockey stick” is that as CO2 levels continue to rise, a greenhouse effect is forcing global temperature to rise as well. On an elementary level this seems to make sense, the problem is the fact that the science does not support that claim. There have been several studies on CO2 levels in Antarctic ice core samples, and the subsequent models all show the same data, Again, Mr. Monckton (2007) states:
“[T] he UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.”
The fact that historically, CO2 levels follow temperature increases by several centuries proves problematic for the theory of human caused climate change, so as a political entity, the IPCC presented the data in a way that does not clearly show that fact. This intentional overlooking of the facts, just like eliminating from the models the fact that the medieval ages were warmer than today, casts serious doubts on the validity of the human-caused warming theory.
Taking the erroneous data and presenting inaccurate facts, the IPCC has propagated some apocalyptic predictions of what is to come. Some of these changes may in fact occur as the earth warms, but way they are presented look like fear mongering. Along with the predictions of severe drought, rising sea levels, and super storms, the IPCC and other UN entities have called for stronger international oversight and have presented ideals to be met by signatory countries, as is the case with the Kyoto Protocol. When the shoddy science is viewed with the strong political forces in the IPCC, the reasons for presenting an idea like human-caused global warming appear to be less motivated by environmental concern and more motivated by political expediency. Jacques Chirac, President of France, has been quoted in the Sunday Telegraph as saying that global warming is presented to “create world government” (Monckton, 2007). With so many doubts about the validity of human-caused global warming and with the idea being passed that the theory may be propagated to destroy national sovereignty, so far the U.S. has been wise to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol, and as a matter of policy, it is vitally important that the U.S. not sign any treaty regarding climate change, because such treaties are based on erroneous science and dubious intentions. Human activities may in fact be causing climate change, but it is most wise to wait until some evidence is found to support that claim before any policy decisions are made.
References
Holland, D. (2007). Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey Stick” Affair and its Implications. Energy and Environment, 18. pgs. unk.
Monckton, C. (2007, November 5). Climate Chaos? Don’t Believe It. Telegraaph. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk
The scientists that made up the IPCC during the drafting of assessment 3 were all appointed by their respective nations. Because the outcome of the IPCC report has such a weighty influence on environmental policy, it would be quite naïve to assume that neutrality was at the forefront of the selections process. It is this strong political influence in the IPCC, which is a political entity, not a scientific one (note that the IPCC did not conduct any research, but rather the participants selected which studies to give weight to), which undermines the scientific integrity of the organization. Regarding the claims made by the IPCC that their report has the strong consensus of many scientists, David Holland (2007) writes of the IPCC process when he states in a paper published in the Journal Energy and Environment:
“We are frequently assured, without further explanation, the WGI [working groups within the IPCC structure] view represents the consensus of a large number of experts. This claim needs to be treated with severe caution. Large numbers of persons were indeed involved, and may assent to the assessment as a whole, but individual chapters for each working group, each of which deals with many potentially controversial issues, and are written, reviewed and edited by much smaller groups (pg. 3-4).”
By remembering that the members of the IPCC were hand picked by politicians, and that even they individually had little direct input into most of the assessment, should draw one to question the consensus. Especially when one considers that outside of the IPCC within the scientific community, there is a strong air of skepticism regarding the theory of human-caused global warming.
With the understanding that the IPCC has strong political bias, be now review the “hockey stick” model. According to Dr. Holland (2007), the shaft of the hockey stick was derived almost exclusively by using the size of tree rings to estimate global temperature in past ages. This technique was principally authored my Dr. Michael Mann, who received his Ph. D. in 1998. This technique causes concern because it is “comparatively new and untested” (pg. 8). Dr. Holland (2007) continues to point out that the blade part of the “hockey stick” was derived using instrument data from 1902 to present. presenting a single, seamless, model using two very different data sources and splicing them together cannot depict an accurate model (pg. 8). The reliance on unproven techniques and blending data with different reliability rates without noting the change represents poor quality control, so why would the IPCC have done that? In an article published on 5 November, 2007 in the Sunday Telegraph, a reputable British newspaper, an article by Christopher Monckton quotes U.S. Geoscientist Dr. David Deming, who testified before The U.S. Senate that:
“With the publication of the article in Science [on borehole data], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’ (Monckton, 2007).”
The testimony of Dr. Deming reveals the political forces that drive the IPCC report, and it also reveals a significant adulteration from scientific principles in the development of the IPCC “hockey Stick.” Mr. Monckton (2007) says:
“Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion (Monckton, 2007).”
