Guns: To What Extent? - Publicus

While the issue of gun control has been a hot topic among Liberals and Conservatives for the longest time, the real dispute here seems to be over whether assault weapons and other "weapons of mass death" should be allowed in the home. There is overwhelming evidence that keeping a handgun or rifle in a household is conducive to peace of mind, so while that's still a very interesting topic, both Civis and I agree on the matter, making it not a very interesting debate at all.

Personally, I agree with Civis to some extent on the matter of assault weapons. Assault weapons, which are firearms that have been developed from earlier fully-automatics into semi-automatic civilian versions, are slightly over-the-top: you don't buy ten gallons of paint if you only want to paint one chair. Regardless, the issue becomes one of personal liberty.

In 2001, criminologists Koper and Roth published a paper titled "The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation," in which they found that "any likely effects from the ban will be very difficult to detect statistically for several more years." Also, they "found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations." If this study is true in stating that a ban on assault rifles doesn't significantly change homicide rates, there is no reason why people shouldn't be allowed them in their homes.

While, as stated before, assault rifles are superfluous to most civilians, they should not be banned so long as they provide no serious threat to one's security, which, as of yet, they do not. Assault weapons do not have a particular bloody history in civilian use, and there is no reason they should. As long as treated with respect, as any gun deserves, there is no reason why they should not be allowed into the hands of collectors and avid marksmen.

Gun Rights? - Civis

It's been nearly a month since we last posted here at the American Discourse blog, we apologize. Fortunately, we're back; this time with the topic of gun rights.

One thing I'm not going to do here is to be the over-the-top liberal who says we should take away all the guns and dispose of them. In reality, that's as ridiculous as trying to outlaw abortions. However, just as 3rd trimester abortions should be decreased, so should the proliferation of large assault weapons.

Perhaps this is an appropriate point to discuss the 2nd Amendment. The text is as follows: "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." So clearly, this means that a large segment of society should have large lethal automatic guns I don't understand how that conclusion can be made. I firmly believe that this amendment is granting the people to posess medium to small sized handguns, that are of course lethal, but not able to automatically fire dozens and dozens of rounds per minute. This amendment guarantees a "militia," which in my opinion is definitely not the group today known as "The Minutemen" operating at the border.

What I think needs to be done is a total ban on certain assault weapons. I don't mean some pistol a reasonable person keeps in their closet to protect themselves. That's absolutely fine and should be encouraged. Things that can kill more people in the same timeframe as grenades shouldn't be legally available in the U.S. market. There's a reason we don't allow people to purchase grenades. Then why can people buy more violent and powerful weapons? If this ban isn't possible (right now it is not politically, despite Democratic majorities in both houses, interestingly), then at the very least these weapons should be made extremely difficult to obtain.

Everyone has an absolute right to own a reasonably sized gun for protection. But the Constitution has never guaranteed weapons of mass death for any citizen.

Obama: Less than Expected - Publicus

The fact that the election of a black president was a momentous occasion for the people of the Untied States, one that truly portrayed the American Dream, must be taken into account by both Democrats and Republicans. However, now that we have overcome this racial obstacle, it is time for the American people, as direct upholders of their government, to question what the head of the executive office has actually done in his tenure so far. Without twisting facts, Obama was elected at a rough period within our history and it should be well known that it takes time to germinate change. Despite this, Obama has made less than stellar attempts to progress our country in the way that he promised during his election campaign.

Democratic presidents have always been good at improving the foreign outlook on the U.S.A., but have never been good at standing up for what is best for the American people. Still, we must credit President Obama for dealing with international affairs in a prudent manner. He knows when he will win a situation and when he won't. A prime example was the abandonment of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe which warmed ties with Russia, a powerful player in the region and a necessary pawn in the preservation of regional American interests. Also, abandonment aided in the retardation of the Islamo-Facist Theocracy of Iran's nuclear endeavors, which greatly threatened our ally Israel and the sanctity of world peace.

His domestic policies, on the other hand, are lacking. Obama has been in office for ten months and has nothing to show for it. It seems he has simply neglected the issues surrounding illegal immigration and, despite raising taxes, he's not done much in the way of fixing our healthcare system either. While his stimulus bills was not something we as conservatives wanted to see, Obama at least was acting on his goals.

While we realize that running a nation isn't as easy as it seems, I speak for us all when I say that we would like to see SOMETHING done. With pressing issues concerning national debt, immigration, healthcare, terrorism, and more, we realize that it may be difficult to make the right decisions, but attempts must be made. Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, while they didn't always make prudent decisions, at least truly believed their actions were for the best of our country. I was hoping we could at least expect this from President Obama, but he's not acting at all. I didn't support Obama in the last election, and I still don't, but he has four years to change my mind. I truly hope he does.

Obama gets a B- from the Left - Civis

Obama has failed the left. 

Yes, I am a liberal. And I do support Obama and most of his

initiatives.

However, I have been disappointed by his accomplishments, or 

rather lack thereof, so far this year. 

SNL, quite appropriately, called him out on the issue.

The truth is, SNL is right on this. Unfortunately, the honeymoon 

period from last November is ending. And he has little to show for it. 

