To Bear Arms, or Not to Bear Arms...

Now that I've gotten everyone's attention with my first blog entry, it's time to share my thoughts and beliefs in a more casual, personal format. In order to gain a little credibility with my readers, (all five of them) I felt I had to begin my blog with "Obama is No King". The article is current, provocative, and informative, hopefully. In that spirit, I should like to share some thoughts I have about an equally provocative issue: gun control. This entry will serve, in part, to respond to one posted by my younger brother, Michael. Secondly, it will reveal why for someone who really doesn't do a lot of hunting or shooting, I side emphatically against the registration and restriction of both the ownership, and carry of firearms, whether in Canada, the United States, or any other country in the world.

Allow me to open by referring back to Michael's post, entitled, "Thoughts from American Heritage: The Problem of Evil in Government". In it, he discusses two differing views on how people are to best govern, or be governed, and uses an analogy of two children fighting over the last piece of cake. The mother of the two boys, wanting to teach them to get along, struggles to determine the best way to help. Referring to the views held respectively by Plato, and Aristotle, Michael reckons that Plato would have allowed the children to portion the cake themselves, relying on their innately virtuous inclinations to conduct themselves fairly. Aristotle on the other hand, would have organized a system of checks and balances, wherein one child would be given the opportunity to divide the cake, but the other would be allowed to choose which piece he wanted, thereby utilizing the former child's own self-interest to force a fair outcome. Michael then makes an accurately clever statement about the dangers of giving a knife to one of two angry quarreling children. I will carry this statement forward shortly. Michael gives his belief (which I share) that, according to what was taught by Jesus, Plato's method of solving the problem is best, for according to the teachings of Jesus, people are to be virtuous, charitable, and always do good to others, while ignoring, or at least repressing selfish desires. While I agree with what should be, I cannot ignore what is. People do not act without respect to their own self-interest.

Going back to the notion of giving one of the two children a knife, as any parent, or sensible person would feel, such an idea is dangerous at best. Likening this analogy to the issue of gun control, it is my belief that such a level of danger exists in society when the attempt is made to control the ownership of firearms.

When any law is made, there are always some who break it. When the law applies to control of firearms, some will still break it. This means that while ordinary law-abiding citizens are abiding the law, not owning guns, there are others breaking the law and owning them, and they're not using them to go pheasant hunting. Those who are in favor of gun control believe in, like Plato, and rely upon the innate virtue of human beings to govern whether or not they will obey the law. These same people in 1974, after passing legislation banning guns in Washington D.C. saw that in no year after the ban, did gun-related crimes ever drop below the level it was at before the ban. On the contrary, the gun-related murder rate continued to rise above the average of other U.S. cities, spiking after the cocaine epidemic in the 1980s. The story is similar in cities all over the United States.

I would like to believe that people are capable of behaving rationally, and in the best interest of others all the time. Assuredly, that is what the Savior taught that people should be. Unfortunately, there cannot be any idea of what "should" be, if there is not already existing a condition that "should not" be. In my mind, the specific issue of gun control would be solved if there were no more guns, period. If there were some way to locate, and destroy every gun that exists everywhere, that would solve the problem. Aside from the infinitesimally minute chance of ever locating and destroying the estimated 420 million guns in the United States alone, once all the guns were destroyed, the issue would be transferred to some other type of small, concealable weapon. Then, those would all have to be destroyed. Eventually there would be nothing left with which to work, since practically any tool of use can perform as a weapon. If the scenario were possible, I would vote for it. As this is not the case, I must insist that under our current circumstances, the continued efforts of governments to ban guns is wrong, and will lead to more, not less, gun-related crime.

It is incumbent upon me to make mention that not all gun-related incidents are a result of crime, and many advocates of gun control cite the instances when a child has inappropriately used a firearm and harmed him or herself or another. With great respect to those affected by these terrible occurrences, I must admit that I have never been the victim of such an incident, and therefore cannot understand the sentiments of those who have. However, in the same attitude as those who are concerned with the safety of children, allow me to make clear that this aspect of the issue has been duly considered. At this point, I shall make an analogy of my own. Suppose a man, his wife, and their small children moved to a small town in another area of the country. They are unfamiliar not only with the environment, and the people, but with the wildlife. Specifically, there are certain dangerous species to be aware of, such as poisonous snakes and spiders. This man, more than anything wants to keep his family safe from harm, and therefore decides to not even tell his children about the existence of snakes or spiders. He does not even want to expose them to the idea, for fear that they might one day out of curiosity, endanger themselves when they do come across one of these dangerous species. The hard reality is that snakes and spiders exist, whether we know about them or not, and they present a very real danger. Similarly, guns exist, whether we know how to use them responsibly or not. Choosing to ignore them can be as dangerous as not teaching children to look both ways before crossing a street, or not to talk to strangers.