Despite the fact that the science supporting the document has been proven erroneous and the intentional removal of a medieval period warming trend was confirmed, the IPCC continues to use the graph to support it’s stance on human caused climate change, further evidence of the political forces driving the report.
The conclusion drawn by the IPCC from analysis of the “hockey stick” is that as CO2 levels continue to rise, a greenhouse effect is forcing global temperature to rise as well. On an elementary level this seems to make sense, the problem is the fact that the science does not support that claim. There have been several studies on CO2 levels in Antarctic ice core samples, and the subsequent models all show the same data, Again, Mr. Monckton (2007) states:
“[T] he UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.”
The fact that historically, CO2 levels follow temperature increases by several centuries proves problematic for the theory of human caused climate change, so as a political entity, the IPCC presented the data in a way that does not clearly show that fact. This intentional overlooking of the facts, just like eliminating from the models the fact that the medieval ages were warmer than today, casts serious doubts on the validity of the human-caused warming theory.
Taking the erroneous data and presenting inaccurate facts, the IPCC has propagated some apocalyptic predictions of what is to come. Some of these changes may in fact occur as the earth warms, but way they are presented look like fear mongering. Along with the predictions of severe drought, rising sea levels, and super storms, the IPCC and other UN entities have called for stronger international oversight and have presented ideals to be met by signatory countries, as is the case with the Kyoto Protocol. When the shoddy science is viewed with the strong political forces in the IPCC, the reasons for presenting an idea like human-caused global warming appear to be less motivated by environmental concern and more motivated by political expediency. Jacques Chirac, President of France, has been quoted in the Sunday Telegraph as saying that global warming is presented to “create world government” (Monckton, 2007). With so many doubts about the validity of human-caused global warming and with the idea being passed that the theory may be propagated to destroy national sovereignty, so far the U.S. has been wise to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol, and as a matter of policy, it is vitally important that the U.S. not sign any treaty regarding climate change, because such treaties are based on erroneous science and dubious intentions. Human activities may in fact be causing climate change, but it is most wise to wait until some evidence is found to support that claim before any policy decisions are made.
References
Holland, D. (2007). Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey Stick” Affair and its Implications. Energy and Environment, 18. pgs. unk.
Monckton, C. (2007, November 5). Climate Chaos? Don’t Believe It. Telegraaph. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Three most pressing political issues.
For most of recorded history, and with almost every system of government, elites and royalty have held most of the political power, and individual liberty was granted to the general population only at the whim of those in power. History is replete with examples of extreme cruelty and tyranny on the part of those leaders, and also contains a few gems where the people were given a fair voice and decisive power. In the relatively short time since the American Revolution, there has been a strong trend toward individual liberty and an even distribution of power, but in the last several decades, we have seen individual liberty wane, we have seen democracy transform into dictatorship, and the power is again being gathered into the hands of elites. The political forces that drive this trend are, to me, very intriguing, and for the purposes of this essay, I will discuss the three that I think are the most pressing. First, is political hostility toward religion, second is the societal laziness fed by overdependence on government for basic needs, and lastly the artificial benevolence on the part of government in the name of public safety.
In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, we read, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although this passage has become almost cliché, and thereby lost most of its true meaning and significance, the part to which I would draw your attention is the idea that we have been “endowed by [our] Creator” with rights. There are only two sources of individual liberty, either from Deity or from government. When the Founding Fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, they did so in the light of rights being granted by Deity, and when Deity grants those rights, no government can take them away or restrict them. If, on the other hand, government grants those rights, as is the case in a communist or dictatorial society, then government can take them away or restrict them at any time. In most of the first world, and more dramatically in communist countries, there is a significant movement to eradicate all references to Deity from government. This trend, however logical its purposes may seem, serves to move the seat of freedom away from the unalienable halls of Heaven and into the halls of government, where it can be promptly taken away.
When government has the power to grant and restrict basic rights, the people as a whole lose independence, and are no longer the ones who grant to government the right to govern, but instead receive from government to right to live. Once the people are firmly under the power of government, the independent spirit of the governed weakens, and people become more dependent on government to provide basic needs, not just ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but for food, clothing, shelter, and basic services. Such a welfare system breeds laziness and instead of helping people, actually prevents then from living independently. As an observation that I have made, the two population in the United States who have received the most government aid, the African-Americans, and the Native Americans, have made the least economic progress of all population combined. It seems that the more they are ‘helped,’ the more they need help. Overdependence on government leads to the dissolving of individual liberty and self-sufficiency because government becomes the source of all needs, making the people slaves to the state.
