Donald Trump's Policy on Terrorism (video)

I've made my first YouTube video and used it to examine Donald Trump's plan to combat terrorism, "whatever we need to do, even if we need to expand the laws". I discuss what that really means and the inevitable long-term implications. The video is 13:55 minutes long. Below, you'll find the main transcript.

Trump’s Foreign Policy

Today there was another horrible terrorist attack, this time in Brussels, Belgium. And as happens whenever such events occur, people start asking questions about security, how we can stay safe and prevent future attacks etc. And since Donald Trump is currently the top Republican candidate, he has been asked his views.

And so, I’d like to talk about the “Trump foreign policy”. Whenever I hear him talk about the need to reassess our foreign interventions, how going into Libya was a bad idea, and how bombing civilians tends to create more enemies – you know, that whole blowback concept – I get really excited.

I like it. It makes sense. There’s a lot of evidence to support those views. It’s a lot more of a Constitutional policy, more of a libertarian philosophy, and definitely more of a human-rights based philosophy.

But then, you have terrorist attacks. You have San Bernardino, you have the attacks in Paris and today in Brussels. And, of course, you ask “well, what do we do?” And Trump’s answer to that isn’t really libertarian. It isn’t really based on the idea of liberty or about protecting rights.

He talks about the need to be hard and be strong, and of course we do need to address these problems. But he goes on saying that he supports waterboarding, and that if we need to make the laws or expand them to do “whatever we need to do” in his words – that that’s fine.

It’s fine because the terrorists don’t use laws. ISIS doesn’t have laws, and we do, and we want to follow the law. So, we need to pass laws that gives us the authority to do things like waterboarding and capturing the families of terrorists, and all of this other stuff. Again, it’s whatever we need to do to be safe and win.

And of course the initial knee-jerk reaction is “Yes, yes! We need to do this!” We have been attack and we need to go and destroy our enemy.

But it’s also important to step back for a moment and think about what that actually means. We need to think about the consequences and the path that it leads us down.

Now nobody wants to be the first to break Godwin’s Law, but I’m about to – and I ask that you please stay with me here. You know, a prime, somewhat recent example of all of this is Nazi Germany.

The idea here was that Germany was under threat, they were under siege. Now, in their minds it was this “Great Jewish Conspiracy”, but it was also anarchists, Communism – and of course we in the West also opposed the Soviet Union – and so they were under threat by that. Eventually they had conflicts with France and the UK once Germany went into Poland.

So how do you deal with all of that? How do you deal with threats both external and domestically?

While there were some existing legal frameworks under which they could operate, but to make all of their actions and the ultimate goals of the Nazi regime palatable with the German people – who are now at war – they had to come up with other legal means and frameworks.

The problem was that they ended up being so broad in scope and in meaning, that ultimately it all turned into simply the words of Hitler were law. The words of Goering and Himmler were law. And of course all of this was done in the name of preserving the German Reich and protecting the people, and accomplishing the goals of the nation.

But what did that do? What did it lead to? 

You ended up with the Gestapo, you ended up with the T-4 euthanasia programs killing the disabled, going in and ransacking people’s homes, and searching for “terrorists” aka Jews, and homosexuals, and intellectuals, and Communists, and even people who were proud German patriots who simply disagreed with the Nazi Government.

And when you start talking about “doing everything we can”, when you talk about creating backdoors into encryption and allow the government to search anywhere and everywhere all in the name of safety. We have to remember, government is run by human beings, and human beings are corruptible, and we make mistakes; we fall victim to the prejudices we hold and the appeals of power and authority.

So unless you have openness and transparent checks and balances, and unless the people know what the government is doing had has the power to stop the government; if you don’t have those things government runs amok. And we’ve already seen this kind of secrecy and non-accountability with FISA Courts and literally thousands of abuses by the NSA.

Without such protections and an innate respect for liberty, you have what could have been legitimate revolutions in places like Cuba and elsewhere, all turn into nightmares for millions of people.

