Christians all over Mississippi surely are celebrating the passage of the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberties Act by the state legislature. While the two existing versions of the bill must be reconciled into one bill before it can be sent to Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, I would say supporters' excitement is premature, at best. The bill, as it's written, is blatantly unconstitutional and is likely to face a court challenge as soon as it's signed. Chances are, it will never actually be enforceable. It's just another waste of time by fundamentalists desperate to insert school-sanctioned prayers back into Mississippi's classrooms.
The Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act is being sponsored by state Republican Rep. Mark Formby, who has introduced a similar bill every year since 2009. He says his bill is intended to clarify existing law and to dispel confusion about whether students are allowed to discuss religious themes in their school work or wear religious clothing at school. Both concerns are currently protected under federal law. Supporters of the law say it will protect students' religious freedoms, ensure that students can talk about spiritual beliefs and guarantee that they aren't deprived of their rights.
Under the bill, gatherings such as graduations, football games, and even mornng announcements, would be defined as "limited public forums." Under the bill, certain groups of students, such as those who won honors, would be allowed to speak during those occasions. The bill specifies that the school won't dictate the message and will publish a disclaimer sayng that they are not sponsoring prayer. The school will be responsible for prohibiting vulgarity and making sure the message is appropriate to the occasion.
I don't know Mark Formby. I don't live in Mississippi. And while I'm sure he's earnest about wanting to "clarify" his state's law regarding students' religious rights, his proposal contains many pitfalls and unintended consequences.
Formby says his law is intended to "clarify" existing law, to make sure that students have the right speak openly about their spiritual beliefs. A noble goal, for sure. But the reality is, it will only serve to open events such as graduation ceremonies and Friday night football games to student-led (and presumably, school-santioned) prayers. That, in turn, will open school systems up to time-consuming and costly litigation. It's just not worth the risk.
The problem with the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberties Act, as with every law that seeks to "protect" students' religius rights, lies not with the stated intent, but with how the law will realistically be applied. Does anyone really believe that students of differing faiths, such as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or even atheists, will be given the same freedom to speak about their spiritual beliefs as their Christian counterparts? That's not likely, without a great deal of protest from offended parents. How about students who follow lesser known faiths such as Rastafarianism, or even Satanism? Both are recognized religions, and both would have the right to ask that their views be heard under this bill. But it will never happen.
The truth is, the Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act is intended to protect only one type of religous expression: Christian. It is a thinly veiled attempt to allow Christian students to preach to their contemporaries, who in effect, become a captive audience. That's not fair, and it goes against both the spirit and the intent of our nation's founders.
When James Madison and the other constitutional delegates guaranteed religious freedom, they did not, as some believe, intend to create a Christian nation. Most of them, in fact, were not what you would call traditional Christians, but Deists. Our founders wanted to protect us from the tyranny of a state religion. In fact, they wanted government to stay completely out of the debate. To Madison and his contemporaries, freedom of (and from) religion should be a private matter of conscience for each individual. They wanted each person to have the right to believe and worship as he or she chose, not have one set of beliefs shoved down our throats at the exclusion of all others.
It really is this simple. If supporters of the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act want to do the right thing, they would make sure that students of all faiths -- not just Christians -- and students of no faith have an equal opportunity to be heard. Open the floor to all, or ban religious expressions of all kinds. Simple.
Our founders never intended America to be a theocracy. And it's not freedom if students are only allowed to be exposed to one point of view. Do we want to protect students' religious freedoms? Then, allow them to be exposed to various religous viewpoints and ideas and let them choose for themselves. That is what freedom means, and it's what our founders intended.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Boy Scouts make right move by lifting ban on gays
I was pleasantly surprised on Monday (Jan. 28) when the Boy Scouts of America announced that, after 102 years, they had finally decided to lift the ban on gay Scouts and Scout leaders. To be clear, this is not a wholesale reversal of position after decades of opposition. I doubt we'll ever see the BSA advertising openly to attract gay Scouts and leaders. But what the new policy does do is leave the decision of how to deal with the issue to the individual councils. Personally, I don't think the new policy goes far enough. I'd like to see the ban completely thrown out so that all boys, gay and straight, can reap the benefits of Scouting. But it is a stunning step forward after decades of opposition, and it is long overdue.