Referring back to the Declaration of Independence, we find the idea that when a government no longer acknowledges the Divine sources of human rights, that the people have the right to change or abolish it (paragraph 2). Yet, as many governments in the world have turned away from Deity, and have crafted welfare states so that the people have little choice but to rely wholly upon them, they have also been removing the only means by which the people can step in to ‘abolish’ the corruption, and they have done it in the name of public safety. This has been a two-pronged approach; the first is to regulate consumer goods. Although it is a correct use of government to serve the common good, by allowing government to regulate and infiltrate every aspect of industry, government has the ability to control all of the economic powers of the country. Thus, economically, government can control business, what is made, how it is made, how much it costs, and who can buy it. This replaces free markets with restricted markets, and gives government sole control over the economy. The second prong hurled at freedom in the name of public safety is the disarming of the general public. Lets look at just three examples from history. Hitler instituted a firearm registration program shortly after he was elected. He used that program to confiscate the arms owned by the Jews and was then able to murder over 6 million of them without resistance. Fidel Castro led the Cuban people in an armed revolt against the government and was thereby placed in power. Once there he called for the people to give up their arms and enjoy the peace they won. It was then that he became a dictator and the people have lived in repression ever since. During the American Revolution, a group of private citizens wielding privately owned firearms defeated the most powerful standing army in the world. When the people are armed, the government cannot easily seize power. It is the right of people to alter or abolish a rouge government, and it is private arms that allow them to do it.
Presented here are just a few of the factors I have observed that drive the trend away from individual liberty. There are, I am sure, many more. The whole body of political science, with all of its subgroups, but mostly political functions and history, serve to understand why people are now so willing to lose freedom. The whole foundation of government and political science is, to me, the quest for freedom and the sources of power. When the people become Godless, lazy and stop trusting each other, then the door is wide open for tyranny to rule. I don’t fully understand why this trend is so strong, but I feel that by understanding the history of how we won our freedom, we can better defend against the insidious plots that would destroy it.
In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, we read, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although this passage has become almost cliché, and thereby lost most of its true meaning and significance, the part to which I would draw your attention is the idea that we have been “endowed by [our] Creator” with rights. There are only two sources of individual liberty, either from Deity or from government. When the Founding Fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, they did so in the light of rights being granted by Deity, and when Deity grants those rights, no government can take them away or restrict them. If, on the other hand, government grants those rights, as is the case in a communist or dictatorial society, then government can take them away or restrict them at any time. In most of the first world, and more dramatically in communist countries, there is a significant movement to eradicate all references to Deity from government. This trend, however logical its purposes may seem, serves to move the seat of freedom away from the unalienable halls of Heaven and into the halls of government, where it can be promptly taken away.
When government has the power to grant and restrict basic rights, the people as a whole lose independence, and are no longer the ones who grant to government the right to govern, but instead receive from government to right to live. Once the people are firmly under the power of government, the independent spirit of the governed weakens, and people become more dependent on government to provide basic needs, not just ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but for food, clothing, shelter, and basic services. Such a welfare system breeds laziness and instead of helping people, actually prevents then from living independently. As an observation that I have made, the two population in the United States who have received the most government aid, the African-Americans, and the Native Americans, have made the least economic progress of all population combined. It seems that the more they are ‘helped,’ the more they need help. Overdependence on government leads to the dissolving of individual liberty and self-sufficiency because government becomes the source of all needs, making the people slaves to the state.
Referring back to the Declaration of Independence, we find the idea that when a government no longer acknowledges the Divine sources of human rights, that the people have the right to change or abolish it (paragraph 2). Yet, as many governments in the world have turned away from Deity, and have crafted welfare states so that the people have little choice but to rely wholly upon them, they have also been removing the only means by which the people can step in to ‘abolish’ the corruption, and they have done it in the name of public safety. This has been a two-pronged approach; the first is to regulate consumer goods. Although it is a correct use of government to serve the common good, by allowing government to regulate and infiltrate every aspect of industry, government has the ability to control all of the economic powers of the country. Thus, economically, government can control business, what is made, how it is made, how much it costs, and who can buy it. This replaces free markets with restricted markets, and gives government sole control over the economy. The second prong hurled at freedom in the name of public safety is the disarming of the general public. Lets look at just three examples from history. Hitler instituted a firearm registration program shortly after he was elected. He used that program to confiscate the arms owned by the Jews and was then able to murder over 6 million of them without resistance. Fidel Castro led the Cuban people in an armed revolt against the government and was thereby placed in power. Once there he called for the people to give up their arms and enjoy the peace they won. It was then that he became a dictator and the people have lived in repression ever since. During the American Revolution, a group of private citizens wielding privately owned firearms defeated the most powerful standing army in the world. When the people are armed, the government cannot easily seize power. It is the right of people to alter or abolish a rouge government, and it is private arms that allow them to do it.