The Batista regime, even though they were backed by America, they weren’t pillars of democracy. It was corrupt and cruel and mean. Many people were arrested and tortured by this American-backed government in Cuba. So then you have Castro with his rag-tag team of, you know, 'Liberation Fighters', and things could have ended well.

But what happened?

They won. And now they have power. They were the oppressed, and unfortunately what happens many times is when the oppressed becomes the ones in power, the oppress the oppressors.

And they create new enemies and you have class struggle, and everything. And the revolution never dies! The revolution technically is still going on all of these decades later. Same thing in North Korea, the revolution continues! You had decades in China of these massive purges and rounding up people, and the Three Revolutions, and all of this terribleness and tens of millions of people thrown in jail and denied their rights – all because the government was trying to get at the actual enemy.

But then the enemies turned into not just the people who really were their enemies, but to the friends and families of the enemies. And then to the generations later on. “Well, your grandfather used to be a capitalist and so now we have to throw you in jail and destroy your family.” – And that is what happens.

And of course, that creates more discontent and more enemies.

And so it really bothers me to hear this type of rhetoric in American politics, in Western politics.

You can go after your enemy and defeat them without turning into your enemy.

When you do the things that terrorists do to fight terrorism, you become the terrorist!

You cannot defend the Constitution by tearing it up!

You cannot defend American freedoms by crushing them!

We fought the Nazis, and we won the war. And we put Nazi war criminals on trial. We fought the Japanese, and we won the war. And we put the criminals on trial. We’ve put domestic terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh on trial. It can be done.

If you follow the law, you follow the Constitution, you can still win.

Terrorism is frightening because it can pop up anywhere. But, I would argue, that’s what is more frightening in many ways is having Imperial Japan across one coast, and Nazi Germany overrunning all of Europe across the other coast.

Tens of millions of men under arms, guns pointed toward you. U-boats running the seas. I mean we had Nazi submarines right off of New York Harbor and in the Gulf. They even landed operatives on American shores with the purpose of blowing up dams and factories.

We had the Japanese sending explosive balloons over to set fire to the vast forests along the Pacific coast. And Japan was experimenting with chemical and biological weapons too. They could have easily set balloons over and taken out Seattle or Los Angeles.

These enemies were organized, had huge sums of money and infrastructure, and controlled millions of square miles of territory – and all of that was arrayed against us.

You know, at the very brink all you really had was the United States along with the UK which had barely managed to survive, and the Soviet Union which was being chopped into little bits and about to collapse. Not exactly a recipe for successes. And of course we weren’t exactly friends with Soviets. But we fought and persevered, basically, against half the planet when you look at terms of military strength and resources – and we won.

We won, largely, without turning our backs on our principles. And the time we did turn our backs – when we sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps, that effort damaged our national soul and didn’t do a damned thing to win the war.

Of course within that, what do we have today? We have a small group of people who have been incensed by decades of meddling and intervention by the West. Granted, today the motivation isn’t necessarily what we did in the past. The Genie is out, and its now largely terrorism for the sake of terror. But we still have to recognize when our actions contribute to radical motivation and think about long-term consequences.

The point is, there’s nothing wrong with following our Constitution and following the same principles that we had going into World War II.

No one thinks we were honestly friends with the Soviet Union. We were spying and them and they were spying on us. Heck, they knew about the Atomic Bomb before President Truman told them. And today, are we “besties” with Russia? No. But Russia has shown that they are willing to put skin in the game, to fight ISIS. So why are we talking about no-fly-zones and shooting down Russian planes?

You join with people who are willing to fight the same fight you are. That’s how you win. And then once you’ve defeated the immediate threat, you can deal with the other things.

But this insanity that we hear from pretty much everybody running for President, but especially Trump and even Ted Cruz – who has gone off the deep end with supporting military interventions around the world and promoting domestic spying programs – there is simply no reason why we can’t stick to our principles and still get the job done like have done time and time again.