As long as the technology of firearms exists, it must be available to all people in order to defend themselves. Guns are the best deterrent to guns. The instinct of self-preservation is one of the strongest in human beings. Imagine the intimidation that comes to a criminal contemplating committing a violent crime when he realizes that his intended victim might be carrying a gun, and might know how to use it. This sort of deterrent is equaled only by the actual presence of an armed police officer. In this way, Aristotle's point of view regarding the system of checks and balances works. In a criminal's own self-interest, (in this case, self-preservation) he will likely choose not to commit the crime. That being said, it cannot be inferred that the possibility that a person may be carrying a gun will always stop crimes. This is unfortunately a reality. As long as guns exist, they will be used to do bad things. Therefore the choice for governments is not how to completely eliminate the illegal use of firearms, because that can never happen, but rather how to reduce the amount of gun-related crime as much as possible. The answer is to let people defend themselves with the same implements that would be used against them.

There are a lot of people who, when confronted with the idea of having to defend themselves, react as if they had dialed a wrong number, and want to hang up as soon as possible. They don't feel comfortable with the idea, and usually have never had to deal with it before. 'This is the year 2010, we don't have to worry about that kind of thing,' they will say, 'the government protects us from danger'. It is true that the institutions of local and federal law enforcement agencies greatly decrease the frequency with which ordinary people are confronted by a situation that requires self-defense. However, these institutions will never be able to eliminate such situations from our lives, and therefore, these situations will always be faced by some. It is for the sake of those, that I hope for the increased education and awareness of responsible gun ownership and use.

As a final note, and specifically to those readers who are familiar with my religion, let me acknowledge that I am fully aware that what Jesus taught was called the "gospel of peace" (italics added). There will likely be many who will say that I cannot be a true Christian if I believe in the use of weapons and other implements that seem to take away peace. I will cite only two stories from the books of scripture I believe in to respond to this position.

First, in the Book of Mormon, there are entire chapters which involve warfare between the two prominent groups of people, the Nephites and the Lamanites. The fact that they fought is not so interesting to me as the individuals who chose to fight, and their reasons. Many prophets, such as King Benjamin, Alma the Elder, Alma the Younger, and Helaman all fought with the sword. The reason is always the same: freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of government, freedom of land, etc. Alma 43:47 reads, "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."

Second, a story most members of the Church are familiar with, that of Zion's Camp. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded to organize an armed militia of men to march to the relief of the Saints who had been expelled from Jackson County, Missouri. They conducted military drills, and were taught to soldier. It should also be noted here that Joseph was the Commander of the Nauvoo Legion, a municipal military force legislated in 1839, and which had at it's peak a minimum of approximately two-thousand, five-hundred armed troops. It would seem that the right to at least own and carry firearms is approved of by the Lord.

The analogy of the children and the cutting of the cake which Michael used in his post is useful to relate to the issue of gun control. The idea of giving a knife to one of two quarreling children is a bad one. So would giving either of them a knife. In our minds we formulate the ideal solution to the problem: get rid of all the knives. That way there is no chance that either of them will be harmed by any knife. This does not, however, depict our present condition. Sadly, the truth is that instead of the children living in a knife-free house, a more accurate description of our society would be a house full of knives of all shapes and sizes, on the floor, in the cupboards, on top of the fridge, and everywhere else imaginable. The efforts to ban guns is like a parent telling only one of the angry fighting children that he can't touch any of the knives. The outcome is certain.

Obama is No King

President Obama's approval rating according to the Gallup poll this week was 46% overall, with support from liberals dropping to an all-time low of 70%. These figures contrast significantly with April 2009, when his approval rating soared among Democrats to an unprecedented 92%, with an overall rating of 69%. Historically, the news media has attributed much of the source of his disapproval to, among other things, racism. One might be surprised at this, considering all of the advances of the late 20th and now the 21st century. But what they don't realize, is that not much has really changed since the 60's.