Presented here are just a few of the factors I have observed that drive the trend away from individual liberty. There are, I am sure, many more. The whole body of political science, with all of its subgroups, but mostly political functions and history, serve to understand why people are now so willing to lose freedom. The whole foundation of government and political science is, to me, the quest for freedom and the sources of power. When the people become Godless, lazy and stop trusting each other, then the door is wide open for tyranny to rule. I don’t fully understand why this trend is so strong, but I feel that by understanding the history of how we won our freedom, we can better defend against the insidious plots that would destroy it.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Politics, media and freedom
In terms of swaying public opinion, media has far too much power. Because we as people demand to be entertained instead of informed, media has lost their ability to speak the truth, because the lie sells better, and exhaggeration gets more viewers. So as we watch political commentary, we are not getting the truth and its our own fault. We have finally chosen slavery over freedom in this country.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Education System
Our schools in this country are really bad. We are consistently pushing out ill-prepared and poorly trained students who lack the ability to think critically and who are not at all ready for the 'real world.' Every time, it seems, that a school system is performing poorly, they ask for more money in order to fix the problem and do a better job. Most of the time, they get the money and perform worse. It is clear to me that a lack of money is not the problem. In the school system I grew up in, The Plymouth-Canton School District, in Michigan, we were told that it cost about $10,000 per year per student to run the schools. Different districts or different areas may spend more or less than this, but for now that is not significant. In terms of fixing the problem there are two schools of thought (pun intended), the most common is the socialist view, which is to increase government oversight and control and take more money from taxpayers to fund this oversight. I think that Capitalism (keeping the taxes as they are) provides a much better way, where we take the $10,000 per child and give it to the parents each year for them to educate their children however they want. Private schools, religious schools, home school, whatever. This way, even the students from the 'disadvantaged' neighborhoods have an equal shot at world-class education. Fair markets will always weed out the bad schools and bad teachers. If the public schools were as good as the NEA would have us believe, they would welcome the change, knowing that they would give the children they serve the best possible education. Some may ask: 'What if the parent wastes the money and gives the child no education at all?' Well, if the parent chooses to home school, their children must demonstrate the ability to perform at the level they would be at if they were in public school. Going a little further, I think the best solution is to shut down the public schools altogether, stop taking the tax money for them and let parents work out their own children's education.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Race Issues
Today the Supreme Court ruled that using race as a basis for school placement is unconstitutional. On the radio here in Seattle, many people were complaining that this new ruling is going to limit 'diversity' and create problems. I am not racist, far from it. I have tried hard to take to heart the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Throughout the history of the world, there have been race issues, humans tend to favor like humans, right or wrong, it happens. The US today has what are likely the best relations between races that the world has ever known, but when people like me who are trying (quite successfully) to look beyond race are being called 'racists' by the minority communities it is a little offensive. What more can I do? Diversity can be good, it can also be bad, but when lawmakers arbitrarily force it on us, it keeps the race wound wide open. We are at a legal point where you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, and I think that is a good thing. But to go any further we have to cross a line where we begin to legislate how people think, and that is a line that we must not cross, because if we do, it will bring resentment and hostility from both sides of the issue and, quite likely, take us back to many of the problems that we had in the 1950's and 60's. It is time to stop legislating, and lets just live for a while being grateful that we are doing better on race issues than any other culture in the history of the world. I think the Supreme Court ruled wisely. Race issues will only stop when we stop making race an issue.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Constitutional Basis For the Individual Right to Bear Arms
Few issues today hold as much passion and conviction as the gun-control debate. In the wake of high-profile tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech, the question of why Americans are allowed to own firearms is often asked. The answer to that question is in the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Although the Founding Fathers left some ambiguity in the text of the Second Amendment, they also left a clear dialog defining the intent with which they wrote it as well as the reasons that necessitated its existence. Those reason are still, in many respects, valid today. The writings of the Founding Fathers indicate that the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment was essential for national defense, freedom from tyranny, and self-preservation.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” reads the language of the amendment. As the Founding Fathers debated and contemplated which rights were to have constitutional guarantee, the right to keep and bear arms is among the first listed. It precedes Habeas Corpus, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and restrictions on the use of excessive punishment, among others. Despite the fierce and persistent debate regarding its meaning, it is clear that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right.
