Brother, Can You Spare A Gun?

The second amendment to the Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This one sentence amendment has created quite a bit of consternation in efforts to exact the meaning that our forefathers tried to impart. Unfortunately, in attempting to understand what “the right to bear arms” means, there is a tendency to interpret parts of this sentence instead of the sentence as a whole. Further, the historical context in which this idea was created and the technological advances in “arms” over the years are not always considered when interpreting this American “right.” The truth of the matter is that the second amendment is not about the right of the individual; it is about national security and the importance of citizen involvement in keeping the nation secure. Let me explain…

A quick look back at the history will reveal that this amendment was first added in the 1780’s. This was a time when America had just achieved independence from England. However, the new government was in debt and could not afford to accommodate a large, standing defense force for protection. As such, it was vital for each state to maintain a militia, or local armed force, to aid in protecting the nation. In addition to providing protection for the nation as a whole, states and citizens benefited from this arrangement because the state militias would also serve as a barrier against a federal government seeking to grow too powerful. Finally, as many citizens already owned firearms for the purpose of hunting and protection (remember that America was a wilderness nation without supermarkets or drive through windows), this amendment was a practical method of preventing thousands of people from becoming criminals overnight.

In the 1780’s, this kind of reasoning made perfect sense, both practically and financially, and the technology of firearms was still in its infancy. Single shot rifles and pistols, while potentially deadly, were simply too cumbersome and inaccurate to be a real threat to the general public. Their best use was in hunting game, when one could be patient, or when combined with many similar weapons on the battlefield, where they could repel an invading army through sheer number. The founding fathers could no more imagine multiple shot firearms with precision accuracy over thousands of yards anymore than they could envision television or genetically altered grains. They did not imagine a world filled with dangerous weapons that had the capability to kill dozens of people in the beat of a heart. They simply wanted to assure the citizenry that the common defense of the nation was a shared obligation, and as such, the permission to keep weapons for that purpose was a privilege and a right.

Fast forward a hundred years, and the advances in technology and the growth of the United States reveal a new attitude and interpretation of the second amendment. As America’s territory grew, so did its need for a more permanent defense force. As America grew, its productivity advanced its economic growth. So by the 1880’s we now had a larger national defense force of permanent standing that was supported, outfitted and regulated by the national government. State militias still existed, but their function transformed from being the first line of defense to being the back-up players, assisting state enforcement agencies in times of civil unrest or natural disaster. Modernization of the factory combined with technical advancements in design also occurred in this era, combining to create more powerful, easier to use firearms in greater numbers than ever before. Unfortunately, better firearms meant that their usefulness for criminal activities was greater than in the past, and many outlaws thrived behind the power of a six-shooter. All of a sudden, the right to bear arms had become the right to wield power and the benevolence of the second amendment ceased to exist. No longer did the right to bear arms have anything to do with maintaining national security by means of a citizen defense force. Now the right to bear arms meant that you could have your guns for any reason at all and nobody could tell you otherwise. If they did, well then they just might have a chat with Mr. Colt himself. And I’m not talking about old Samuel.

Another skip forward to today reveals how far removed we are from the time of the creation of the second amendment. Our national defense budget is one of our greatest expenditures. Firearms are more deadly, accurate, and available than ever before. Criminal use of firearms as a choice weapon has become epidemic. Accidental firearm deaths are not uncommon. And the advances in gun technology are not in the area of safety but in the area of efficiency. Efficiency, meaning more deadly. In today’s world, what do you think the writers of our Constitution would have to say about the “right to bear arms?”

I’m sure that by now you have gotten the impression that I am an anti-gun advocate. The truth is that I am nothing of the kind. I have owned guns. I have used guns. I know many people who have and use guns. At times, I really enjoy firing off some rounds at a target. Further, I support the notion that gun ownership is a protected right under our Constitution. But I do not believe that it is an absolute right unto itself. The ability to own and use deadly weapons should carry with it certain obligations. And the manufacturers of deadly weapons should be held to strict guidelines before they can offer their wares to the public or to other nations. In that spirit, I offer the following reforms regarding our national gun policy.