And the last thing we need is someone in office who does not understand this.

The last thing we need is some basically guy pumped up on steroids going around half-cocked and yelling “we need to be strong, and I know people and I’m great at this, and we will be so strong, and we just have to do whatever we need to do because…yadda yadda yadda”.

That’s not what we need. Number one that isn’t a policy, and even if you could somehow craft it into a coherent policy and then take it to its logical conclusion – then we end up being an actual police state.

I know that phrase is used a lot, but we are nowhere near being the kind of ‘Big Brother, Mass Surveillance, If You Have Nothing to Hide Let Me In’ type of society we would become under the vision of people like Trump.

And it is time that libertarians, and actual lovers of Liberty – I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, or Republican, or even a freakin’ Socialist – it’s time that we ALL stand up against this madness.

If our leaders and those who are seeking to lead, if they won’t be the adult in the room the it’s up to us, we the people, to stand up and be the adult and take control of the situation. Because I, for one, am not willing to be led by the nose or otherwise forced into some kind of monstrous situation all in the name of security or patriotism.

Waving a flag, chanting “USA, USA”, and towing the line with your head down is NOT patriotism!

Patriotism is standing up for what is right. Not just because it’s legal; making torture legal doesn’t make it right. Not just because the polls show most people support X, Y, and Z. But to stand up for what is right and to defend the founding principles of our country.

Because when we turn our backs on that, we are no longer Americans. There’s no more line that separates us from the barbarians at the gate. And I am going to everything I can to make sure that that line, stays. That there is a clear difference between us, and that this country, as a free republic, remains a free republic.

For this and many other reasons are why those of us in the Liberty Movement need to stand strong against this level of inhuman and unconstitutional policies. Simply being an “outsider” and “speaking your mind”, or damaging the establishment is not reason enough to hand over the keys to this country to a man – or any candidate for that matter – who so clearly does not understand what the Rule of Law and Liberty for All means.

The destruction of some group of Neo-Cons does not take precedence over my life and your life, nor the lives of innocent people everywhere.

So I ask you to please join with me and stand strong for Liberty.

If you’d like to know more about me and what I do, please check out my website at www.JacobBogle.com or connect with me on Facebook and Twitter @JacobBogle

---Jacob Bogle, 3/22/16

www.JacobBogle.com

Facebook.com/JacobBogle

Twitter.com/JacobBogle

The Liberty Amendments: A Rightful Remedy or Folly?

The Liberty Amendments, written by lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, Mark Levin, was published in August 2013. As of today, it is still one of the bestselling books on Amazon.com (ranked #463) and is among the top 10 books dealing with American politics. His book lays out the case for invoking an Article V constitutional convention to amend the Constitution and proposes ten amendments which, it is hoped, will help restore the American republic. His book has been praised by Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations and, as evidenced above, is wildly popular. However, it has also been criticized and some question Levin's interpretation of Article V as well as the usefulness of added amendments.

Fellow Tennessean and brother-in-arms, Michael Lotfi, recently wrote an article for The Washington Times Communities titled, in part, Why Mark Levin is wrong. Mr. Lotfi has been critical of Levin's book for a while and he is by no means alone. I would like to take a look at Mr. Lotfi's article and address the concerns he and others have raised. Before that, however, I want to state that I do not fully favor nor oppose Levin's solution(s) to our national predicament. That being said, I am in favor having a strong debate and I welcome anyone who offers possible solutions to restoring and then preserving our Republic.

What's the point?

The first main argument Lotfi lays out deals with the usefulness of amendments themselves. He argues that all three branches of the federal government have ignored the Constitution and continually seek to grab powers for themselves which are not granted by the Constitution, and so, what good would new amendments do?