The first portion of this Amendment states the requirement for a “well regulated Militia.” This phrase seems to cause most of the disparity regarding how the “right to keep and bear arms” is interpreted. Those who oppose armed citizens view the Militia as a state entity, and the “right to keep and bear arms” as a collective, not an individual right. Conversely, those who support armed citizens believe the Militia is made up of private citizens, thereby making the “right to keep and bear arms” an individual right. Law professor Nelson Lund describes these differing viewpoints:
The debate over the original meaning of the Second Amendment has largely focused on the implications of the phrase “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . .” One group of commentators treats the phrase simply as a statement of purpose and maintains that the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Another group maintains that the Second Amendment creates an exclusively collective right—the right of the states to maintain organized military forces (Lund 2).
In a broad sense, it is mostly academics and lawyers who favor the collective right interpretation, while most average citizens favor the individual right interpretation (Lund 2). Even though it is mostly academics and lawyers who are in favor of a collective right, “The popularity of the ‘collective right’ interpretation should be surprising, since it is virtually baseless” (Lund 2).
In order to establish the basis for these two viewpoints, we draw our attention to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, an Article often cited by those who favor a collective right to bear arms, which reads that Congress has the power:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed to the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
When the Second Amendment is read with this portion of Article I, one could argue that the Militia spoken of is, in fact, the National Guard, and the Second Amendment protects the states right to maintain such. If one looked no further into the intent of the Founding Fathers, this would seem a strong and logical argument.
The National Guard, as we know it today, is an army, sworn to their respective state, and offered, upon request of Congress, to serve in the common defense. This is consistent with Section 8 of Article I, but the structure and organization the Guard has today did not exist at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Rather, it came shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. To understand what the Second Amendment was written to protect, it is not expedient to use the modern definition of a Militia, but the Founding Father’s.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the Militia” (216). Describing further the conditions by which this Militia operated he said, “The law requires every Militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service” (216). Jefferson’s statement indicates that at the time the Second Amendment was written, the Militia was made up of common citizens who provided their own arms. The Founder’s had been exposed to this type of Militia before.
During the French and Indian War (where many of the Founding Fathers received their military training), when the French, or native tribes loyal to them, would attack a particular settlement, the regular British Army would repel the attack with the assistance of the men who lived in that area. These men brought their own arms and fought under the command of the regular army to defend the settlement. At battle’s end, the men would return to their farms, having shared the burden of defense.
In light of this British template, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to call out the citizens to the common defense, and makes no reference to what we now call the National Guard. To answer any question of how this Militia was to be “well regulated,” we turn to George Washington, who in a speech to Congress on January 8, 1790 said:
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies (qtd. in Benson 174).
Article I section 8 describes this plan, which is, when the need arises, Congress calls on the citizens to gather up their arms and fight to uphold peace. The Founding Fathers held that the responsibility of national defense fell to the nation’s citizens and consequently those citizens ought to be armed, trained, disciplined, and organized.
Regarding national defense, the writings of the Founding Fathers isolate two threats from which the nation needs defense. The first of these is defense from foreign invasion and the second is defense against tyranny. In an address to Congress on December 8, 1801, illustrating the use of private citizens in the common defense, Thomas Jefferson said:
Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a Militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportional to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defense until regulars may be engaged to relieve them (505).
Jefferson again emphasizes that an armed citizenry constitute the Militia, and that this Militia is the first line of defense against foreign invasion. Illustrating the second threat, defense from tyranny, James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, number XLVI, states:
Besides the advantages of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of (301).
The words of both Jefferson and Madison illustrate the sentiment forged during the Revolutionary War. During that war, it was the Militias, made up of armed citizens, which successfully defeated the British army (the most powerful in the world). The efficacy of the Militia in overthrowing British tyranny influenced the Founding Fathers to protect the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms from regulation, as any regulation would pose a risk to the freedom and security of the nation and every citizen therein.
Self-defense is not expressly listed in the writings of the Founders as a reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms; Professor Lund explained that the Founding Fathers did not readily separate self-defense and national defense. This is likely because in the rural conditions that then existed in this country, the idea of limiting individual right to self-defense was unheard of. The Founding Fathers viewed the right to self-defense as more basic than freedom of speech, press, or jury trial, leaving no question that the Second Amendment was also drafted to insure the right to self-defense (Lund 6).