With regards to individual ownership of guns (I know that some of these are already part of the law, but to be as inclusive as possible, I will list them again): Sales of guns should be limited to adult individuals of military service age; all firearms should be registered with the government, including the weapon type, the name of the owner, and the state in which the owner lives; all firearms owners should be registered with a state militia and trained in the defensive uses of firearms; all gun sales, including guns sold on the secondary market, should include an individual criminal background check; no gun should be sold to any individual who has not completed a gun safety course prior to purchase; no felon who was convicted of using a gun in a crime should be allowed to purchase a gun again, and any gun used in a criminal act should be destroyed once its use as evidence has concluded.

With regards to the manufacturing end of the gun issue, advances in technology should be implemented into all firearms to prevent accidental shootings. This “smart technology” should include individual biometric identification that would prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than its registered owner; smart technology should prevent a gun from working until its owner has registered the weapon at a government certification center and had their biometric information encoded into the gun; resold guns should be recoded upon transfer; each gun should have an individual identification number that is registered upon sale; civilian firearms should be limited to a 9 shot magazine and hunting rifles should be limited to a 3 shot magazine, because 9 shots should be ample for defense and if you can’t hit an animal in 3 shots, maybe you shouldn’t be hunting. Finally, all American gun sales to foreign agents must be regulated by the government to insure that weaponry does not fall into the hands of people who would use them against us.

The right to bear and keep arms is also a duty to be a responsible citizen. No one is forced to buy a gun, but everyone who does buy one should be required to follow some simple rules for the common safety. Those who would rail against reforms in gun laws would have you believe that they have the right to unfettered gun access, but that is not true and that concept can’t be logically inferred from the second amendment.

The Effects of Immigration on National Security

One of the gaping holes in America’s national security network is unchecked illegal immigration. If this were only a problem of presenting an opportunity for enemy agents to gain entry into the country, that would still be too much. But the inability of the government to eliminate illegal immigration also plays havoc on the economic stability of the states and overwhelms the social infrastructure and services to the detriment of legal citizens. The alarming number of criminal illegal immigrants is enough to start a mini-insurrection on their own, and the agencies that are supposed to protect and serve stand idly by and watch it all happen. And those otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants present a drain on the public systems of health, education, and infrastructure that are paid for and rightly expected by the legal residents of this country. This sense people have of being overrun in their own cities and states would not bode well for the masters in the Capitol should the people lose faith in the governments ability to protect the national integrity and feel the need to take matters into their own hands. The result would be nothing short of chaotic and result in the corrosion of national security.

America, as everyone should know, was founded by immigrants, fueled by immigrants, and culturally formed by immigrants from all over the world. Without immigration, America would not be the country that it is today. Americans recognize these facts, even if they aren’t eager to embrace them. But talk to anyone about their family heritage, and one of the first things you’ll probably hear is some kind of statement regarding familial ancestry that originated in another part of the world. Since its origins, the United States has acted as a beacon to immigrants who sought out a new life for themselves and their families, and this beacon is still shining brightly today. Yet regardless of the individual reasons for immigrating, the American government’s immigration policies through the years have not been based on the ideas of enlarging personal prosperity for the down trodden of the world, but have instead been based on the needs of American business prosperity and expansion. We may pay lip service to the notion that America welcomes all comers with open arms, but the realities of immigration policy increasingly stem from an unhealthy disregard for the security of ordinary Americans in favor of corporate profit.

Any discussion about immigration, both legal and illegal, must first define the purpose for allowing immigration at all. Politically speaking, immigration makes sense for a government seeking to rapidly increase national or regional population growth, usually in response to the acquisition of new territory. But the United States has not expanded her borders in some time now, so this reasoning does not apply. Sociologically speaking, immigration makes sense when a nation is seeking to balance its racial populations, but as the United States has always been a diverse mixture of ethnic and nationalistic people, this has never been a rationale for immigration policy. (True, immigration quotas do reek of racial motivations, but those rules have had ever changing standards and thus can’t be construed as coming from any sort of lasting ideological policies.) From a humanitarian viewpoint, immigration becomes necessary to assist oppressed people achieve freedom, and this is one of the pillars of U.S. immigration policy today. This seems odd though, in light of our newly reinvigorated goal of taking freedom and democracy to the oppressed countries of the world. Given that objective, we should hope that fewer immigrants come to America seeking these qualities when we want them to instill them in their homelands. Surely if all those who ache for freedom abandon their countries to find it, who will be left to spread those ideals when freedom chances to come knocking? That leaves only the economic reasons for encouraging immigration. Unfortunately, money often speaks loudest and always speaks for itself. The economic benefactors of immigration are not those who come from poverty stricken lands in search of prosperity, but instead are the corporations who lure them in with wages that are much greater than they could earn at home but are still poverty wages in this country. As this rationale for immigration is based solely on corporate greed it fails to meet the test for reasoned public policy.