On the surface, it would seem that there is no purpose or use for any further amendments. Many view the Constitution as a near sacred document with a level of perfection closing in on the Holy Scriptures themselves. But when you dig deeper, you find that the Constitution was a document forged by compromise. And, as well intentioned and learned as our Founding Fathers may have been, there were a good many things the Constitution could have had added, or even removed, if certain factions had had their way. A reading of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalists reveals a long-standing debate between the Founders, the general public, and among the several states - played out in publications and in private - which resulted in the best constitution that could have actually been ratified at the time. Those debates over the scope of federal power, the sovereignty of the states, the role of the individual and their rights, etc. are still raging to this day.

It is often said that the Constitution is written in plain English. And while this was true in the 18th century, one must remember that English is, and always has been, a very fluid language. Words are spelled differently as time goes by and more importantly, the very meaning of the words themselves change over time. The original Constitutional Convention ended in 1787, some 226 years ago, and the farther we are removed from the Founders and their original intent & understandings, the more difficult interpretation becomes. Like it or not, if you hand the Constitution to five different people and have them read it, you will end up with five different understandings of the text. Similarly, if you have five people read the Bible you will wind up with different interpretations - why do you think there are thousands of different denominations of Christianity?

I say all of that to reach my main point: the meaning of the Constitution was debated before the ink was dry and it is debated still. There are 13 federal courts of appeal and 179 judges on those courts (each with their own opinions), and then you have the Supreme Court which, rightly or wrongly, exercises the supreme right to interpret. As often stated, the Constitution is written in plain English and perhaps that is one reason why we're in the mess we're in today. When you combine the nature of our legal system (precedent law), the fact that the modern SCOTUS rarely relies on the non-legal papers of our founders (such as letters, books, publications, etc.), and the fact that we are so far removed from the heated events of the Revolution, to me, it is easy to see that the Constitution lends itself to a broad interpretation - especially if those opinions are not intensely challenged by the states and Congress.

The purpose of adding new amendments, such as those proposed by Levin, is to restrain further broad interpretations by listing specific prohibitions on federal power. Because the federal government was meant to have few and defined powers (while the people retain near infinite powers), it would seem that the Constitution was written using broad language as an attempt to cover as much ground as possible without creating a document that's over 400 pages long (as is the case with India's modern constitution). But in doing so, the reverse has transpired; the government's powers have grown nearly unchecked. In a nation with 315 million citizens, over 7 million businesses with more than one employee, where information and billions of dollars can be transferred at the push of a button, and the ever looming issues of globalization, the roles and powers of our government need to be ever more narrowly defined.

Adding specific amendments would not only help restrain (or in some cases repeal parts of) the federal leviathan, but they would also make violating the Constitution more visible. Modern administrations hide their abuses of power behind the impossibly complex federal bureaucracy and behind the rules & regulations which Congress has unleashed through their inaction and lazy attitude toward legislation. Our government operates under the assumption that if Congress passes a law and the president signs it, it's constitutional by default, regardless of its content (again, unless it's vigorously challenged). It further obscures its actions by justifying any power grab or civil liberty violation as rooted in some thousand-page omnibus bill in which Congress delegates its law making power to an agency or un-elected individuals (such as with the EPA or FISA), even though Congress can't technically cede law making power to anyone without a change to Constitution. New amendments could make such things very difficult if not impossible.

Nullification

Lotfi's next criticism deals with nullification. It is true Mark Levin opposes the idea of nullification, however, his book has nothing to do with the issue. The book offers up one course of action and provides a list of ten proposed amendments (and their justifications) through which Levin believes the country could right its course. But while we're on the topic, let's briefly explore nullification.

Nullification is a legal theory which would allow individual states to nullify (invalidate) federal laws the state(s) find unconstitutional themselves. Although I support the idea of nullification in extreme cases, nullification can lend itself to abuse far more easily than an amendment process. By agreeing that states can simply ignore Congress and laws they don't like, you end up breaking down the very foundations of the country.
That is to say:

- States are co-sovereign branches of the national government and the will of the people is to be expressed via the elected legislatures of the states and the House of Representatives. Yet, the states and general government (the term used to refer to a federal government) must work in tandem, with the general government holding supremacy over certain areas (such as defense). And once states begin to refuse to adhere to the actions of Congress, the country ceases to function. -

Furthermore, nullification can be exercised by single states, whereas the amendment process requires the agreement of 3/4ths of the states. And a single state is more easily given over to the democratic whims of the populace thus negating the very purpose of a constitutional republic - to provide a stable political system rooted in the rule of law and to defend the inherent rights of the individual against the majority. 

