Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

In the comments to "Shootin' Mad", Isaac asks:

Isn't the amendment not only intended to afford us the right to protect ourselves from one another, but also the right to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our own government?

While usually I would reply in the comments, this is a long enough response to merit it's own post. The problem is that the government cannot perform it's legitimate duties (prevention/rectification of force, fraud, and the threat thereof) if every citizen/group of citizens has enough firepower to protect themselves from the tyranny of government.


Every minor infraction requiring state intervention, including legitimate ones, would have a high risk factor for the enforcing body. To be effective, the government would have to increase the power behind it's force. As the firepower of the government increases to be able to fight crime, the firepower of the people to "prevent tyranny" would have to concurrently increase. Essentially the government would be unable to do it's job as long as civilians always had enough firepower to match it.

This is the fundamental idea that Hobbes tackles in Leviathan. In order for government to perform it's duties, it needs to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. However, once you give that right up to the government, it will inevitably and consistently increase it's scope and power as no non-government entity would have the ability to prevent it from doing so.

The founders were aware of this, and in order to help prevent against "the Leviathan" they instituted checks and balances. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the voice of the Constitution, and therefore the people, and stop the more egregious abuses by the Federal Government. However the Court itself has no real power to enforce its decisions. Without a police force or army at its command, all of its rulings are merely suggestions at the mercy of the Executive branch's will to enforce them.

Lets say elect a President who, due to some terrible tragedy, declares a state of martial law. A group of citizens sues, and the Supreme Court determines the martial law is unconstitutional and should be ended immediately. If the Executive were to ignore the order, the Judicial branch would be unable to enforce it. The US Marshals, the enforcement branch of the Judicial System, would be inadequate to prevent the military takeover by the Executive branch, a responsibility which would fall on the citizens.

While this is far fetched and theoretical, it serves to illustrate the catch-22 of the Second Amendment. If civilians have the firepower to defend themselves from the tyranny of government, the government has to engage in an arms race with it's own citizens to complete its legitimate task of protecting them. If civilians are restricted in the ownership of weapons, the government has an easier chore in enforcement, but there is no real way to prevent egregious abuses of power. I don't know what the answer or solution to this is. While I hope the day never comes when I have to figure it out.

Read More...

Summary only...

According to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, evidence that "the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian, uses of weapons" is "nowhere to be found". Apparently the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with with limiting the regulation of weapons. This was in his dissent to the controversial decision this week from the Supreme Court that the constitution does not allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." This is the first time in 70 years that the Supreme Court has looked at the gun rights issue, and it's starting quite the debate.

Mayor Daley's reaction was less than calm and collected:

"If they [the Supreme Court] think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."

It seems the Mayor thinks that the decision was to force everyone to wield guns all the time. Hopefully, a few quotes from the actual decision will clear that up:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

It seems that his most vocal concern is unfounded. Seems unlikely that this ruling will bring on more 18th century style pistol duels.

Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

SCOTUS, DC v. Heller

So what has changed here, and how will it affect the City of Chicago? Well, the only thing that is certain, is that citizens of the District of Columbia, will now be allowed to get Gun Licenses to legally purchase and keep a gun for use in their home for self defense. If it is ruled that it does indeed apply to the City of Chicago, the gun ban that has been in place for over 25 years will have to be withdrawn.

The concern with this is that Chicago is a City already riddled with gun violence and that anything but full-on prohibition of guns, will only exacerbate the problem. But Chicago's gun woes have persisted despite the gun ban. From 2004 to the end of 2007 there were 43,685 gun related crimes in Chicago. For a city in which guns are supposed to be illegal, 10,000 gun crimes a year seems awfully high.

There are some people who believe that the right to bear arms should extend to all forms of weapons; I am not one of them. I don't believe we need a society with citizens who are all armed with military grade machine guns. I do believe that the right to defend your home, your life, and your property is essential for every individual on the planet. When a handgun is no longer enough to achieve this security I may reconsider my position. For the time being, I like the fact that the Supreme Court has decided people can own guns for the protection of their homes.

In the end it comes down to a statement I heard so long ago that I can't remember its source. In a society where guns are illegal, the only people with guns are criminals. People who are going to break the law and commit an armed felony don't care if guns are illegal, so lets allow law-abiding citizens the tools to protect themselves.

Read More...

Summary only...

One of the many things I hate about the Government is that the usual approach to creating change is by enacting new restrictions. Want more efficient cars? Simply prevent people from selling inefficient ones. The current system might be effective but I've long thought that competitions such as the ones the X PRIZE Foundation holds, that substantially reward success rather than penalize failure through force, were a much more interesting proposition. That's why I am so encouraged when I hear that John McCain is proposing this style of public policy in his campaign appearances.


McCain's proposal is to offer a $300 Million prize for the company that develops a battery that "far surpasses existing technology". It is inevitable that the implementation of the competition will arrive with customary abundance of bureaucratic red tape and the details as to what defines "far surpasses" are obviously not yet clear. But specifics aside this is still one of the few 'fresh' ideas I've seen in this year's race, and one of even fewer ideas that I like.

Left-leaning pundits like Wonkette are wasting no time on denouncing the "evils" of the idea:

And now John McCain will give the rich, global corporation that puts together its fancy car battery first a tax dollar from each and every one of you.

While I share the apprehension of it being tax-payer funded, I vehemently disagree with the implication that successes in environmentally friendly technologies are somehow lessened by the inventor's desire for profitability.

The way things stand right now, it seems unlikely that McCain will be elected President. If he were to be elected I wonder if this policy idea would be enacted or abandoned. Regardless, it is fantastic to hear proposals that seek to reward excellence rather than just raise the bar for the lowest common denominator.

Read More...

Summary only...