So I have to ask, in today’s world, what does immigration, legal or illegal, have to offer America? And at a time when fanatical enemies are seeking to destroy our way of life, what effect do our immigration policies have on the effectiveness of national security? The answer to both questions, though far from being politically correct, is nothing. Not a thing. And that means that it’s time to revisit our immigration policies and make some adjustments that better reflect realities in America and the world today.

For starters, the U.S. government should announce a temporary moratorium on all immigration. This may seem like a drastic first step, but until the government can establish policy that is cohesive and equitable, and that addresses American needs and goals abroad, America should hang the “Out to Lunch” sign on the door and lock up for a bit. In doing so, our government should make clear that our reason for such an action stems from our own security concerns as well as the necessity to protect the resources of the American taxpayers. In reality, the immigration policies of most nations are very strict in comparison to our own, so any cries of foul play will likely be coming from hypocritical mouths and should be given little attention.

Secondly, our physical borders should be secured much as I wrote about in my essay A Line In The Sand. Such actions would have the effect of reducing the entry of illegal immigrants, which is the most likely path of infiltration for foreign enemies or other people with criminal histories. In addition, any illegal immigrants that do get apprehended should face immediate deportation to their country of origin with the understanding that they will be dealt with by the law in their home country. It is not enough to defend our borders; we must also demand cooperation from any of our allies when repatriating their citizens.

Thirdly, we must work with the poorer nations of the world so that their citizens will not look at immigration to the U.S. as their only chance at freedom and prosperity. We must assist them in developing their infrastructure and upgrading their health and educational systems. We must encourage them to use their countries resources for the benefit of their people and help them to make the right choices. We have to understand that immigration is usually the last best choice for a person to make. Only when the situation at home seems hopeless do people leave all that they know and love behind forever. The best way to curb immigration, especially illegal immigration, is to help establish security abroad.

Finally, we must find all those people who are currently here illegally, ascertain their identities and their purpose for being here, and return them to their home countries or legalize them unless they are enemy agents. We must enforce the laws against companies the employ illegal immigrants and we must strengthen our citizenship identification programs. We must develop an interim plan for foreign tourism and international business travel, and we must create a separate plan to accommodate those seeking political asylum.

Americans generally have no problems with accepting legal immigrants into their communities, because we understand that immigration is a shared cultural phenomenon. Though most of today’s citizens have had the good fortune to be born in America, many millions are just a generation or three from the tales of their grandparents who walked across hostile territory or sailed an angry ocean to reach these shores. But America is also a country based on the rule of law, and when people arrive in this country by circumventing our immigration laws, we become angry, and, I think, rightly so. Unfortunately, our anger is often misplaced as we turn against the people who only want a better life for their families. More appropriately, we should direct our ire at the governmental policies that have created confusing and ideologically bankrupt immigration standards.

As the nations of the world become more and more interdependent, and as governments exchange animosity and deception for the shared principals of human freedom and self-rule, the need or desire for immigration should naturally recede. Reduced immigration has many benefits including decreased social and enforcement costs for inundated nations, the retention of human resources and national dedication for developing nations, and better security for all nations. These should be the goals of immigration policy in America, not cheaper lettuce or bigger corporate profits.

You Call That Intelligence?

Knowledge is power. Knowledge is empowering. To the casual observer, these two statements may seem to be saying the same thing. But if you look closer, and try to understand the difference between these two thoughts, you will see that they in fact are two diametrically opposed ideas. The former implies that control is the purpose for gaining information. The latter implies that gaining information is for personal freedom. The former conceals knowledge to maintain its control. The latter seeks out knowledge to eliminate secrecy and mistrust. The former is the tool of governments. The latter is the tool of humanity. Understanding this difference is important when looking at the reasoning and methodology of national intelligence goals and their effect on national security.