Bullet to the Constitution?

Lotfi claims that while the states can call for a convention, only Congress can control it and only through them can the Constitution be amended; thus Congress would torpedo the process. He argues that a primary risk of allowing the states to run such a convention is that a "runaway convention" could occur and result in the Constitution being totally obliterated.

The full text of Article V states:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." 

Article V clearly gives two procedures to amend the Constitution, both of course require 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment. The most commonly used is the first, amendments arising directly from Congress. According to the Federal Register: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures." 

That doesn't leave much room for doubt, there are two distinct paths.

Levin discusses the threat of a runaway convention process and further states on page 16 that the process is a "federal convention" as well as a "limited purpose convention" (the convention could not abolish the government for example). On page 225 (in the notes) the book explains the issue in greater detail: "The state legislatures can recommend specific language or amendments, but cannot seek to impose them through the application process as Article V empowers the delegates to the convention to propose amendments, which the states subsequently consider for ratification."

The Federalist Papers also raises a powerful point. In Federalist 85, Hamilton says, "the national rulers, whenever nine (two-thirds) States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the [constitution], the Congress will be obliged 'on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid....when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof."

If Congress were to ignore the desires of 2/3rds of the states by refusing the take up an amendment or by refusing to accept the state conventions, there would be anarchy and in short order the bulk of Congress would be replaced. Congress in the aggregate ignores the Constitution, but should the states convene and propose new amendments (which must be very similar in language among the states to even qualify) the individual congressmen would remember that they are subservient to the people and would be hard pressed to vote on the contrary.

Congress has the power to pick which method: ratification by the state legislatures, or ratification by state conventions called for the purpose. States could create the conventions and through them propose an amendment, which is technically a reversed method (in the usual manor, the amendment is proposed and then conventions occur). But, should the requisite number of states call these conventions and propose an amendment, as Hamilton said, Congress would have very little choice in the matter. And so, even though Congress does have the power in principle, in practice, Congress would be impotent in the face of two-thirds (or preferably three-fourths) of the states. Furthermore, due to the very nature of the amendment process, the potential of a runaway convention is all but impossible - since 38 states would still be required to ratify any amendment(s).

On this issue, Mr. Lotfi gets it partially right, but his overall conclusion is still wrong in my opinion.

Final remarks

In the end, we must operate in the world in which we live, not in the world we would like to live in or think we used to live in. In order to restore the nation, we need to recognize the situation as it is (with the repercussions of Marbury v. Madison, etc.) The fact remains that neither nullification nor a state-led convention as described by Levin have been fully tested. Levin has said many times, in print and on his radio show, that The Liberty Amendments is but an idea, one possible way to stem the tide, not the only way. Mark Levin has helped reignite the discussion over a constitutional convention as a potential remedy, and Tom Woods has framed the debate regarding nullification. Until one, or both, have been fully tested (either by states asserting themselves, or through legislation or the courts) they remain possible methods. It took one court case in 1803 to start the ball rolling, but it has taken over 200 years for us to arrive in the state we are in today. The country will not be saved and preserved by a single "fix all" solution, but by the people and the states using every tool at their disposal.

A possible future example of using the amendment process instead of nullification would be Obamacare. Obamacare has never been supported by a majority of Americans and 34 states have decided to let the federal government deal with the exchanges instead of setting up their own state exchanges (which would have been optimal for the feds). Although a refusal to set up their own state exchanges doesn't mean the majority of the people in those states would want a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it does show that there is a high level of discontent with the law. Since it would take 38 states to ratify an amendment, the fact that 34 are, at a minimum, unhappy with the law means, at least to me, that an amendment would be within the realm of possibility.