The SNL skit summed up everything he's failed to do. Today, men and women who are desperately willing to serve their country are being 

forced to leave because they want to openly serve. Obama has the 

power, at least temporarily (this means weeks, or longer) to suspend DADT. He has used the bully pulpit in Congress to encourage the 

Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed, nor has he done so for 

financial (regulatory) reform, which has become very neglected. The 

list simply goes on and on. I can't list 6 things he's done. The Lily 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was good, but within his first two weeks as 

Commander n' Chief. And then there's the stimulus, budget and 

TARP. He also repealed the Exec. Order on stem cell research.

There's only five.

Obama turned out to be an extremely moderate president, the only

liberal thing about him is his "encouragement" for the public option.

But he can redeem himself. He's needs to work on gay rights, address civil liberties (seriously), do SOME regulatory reform, sign a 

healthcare bill but only one WITH a public option, close Gitmo 

(actually), end the wars before 2012 ends. I'm convinced that if he can end both wars swiftly and safely and bring Americans to at least some form of pubic healthcare, he will be regarded as one of the top seven 

presidents in American history.

So, for now, a B minus. It's not horrible, but if he's gonna pass, then 

he can't let it slip much further.

Illegal Immigration: Fact vs. Fiction -Civis

In Mexico, all immigrants must speak Spanish (no government business will be conducted in English!); all immigrants must be investors or professionals; there are no bilingual programs in the schools; no immigrant may protest, hold substantial amounts of property (and no coastal property); and if they do decide to invest, it must be 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. 

We should obviously adopt all of those convenient laws. If Mexico is doing this, then so should we ... right?

I feel a proper rebuttal to that idea can be three words: America isn't Mexico. Mexican restrictions on labor don't seem to have satisfied their economic concerns so much as they've satisfied Mexican contempt for Guatemala. And the idea of using one language for all government business in America is not respectful to history nor culturally inclusive. Furthermore, the implication of some conservatives that English is America's native language is downright humorous. I'm pretty sure a multitude of languages were spoken here before English. You know, the languages of those other societies we just sort of brushed aside. The conservative fear of Spanish becoming the dominant language in America is simply ungrounded.

What makes immigration, especially of the illegal variety, such a volatile topic is its racial, economic, and (therefore) political implications. But beyond any of these three reasons is the ultimate fear, one that conservatives (and their political ancestors) have perpetuated for longer than America’s existence as a nation: fear of losing one’s cultural identity. The most prominent early organized group of this belief system were the Know-Nothings, belonging to the so-called “American Party.” Their problem with immigration was the influx of German and Irish Catholics. I happen to have exactly that--extensive German and Irish (and Catholic) ancestry on both sides of my family. Back then, in the 1850’s, religious divisions between Catholics and Protestants were about as deep as race was in the 1960’s. If the Know-Nothings were correct then I should belong to a very separate, isolated section of society. But somehow I am an equal citizen. The Know-Nothings were wrong about immigration; as are their their descendants; as so will be the future of this radical group. 

All of the Irish immigrants in this period were poor, uneducated, and unskilled (beyond being farmers of potatoes). Consequently, they were perceived as riffraff, stupid, and lazy. They came seeking a new life, with vigor and hope, and often met rude ethnocentrism. The only two differences between these Irish immigrants and those presently from Central America are race, and sometimes, the legality of the immigration.  Let me be clear: I am vehemently opposed to illegal immigration. It violates and undermines codified law, which does not seem to be in line with seeking a new, prosperous American life. In my opinion, it seems to act in favor of economic benefit versus forming a new personal national identity. This is why permanent residence must be a secure option if we are actually seeking a unified America, to any degree. Immigrants will ultimately come as long as the economic difference between the U.S. and Mexico exists; and that difference is definitely here to stay. If one fears the division of America based on ethnic, cultural, or social lines, then the worst possible thing to do is to exclude. Historically while immigration may have fluctuated, assimilation always continued to increase. Irish Catholic and German Catholic immigrants were eventually accepted into society, they moved into better neighborhoods, and went to better schools. And therein lies the solution.

First, the channels of legal immigration need to be expanded, substantially. Waiting 14 years, taking an exam most Americans can’t even pass, taking an oath, and finishing numerous other requirements seem ridiculous to protect something as arbitrary as birth. Make the path to naturalization only 6 years, simplify the exam to actual standards that Americans can pass, do a reasonable background check, and finish it up with an oath. Remember, it is only hardworking, motivated individuals applying for naturalization, not the criminals running drug operations. 

The second step may sound the most simple but is the most difficult: reduce violence at the border. This is a dangerous process because often an increase in police activity aggravates more criminal resistance. This will have to be legislated wisely. 

The final step is one that cannot be legislated, because it works with the very momentum of history. Americans must forge a future where all are included. This means an accepting tone at the workplace, tolerance in our schools, and inclusion at the voting booth. 

Let me finish up with this: the misperception that immigrants hurt America is wrong because it does not take into account that as we include them into American society, they eventually become more well-off. History will take its course; those in the future will look back and see our America as scarcely different than their America. Hopefully, the past they see will be one in which Americans worked together to form their own vision, where tolerance and inclusion will take precedence over the exclusion and cultural division those on the right advocate.