Viewing the Second Amendment in this historical light, the question next turns to what implications a constitutional guarantee for the right to keep and bear arms has today. Some might argue that this right is outdated. There are thousands of firearm related deaths each year and in the wake of tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech, do we really need or want an armed populace? The answer, again, is yes. The two stated and one implied reason for the Founding Father’s drafting the Second Amendment are still very valid today, perhaps more valid than they have ever been.
Our regular military forces have historically done a fine job of defending our boarders from foreign attack. However, the nature of war has changed, and what used to be large armies fighting off large armies, is now guerilla warfare and terrorism. While battlefields were once in rural Virginia, the islands of the pacific or the fields of Europe, today’s battles are fought in airplanes over Pennsylvania, the halls of a High School or the college classroom. These battles come without warning, and without the presence of the military or law enforcement, but the citizens are always present for these battles. When the citizens are armed, well trained, and disciplined, they make up the first, and often only, line of defense, refusing to be victims.
Protection from tyranny is the second purpose the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment. James Madison said, “Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” (301). His argument concluded with the idea that any government which fears its people with arms, is fast becoming tyrannical (301). Speaking further on our responsibility to recognize and defend against tyranny, Ezra Taft Benson, Former Secretary of Agriculture, said, “The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny” (129). History has given many examples of how this trend of complacency toward our rights to bear arms can open the door to tyranny. Here I cite three. First, Hitler disarmed the Jews so that they could not fight back as he began the Holocaust. Second, Fidel Castro disarmed the Cuban people after their revolution, thus allowing his dictatorship to continue. Third, and more recently, Hugo Chavez has turned a disarmed democracy into a Socialist dictatorship in a matter of months. No government can abolish the rights of armed citizens, and disarmed citizens cannot stop a government from taking rights.
The final, implied reason for the right to keep and bear arms is for personal defense. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence website, there are about 11,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States each year. This number includes all forms of firearm related death, homicide, suicide, accidental and unknown. This is a significant number of people, and the cost of the right to bear arms is called into question. When, however, the whole picture is viewed, the number is less dismal. There are approximately 200 million firearms legally owned by 70 million people in the United States (Schulman 48). Looking at the number of firearm related deaths compared to the number of firearms, the ratio is very low. Supporting this idea, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a study that found that firearms are used between 640,000 and 1.2 million times per year to prevent violent crime (Shulman 38). Firearms are used for self-defense and crime prevention at least 58 times more often than they are used to kill innocent people. We have seen the painful results of both the Columbine and Virginia Tech ‘gun-free zones,’ but we have also seen the how similar tragedies have been averted. An editorial printed in the Investor’s Business Daily reminds us of another school shooting in Virginia:
On Jan. 16, 2002 , a killer stalked the campus of the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., not far from the site of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. A disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and a student.
Two of the three law students who overpowered Peter Odighizuwa before he could kill more innocent victims were armed. Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, seeing the killing spree begin, went to their cars, retrieved their guns and used them to disarm the shooter.
Ordinary people, when armed, have shown the consistent ability to stop crimes and save lives. Because of this power to stop violence and defend freedom, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is essential to insuring the security of this nation.
As the debate over armed citizens continues, and we as a nation reflect on the tragedies we face in our times, it becomes expedient to remember that the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms to defend the nation, ourselves, and prevent tyranny. The Second Amendment is not outdated and dangerous, but rather a valid and essential protection for our freedom and the safety and security of every American.
References:
Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. London: Putnam, 1987.
Peterson, Merrill D. ed. Thomas Jefferson: Writings. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1984
Benson, Ezra Taft. An Enemy Hath Done This. Salt Lake City: Parliament, 1969.
Lund, Nelson. “The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and the Right to Self-Preservation.” Alabama Law Review 39 (1987): 103-130.
Schulman, J. Neil. Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns. Santa Monica: Synapse-Centurion, 1994.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Home Page. 29 Apr. 2007.
“Unarmed and Dangerous.” Investor’s Business Daily. 19 Apr. 2007. 04 May 2007.
The Constitution of the United States.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.