Why would we refuse to enshrine in law explicit restrictions on the federal government's meddling in every aspect of our private lives? To dismiss the amendment process in favor of possible factionalism (which nullification could easily lead to) doesn't make sense.

-- Jacob Bogle, 12/31/13
Facebook.com/JacobBogle
Twitter.com/jacobbogle

Gun Control

(Originally published on Dec. 19, 2012. Updated on Oct. 3, 2015 with new information)

On Dec. 14, 2012, a young gunman went to a school and killed 26 people, mostly children under the age of 8. And on Oct. 1, 2015, a man entered a community college and shot 19. Since 1776 there have been over 200 school shootings (including individual suicides at school); in 2013 there were 26, in 2014 there were 43, and by October 2015 there had been 19. Since 2013, 44% of those shootings involved more than one person. There have also been mass shootings at businesses, clubs, and elsewhere.

In times of crisis, people often look to government to fix the problem. They assume there was a failure in the law or that perhaps we have too much freedom and for our own sake we should pass further legislation to protect us from ourselves.

There is no doubt that evil and unhinged people exist in the world and that guns, particularly modern guns, allow those people to harm and kill greater numbers of innocent people than ever possible before. The anti-gun/pro-gun control lobbies point to countries with strict gun-control laws and even total bans on arms outright and then compares their crime rates with those in the United States as “proof” that gun-control is the only answer.


Guns, simply defined as a barrel that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile, have existed for over 1,000 years and like so many other inventions of man, have become a part of everyday life, at least until recently. A gun can be used for hunting, self-defense, war, target practice, to commit crimes, as collector items, and at times as the last defense of a people against a tyrannical government; a final guarantee of freedom.

Many say that guns generally have no place in modern society and that, for the West at least, the notion of needing them to fend off an evil government is…quaint, if not insane. Of course modern world history is replete with examples of a population needing arms to ward off and overthrow a repressive regime (Germany, Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.) Clearly, the issue is complicated and emotionally charged.

For a moment, let us set aside the argument for guns as a last defense and focus on gun crimes as they relate to gun control.

It is true that strict gun control or bans, can limit the number of gun related crimes. However, if you look at the logic of criminality you will find that the law in and of itself means very little to criminals, after all, to commit a crime is by definition to ignore the law.

The UK has passed a number of laws, beginning in 1903, which have led to the near extinction of the modern firearm in the country, the main exceptions being antiques and incredibly strict hunting licenses. However, the people of the UK still maintain over 4 million firearms. In 2009 the number of gun deaths was 138. The number of homicides (by any method) was 724. So it’s easy to see that having a gun alone does not make for a violent populace and that non-gun related homicides far outweigh those committed with a gun. If we look at the broader trend in the UK, particularly in cities, gun crime is on the rise. In 2010 gun crimes in London were up 48%. And while the total number of gun crimes is down compared to when gun ownership was less restricted, it is evident that laws and restrictions largely apply to law abiding citizens --to those who wouldn't have committed any crime to begin with.

Criminals will always find ways around the law, they will find ways to commit their crimes and will fuel a black market. And unlike the US, the United Kingdom lacks a central constitution and there are no inherent rights to begin with, only things which, through law, have been deemed “not illegal.” Remember, the UK comes form a history of authoritarian monarchy, whose genocidal policies against the Scots and Irish still impact the region to this day.

Let’s take a look at another European country, Switzerland, which has the 3rd highest rate of gun ownership on the planet. In Switzerland they rely on a trained militia rather than a standing army to defend their borders and civilian gun ownership stands at 45.7%, which translates into 3.4 million guns. In 2010 there were 40 gun related homicides and 53 homicides in total, which is down approx. 40% since 1998. How is it that so many guns can exist and yet have so few gun related crimes? In fact, Switzerland has one of the lowest crimes rates in the world, all the while having the 3rd highest gun ownership rate and a relaxed drug policy.