Most people my age don't know much about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, aside from his name, and perhaps that he was assassinated. Once in a while I will come across a person who has heard of, and might even be able to rehearse a line or two from one of his many public speeches. Two years ago, one could hardly watch the news without hearing something about Dr. King and how his vision had been realized, as evidenced by the historical election of President Barack Obama, the first African-American president in the history of the United States. Amid all the buzz over the event, a hype which was unprecedented in the history of elections in the country, I couldn't help thinking that had Dr. King been alive for the 2008 election, there is a good chance he would have voted for McCain. But Dr. King fought for civil rights, specifically on the part of African-Americans. Why on earth wouldn't he vote for Obama? Why wouldn't he want to contribute to a landmark advance (or some might claim, a victory) in civil rights?

Dr. King dreamed that his children would "...one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This statement has been replayed and quoted more times than one would sufficiently be capable of enumerating, and the spirit of it's message has permeated social movements against racism for the past forty years. When I witnessed the fervor around Obama's election, and furthermore when I examined the administration since his inauguration, I clearly understood that just the opposite of what Dr. King envisioned had taken place. Barack Obama was judged (and elected) not by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. When I came to this realization, I knew two things: 1. Dr. King, if he was as principled as he is believed to have been, would have turned in his grave, and 2. No one who voted for Obama would readily be conscious of, or acknowledge that they had let Dr. King down.

The harsh reality is that most of the high-profile voters who supported Obama made it publicly known that their support was motivated by the desire to see a black president. This is not surprising, given the nation's history regarding African-Americans. What was disturbing to me, was that President Bush, commenting just after the election results were in, made no mention of Obama's character, or what good things he would do for the country, or even any prior achievements he had made, but rather focused on the aspect of race, and what he called, "...the American story." He said it was an "....inspiring moment that so many have waited for for so long." When the hype faded however, and it was back to business, Bush was reported in September of 2009 to have said of Obama, "This is a dangerous world, and this cat [Obama] isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you." Comical to us as his choice of words are, they carry significance. Whatever one might think of George W. Bush, and his administration, and furthermore whatever his views were of the new administration's policies and values, he certainly was in a position to know whether or not President-elect Obama was qualified to sit in the oval office.

Barack Obama was Illinois senator from 1997 to 2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. In Illinois, no legislative accomplishments can be attributed to him, and nothing remarkable was achieved during his short four years as a U.S. Senator. Nothing with which to make a name for himself. Then suddenly, he was projected to win the Democratic Primary. That being said, I had to consider that perhaps he was elected based on the promises he made on the campaign trail, which seemed appealing. Looking into the facts however, the dissonance continued. I began with the practice of signing statements, a presidential act which essentially allows the commander-in-chief to choose which parts of Congress legislation to follow and abide by. Obama promised to abolish this practice. He said it was unconstitutional, and affirmed that he was in a position to know. Speaking in Montana in May 2008, he said, "I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress, all right?" Since his inauguration, Obama has issued twelve signing statements, with no explanation as to why he acted contrary to his campaign commitment. Another promise broken was concerning the time given to the public to read bills before they were to be voted on by Congress. Candidate Obama promised to give a full five days to review non-emergency bills before signing. To date, he has made public six out of eleven bills, and only one of those six remained available for the full five days. Unless all eleven bills were "emergency bills", this constitutes another unfulfilled commitment, a major commitment which, when made, helped him gain support. The most famous incident of this was the $787 Billion economic stimulus bill. This 1071 page document (eight inches thick) was given to representatives in the middle of the night to read for a few hours before debate resumed on it in Congress and the voting started.

I mention these specific points not to highlight the individual issues in and of themselves, but because they demonstrate an overarching theme which is dangerously present in the Obama administration. President Bush was right; President-elect Obama wasn't qualified to be President of the United States. Perhaps he was elected because the voters saw a chance to validate their own triumph over the issue of civil rights and equality, or maybe they figured that if they didn't vote for him, they would feel as if they were perpetuating racism. The fact is the people of the United States betrayed the very cause they thought they were championing by electing Barack Obama, and the scary part is that they don't even realize that they did it.

Politicians are elected by the people, and we call them public servants. When they no longer serve the public, they are unqualified to hold the position entrusted to them. In 2012, Americans will have another chance to appoint someone to the office of President. I can only hope for a fundamental shift in the public's criteria regarding their commander-in-chief. I'm a historian, and if I've learned nothing else from history, it's that if we don't learn about it, we are bound to repeat it. The citizens of the United States of America have such potential, but I agree with what Dr. King said in Memphis, during his final speech in 1968, "We've got some difficult days ahead."