Few issues today hold as much passion and conviction as the gun-control debate. In the wake of high-profile tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech, the question of why Americans are allowed to own firearms is often asked. The answer to that question is in the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Although the Founding Fathers left some ambiguity in the text of the Second Amendment, they also left a clear dialog defining the intent with which they wrote it as well as the reasons that necessitated its existence. Those reason are still, in many respects, valid today. The writings of the Founding Fathers indicate that the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment was essential for national defense, freedom from tyranny, and self-preservation.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” reads the language of the amendment. As the Founding Fathers debated and contemplated which rights were to have constitutional guarantee, the right to keep and bear arms is among the first listed. It precedes Habeas Corpus, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and restrictions on the use of excessive punishment, among others. Despite the fierce and persistent debate regarding its meaning, it is clear that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right.
The first portion of this Amendment states the requirement for a “well regulated Militia.” This phrase seems to cause most of the disparity regarding how the “right to keep and bear arms” is interpreted. Those who oppose armed citizens view the Militia as a state entity, and the “right to keep and bear arms” as a collective, not an individual right. Conversely, those who support armed citizens believe the Militia is made up of private citizens, thereby making the “right to keep and bear arms” an individual right. Law professor Nelson Lund describes these differing viewpoints:
The debate over the original meaning of the Second Amendment has largely focused on the implications of the phrase “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . .” One group of commentators treats the phrase simply as a statement of purpose and maintains that the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Another group maintains that the Second Amendment creates an exclusively collective right—the right of the states to maintain organized military forces (Lund 2).
In a broad sense, it is mostly academics and lawyers who favor the collective right interpretation, while most average citizens favor the individual right interpretation (Lund 2). Even though it is mostly academics and lawyers who are in favor of a collective right, “The popularity of the ‘collective right’ interpretation should be surprising, since it is virtually baseless” (Lund 2).
In order to establish the basis for these two viewpoints, we draw our attention to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, an Article often cited by those who favor a collective right to bear arms, which reads that Congress has the power:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed to the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
When the Second Amendment is read with this portion of Article I, one could argue that the Militia spoken of is, in fact, the National Guard, and the Second Amendment protects the states right to maintain such. If one looked no further into the intent of the Founding Fathers, this would seem a strong and logical argument.
The National Guard, as we know it today, is an army, sworn to their respective state, and offered, upon request of Congress, to serve in the common defense. This is consistent with Section 8 of Article I, but the structure and organization the Guard has today did not exist at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Rather, it came shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. To understand what the Second Amendment was written to protect, it is not expedient to use the modern definition of a Militia, but the Founding Father’s.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the Militia” (216). Describing further the conditions by which this Militia operated he said, “The law requires every Militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service” (216). Jefferson’s statement indicates that at the time the Second Amendment was written, the Militia was made up of common citizens who provided their own arms. The Founder’s had been exposed to this type of Militia before.
During the French and Indian War (where many of the Founding Fathers received their military training), when the French, or native tribes loyal to them, would attack a particular settlement, the regular British Army would repel the attack with the assistance of the men who lived in that area. These men brought their own arms and fought under the command of the regular army to defend the settlement. At battle’s end, the men would return to their farms, having shared the burden of defense.
In light of this British template, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to call out the citizens to the common defense, and makes no reference to what we now call the National Guard. To answer any question of how this Militia was to be “well regulated,” we turn to George Washington, who in a speech to Congress on January 8, 1790 said:
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies (qtd. in Benson 174).
Article I section 8 describes this plan, which is, when the need arises, Congress calls on the citizens to gather up their arms and fight to uphold peace. The Founding Fathers held that the responsibility of national defense fell to the nation’s citizens and consequently those citizens ought to be armed, trained, disciplined, and organized.
Regarding national defense, the writings of the Founding Fathers isolate two threats from which the nation needs defense. The first of these is defense from foreign invasion and the second is defense against tyranny. In an address to Congress on December 8, 1801, illustrating the use of private citizens in the common defense, Thomas Jefferson said:
Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a Militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportional to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defense until regulars may be engaged to relieve them (505).
Jefferson again emphasizes that an armed citizenry constitute the Militia, and that this Militia is the first line of defense against foreign invasion. Illustrating the second threat, defense from tyranny, James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, number XLVI, states:
Besides the advantages of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of (301).
The words of both Jefferson and Madison illustrate the sentiment forged during the Revolutionary War. During that war, it was the Militias, made up of armed citizens, which successfully defeated the British army (the most powerful in the world). The efficacy of the Militia in overthrowing British tyranny influenced the Founding Fathers to protect the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms from regulation, as any regulation would pose a risk to the freedom and security of the nation and every citizen therein.