The cry for greater government control is always greatest when there has been a tragedy. It is very unfortunate that people choose times of heartbreak to push for less liberty and ignore incredibly important factors: personal responsibility and morality, mental health, and broken communities.

I’d like to give you a comparison. Cars and roads are among the more highly regulated and controlled aspects of our society and yet more people die from car accidents than from guns. In fact, since 1980, there have been over 1.3 million deaths on government regulated roads, in government regulated cars, all operated by government regulated drivers. Where is the outcry in this? Where are the calls to ban mass murdering automobiles which can speedily careen into crowded places? As silly as that may sound, the analogy stands. For bit more context, more people die from poisoning each year (48,545) or drug overdoses (43,785) than they do from gun related deaths (of all sorts), which according to the CDC was 10.6 people per 100,000.

From the Pew Research Center, "Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak"

And while the overall trend since 1981 has been fewer homicides as a result of gun violence, even after President Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 there were still dozens of school shootings resulting in 122 deaths and many other injuries before the law expired in 2004.

You see, gun ownership is not the problem, it never has been. The problem lies with a population disarmed, a population so afraid they would rather give up all control to a government then take the necessary steps to learn self-defense, and the problem lies with a country that has an appalling track record when it comes to helping those citizens with mental illness (those with diagnosed mental illnesses rarely go out killing people, but killing out of hatred or because the shooter feels discarded by society does intersect with mental health and the need for intervention is real).

There is an interesting meme on-line that states “Why are women taught how to prevent a rape instead of men being taught not to rape?” The same concept can be applied to guns and crimes in general. We live in a culture that glorifies death and violence. It is codified by our government with the killing of literally thousands of innocent civilians overseas, all as a matter of "foreign policy." It is blessed by popular media. It is encouraged by parents allowing 12 and 13 year olds to play games and watch movies filled with it. It is often over-looked and poorly punished. We see time and time again people convicted of killing and other horrible crimes getting only a handful of years in prison (or less).

Why not force government to end the double standard in their own actions? Why not force the courts to offer up severe and lasting punishment to those engaging in violent crimes? Why not recognize that many citizens suffer from mental illness and not be afraid to reach out and help them, instead of ignoring them until one out of a million explodes?

There is no single cause or reason among the perpetrators and no panacea to solve it all, but the major cause of it continuing is society's and our government's failure to understand that it's usually a combination of factors and that we must take a comprehensive look at it in order to help solve it. Jumping onto guns is nothing but a cop-out, an emotional reaction that does little to address the situation.

Looking at the legal issue

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution states “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.”

One segment of the gun-control lobby asserts that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias (the military) and that private gun ownership is not covered. Even if we ignore the context in which the 2nd was written, there have been multiple court cases which emphatically refute that claim.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court ruled:

(A)The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(B)The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
(C) The response [of writing the 2nd] was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
And further, (D) does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes.

The term “militia” means “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.” This comes from the Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois (1886).

Another argument is that the Founders could never have conceived of an automatic assault rifle and that the 2nd only applies to “muskets”, in other words, very basic, single shot weapons. One must then extend the logic to all parts of the Constitution, to wit, the First Amendment only applies to verbal speech and press using a printing press, the Fourth only protects from searches of a person’s physical home (making the NSA domestic spying program totally acceptable), and so on. That notion is, in a word, absurd. There is no doubt people use guns to commit crimes, however, if we look at all the numbers, around 50% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides (which is a crime). Outlawing suicide has had little effect it seems.

Gun ownership is not only an “ancient right” but also the final protection of an individual and of the general population against all crimes, be they a robber or a tyrannical government. War is perhaps the most visible but oft ignored crime. It is estimated that wars have led to the deaths of upwards of 1 billion people over the course of human history. Wars are approved, funded and usually sought by governments. That is the great tragedy. Self-defense against crime is also often overlooked. In 1994 a Dept. of Justice study found that guns are involved in 1.5 million cases of self-defense each year. That is 1.5 million thefts, rapes, murders and other crimes prevented as a result of gun ownership.