National security exists for one simple reason: governments, even stated allies, do not trust each other. This lack of trust stems directly from a lack of knowledge. In order to gain information about other nations, governments have created “intelligence” agencies to gain knowledge surreptitiously. At the same time, government uses their agencies to conceal their own actions from other nations, thus limiting their knowledge. Sadly, this circular effort is self-defeating and only serves to deepen the mistrust between governments rather than minimize it. Human nature is such that we are suspicious of what we don’t know, and governments amplify that element of humanity exponentially.

There is another reason that governments mistrust each other. At face value, there are two types of governments. Although they appear is slightly different forms, you have governments that support individual freedom and governments that rule by oppression. These doctrines are incompatible. Free societies assume that oppressed societies are not oppressed by choice and take as their mission the expansion of freedom. Rivalry is natural. Conflict is inevitable. In this instance, lack of knowledge can have devastating consequences for the citizens of both nations, regular people who value freedom. So in order to reduce harm, the gaining of knowledge becomes very important to national security.

The goal then becomes reforming our current intelligence apparatus from one made up of competing agencies with conflicting missions to one that increases our knowledge of our foes and decreases mistrust among our allies. It should be forthright with the public and diligent in its accuracy. It should always seek to increase our national security by decreasing our need for it.

The practical mechanics then would require a scrapping of the current cadre of intelligence agencies in favor of a three-tiered system: an “enemy intelligence” agency, an “alliance intelligence” agency, and a “public information” agency. They would not operate independently of each other, but would work in concert to reduce threats and increase alliances through a variety of methods.

Let’s begin with the “enemy intelligence agency.” The definition of an enemy would obviously include any nation or group that has attacked our country directly or targeted our people indiscriminately. But just as it would be a mistake to include every country that disagreed with us, so too would it be a mistake to exclude all countries that use oppression and belligerence to sustain power, for these could be enemies in the wings. But instead of relying on our own individual efforts, the gathering of this type of intelligence benefits all nations based on free principals. As such, we should coordinate our efforts and share our resources in acquiring this information. All gained knowledge could go to a central clearinghouse for verification and dissemination. To do so would reduce conflicting information between allied nations resulting in cohesive strategies for confronting adversity. It would also have the effect of significantly decreasing the overall cost of acquiring the knowledge itself. Nations could share the tools, the training, the costs, and the knowledge together, building not only a stronger alliance, but demolishing the secrecy that breeds distrust. America should spearhead the creation of such an agency with candor and with urgency.

The “alliance intelligence agency,” in addition to agreeing to coordinate information on foes, would primarily be used as a tool for information sharing between friendly nations, but it could also be used to lure new nations to the table. Such an agency would serve as a forum for nations to share advances in technology and medicine, helping to end the disparity between richer and poorer countries. This embraces the concept of knowledge being empowering. Alliances would be based not only on the need for resources and protection, but by a common desire to better the lives of people through the expansion of knowledge. By openly exchanging concepts and knowledge, societies could improve productivity and health standards, as well as gaining understanding of different cultural beliefs. And by seeing the benefits of belonging to such an alliance, some less than friendly nations may be pressured by their citizens to change their ways so that they could enjoy the advances of humanity. This agency would seek to impart the benefits of free society without imposing a specific morality beyond that which embraces personal freedom and societal security. This ensures that cultural traditions would continue to grow with the new knowledge, not be discarded because of it. More trust building through validation, which is never a bad thing.

Finally, the “public information agency” would be that part of the intelligence apparatus that reports to the public those goals it seeks to achieve, and the progress it is making. This is perhaps the most important element of a successful intelligence network. Since governments in free societies derive their power from the citizenry, it is imperative that those citizens trust their government. To achieve this trust, government must strive to become more transparent in their goals and the means they use to get there. Such openness would reduce the element of intrigue and end unnecessary speculation among average people. It would have the effect of combating misinformation by laying the details out in the open. It would free government from having to decide what people “need to know,” by telling them what is known, and allowing them to make informed conclusions of their own. With all citizens getting the same accurate and unembellished information, unnecessary nationalistic rivalries would melt away.

The current “intelligence reform” in the US Government does nothing to increase the quality or level of intelligence in our country, and as such does little to increase our security in the long term. While we may be succeeding in reducing the number of attacks against us at the time, our practices of using information for power, rather that to empower, will only succeed in elongating this period of international strife. With the battle between freedom and oppression currently being waged, it is in our best interest, and the best interest of people everywhere, to cultivate real and lasting alliances in order to ensure that more societies become free. Achieving that would be a real sign of intelligence.