Self-defense is not expressly listed in the writings of the Founders as a reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms; Professor Lund explained that the Founding Fathers did not readily separate self-defense and national defense. This is likely because in the rural conditions that then existed in this country, the idea of limiting individual right to self-defense was unheard of. The Founding Fathers viewed the right to self-defense as more basic than freedom of speech, press, or jury trial, leaving no question that the Second Amendment was also drafted to insure the right to self-defense (Lund 6).
Viewing the Second Amendment in this historical light, the question next turns to what implications a constitutional guarantee for the right to keep and bear arms has today. Some might argue that this right is outdated. There are thousands of firearm related deaths each year and in the wake of tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech, do we really need or want an armed populace? The answer, again, is yes. The two stated and one implied reason for the Founding Father’s drafting the Second Amendment are still very valid today, perhaps more valid than they have ever been.
Our regular military forces have historically done a fine job of defending our boarders from foreign attack. However, the nature of war has changed, and what used to be large armies fighting off large armies, is now guerilla warfare and terrorism. While battlefields were once in rural Virginia, the islands of the pacific or the fields of Europe, today’s battles are fought in airplanes over Pennsylvania, the halls of a High School or the college classroom. These battles come without warning, and without the presence of the military or law enforcement, but the citizens are always present for these battles. When the citizens are armed, well trained, and disciplined, they make up the first, and often only, line of defense, refusing to be victims.
Protection from tyranny is the second purpose the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment. James Madison said, “Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” (301). His argument concluded with the idea that any government which fears its people with arms, is fast becoming tyrannical (301). Speaking further on our responsibility to recognize and defend against tyranny, Ezra Taft Benson, Former Secretary of Agriculture, said, “The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny” (129). History has given many examples of how this trend of complacency toward our rights to bear arms can open the door to tyranny. Here I cite three. First, Hitler disarmed the Jews so that they could not fight back as he began the Holocaust. Second, Fidel Castro disarmed the Cuban people after their revolution, thus allowing his dictatorship to continue. Third, and more recently, Hugo Chavez has turned a disarmed democracy into a Socialist dictatorship in a matter of months. No government can abolish the rights of armed citizens, and disarmed citizens cannot stop a government from taking rights.
The final, implied reason for the right to keep and bear arms is for personal defense. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence website, there are about 11,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States each year. This number includes all forms of firearm related death, homicide, suicide, accidental and unknown. This is a significant number of people, and the cost of the right to bear arms is called into question. When, however, the whole picture is viewed, the number is less dismal. There are approximately 200 million firearms legally owned by 70 million people in the United States (Schulman 48). Looking at the number of firearm related deaths compared to the number of firearms, the ratio is very low. Supporting this idea, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a study that found that firearms are used between 640,000 and 1.2 million times per year to prevent violent crime (Shulman 38). Firearms are used for self-defense and crime prevention at least 58 times more often than they are used to kill innocent people. We have seen the painful results of both the Columbine and Virginia Tech ‘gun-free zones,’ but we have also seen the how similar tragedies have been averted. An editorial printed in the Investor’s Business Daily reminds us of another school shooting in Virginia:
On Jan. 16, 2002 , a killer stalked the campus of the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., not far from the site of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. A disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and a student.
Two of the three law students who overpowered Peter Odighizuwa before he could kill more innocent victims were armed. Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, seeing the killing spree begin, went to their cars, retrieved their guns and used them to disarm the shooter.
Ordinary people, when armed, have shown the consistent ability to stop crimes and save lives. Because of this power to stop violence and defend freedom, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is essential to insuring the security of this nation.
As the debate over armed citizens continues, and we as a nation reflect on the tragedies we face in our times, it becomes expedient to remember that the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms to defend the nation, ourselves, and prevent tyranny. The Second Amendment is not outdated and dangerous, but rather a valid and essential protection for our freedom and the safety and security of every American.
References:
Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. London: Putnam, 1987.
Peterson, Merrill D. ed. Thomas Jefferson: Writings. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1984
Benson, Ezra Taft. An Enemy Hath Done This. Salt Lake City: Parliament, 1969.
Lund, Nelson. “The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and the Right to Self-Preservation.” Alabama Law Review 39 (1987): 103-130.
Schulman, J. Neil. Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns. Santa Monica: Synapse-Centurion, 1994.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Home Page. 29 Apr. 2007.
“Unarmed and Dangerous.” Investor’s Business Daily. 19 Apr. 2007. 04 May 2007.
The Constitution of the United States.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)