We all look for answers and closure, but, when it comes to wanton violence the answer is, there are no satisfactory answers. And we should not be so quick to abandon or wish to curtail one of our most important and fundamental rights. Government has always used tragedy to grab power, it has used fear to usurp the Constitution, and all too often we have let them in the vain search for security. Let us look to ourselves and our culture first.

The peoples of industrialized Germany, Russia, Poland, and France, just to name a few, never thought that one day they would endure the full brunt of Nazi oppression. They never thought there would be the deaths of 40 million people, the loss of religious freedom, or the loss of all freedoms, at the hands of their own governments. They trusted their government for things which government is not meant to do. They handed up responsibility that they were imbued with from God - rights by the very nature of their existence - and in the end they paid dearly. The right to bear arms is the only reason why America exists, without which we would still be a colony.

I don’t have all the answers and I don’t pretend to think that we could have a perfect world if everyone owned a gun, but I do think we would be better prepared to handle these situations. Mass shootings often happen in gun-free zones where even the “security” guards are unarmed. And while I don’t have all the answers, I know the answer is not more control simply from looking at places like Detroit and Chicago which have tight gun regulations and also have an enormous amount of gun violence. Our ancestors took for themselves their inherent rights, which include the responsibilities that go with them, and our Founders wrote them into law, a law that can only be changed via new amendments.

Just like the Jews of Germany and the whole population of North Korea never thought they would endure what has transpired, we didn’t think the ultimate assault on our freedoms would ever occur. Government rarely grasps for total power in a single sweep, it happens (usually as a result of public outcry and a revocation of personal responsibility) bit by bit. In the past 12 years alone we have seen the near erasure of the 14th Amendment via the PATRIOT Act, military drones prowling the skies over America, attempts to control and censor the Internet with things like SOPA and CISPA, allowing the indefinite detention of citizens via the NDAA 2012, provide for the permanent and warrantless surveillance of every citizen through regulations involving the National Counterterrorism Center and much more.

Perhaps not today, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, we could easily be sitting and watching our government turn into something absolutely horrible. Why give them a willing public? Why be those silent dissenters of 1933? At first they asked for control of the press, then guns, then the mentally handicapped, then the disabled, then gays, then Jews and before it was over 60 million died as a result of Germany and Japan with over 40 million European refugees. How can we trust them with the power to regulate, so strongly, one of our most basic rights when the federal government has consistently shown itself to be untrustworthy, corrupt and power hungry? The folks in Washington DC are no more equipped, or wise, to govern us than any other citizen. If you yourself haven’t the wisdom to control the nation, then why give it to them?

This isn't an argument against any and all gun laws. Clearly those with violent criminal histories or documented severe mental disturbances should not have the ability to purchase or legally carry a gun. This is simply an attempt to show that when it comes to these types of tragedies, more control isn't an answer. Demanding that a class filled with children be left undefended or that thousands of university students shouldn't be allowed to exercise their inherent rights, this only results in millions being even more vulnerable to mass shootings. At the Oct. 1, 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where thousands of students attend, there was only one security guard who was unarmed.

When we allow a government or some committee (federal, state, local) to make choices for all of us, if that choice is a bad one we all suffer. In this case the choice is literally between life and death. I trust myself to defend my rights and life far more than I trust a bloated and inept government. Why should I, why should we, allow them to force us into a position of relying on them for our own safety?

--Jacob Bogle, Originally published on Dec. 19, 2012. Updated on Oct. 3, 2015 and June 13, 2016.
www.JacobBogle.com
Facebook.com/jacobbogle
Twitter.com/jacobbogle

(I feel this is a very important issue and would like to add to the conversation. If you agree with this article please feel free to share it with others. Re-post, re-blog, send it to websites or friends, post it on Facebook etc. Just include a link back to this page.)