I have always loved Scouting. I joined at age 8 (this is well before the creation of Tiger Cubs. Back then, you just joined the closest Cub den.) after weeks of bugging my parents incessantly to sign me up. I had heard great stories from my friends about the adventures they were having, and I wanted to be part of it.
Scouting was always great fun for me. Not only did I get to hang out with my friends, but we got to do cool things together. We learned archery. We took tours of cool places such as newspapers and police stations and fire houses. In fact, I can honestly say that the tour we took of my local newspaper helped pique my future interest in journalism. As I got older, we started camping on weekends and going to "Camporees," a gathering of local and area Scout troops. All in all, it was great fun.
But all fun aside, I loved (and still love) Scouting because it helped reinforce what my parents were teaching me at home. Scouting teaches honesty and loyalty. It teaches boys the importance of service, and encourages members to help other people (the Scouts' slogan is "Do a Good Turn Daily"). And it instills a sense of patriotism. All are great things to teach the next generations of boys. So why should the fun and those great life lessons be limited only to heterosexuals?
For years, the BSA has argued that homosexuality, in essence, went against the traditional morals it was trying to instill in its members. The Scouts also argued that, as a private organization, it had a right to discriminate. That position was affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court in 2000 in the landmark case Boy Scouts of America et al v. Dale. Still, I always thought it was short-sighted and silly to kick a good Scout out or to expel a popular troop leader just because of his sexual orientation -- something he has absolutely no control over.
I believe a good portion of the reason the BSA has been slow to embrace gay Scouts and Scout leaders is simple fear fueled by ignorance, Back in 1910, when Robert Baden Powell founded the Scouting movement in his home country of Great Britain, homosexuality was largely unheard of. It was certainly never discussed or acknowledged in polite company, though everyone knew it existed. For many decades, until the 1970s, in fact, homosexuality was widely considered a mental illness. No wonder the BSA didn't want gay Scouts in its ranks or gay leaders influencing boys.
Times have changed, though. Today we understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Our sexual orientation -- gay, straight or bisexual -- is genetically predetermined. Today, more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and recognizing the equal rights of homosexuals. So why shouldn't the BSA finally recognize that a gay boy can be just as good a Scout as his straight counterpart? Why shouldn't the BSA recognize that gay men are fully capable of leading troops, just like straight men? Right. It just doesn't make sense to differently.
When I was in Scouting, one of the biggest fears I heard expressed about allowing gays in the ranks is that they would molest boys, or worse, try to "convert" them to the "gay lifestyle." Well, the BSA itself has taken steps to make sure this doesn't happen. Every Scoutmaster and assistant Scoutmaster is required to receive training in how to recognize sexual abuse and what to do if a boy comes to them with charges of inappropriate contact with a leader. The same is true of camp counselors. There are strict rules in place which dictate showering times when camping. Boys don't shower with adults. Ever. No leader is allowed to be alone with boys without at least one other adult present. That's called the "two-deep leadership rule," and it's been in place for at least two decades.
As for the idea that gay leaders will molest boys, we're talking about two different issues here. Gay men aren't attracted to every man or boy they see. They're not interested in "converting" anyone. And the problem of sexual abuse isn't about orientation, anyway. It's an issue of power. It's true that some gay men do molest boys. But they don't do it because they're gay. And the truth is, statistics (and the Scouts' own files) have shown that straight men are far more likely to be molesters than gay men are.
The BSA's new policy is likely to have very little discernible effect in the short term. Councils in the South and other reliably conservative parts of the country will continue to ban gay Scouts and Scout leaders, just as they always have. That's their right under the new policy, which wisely steers clear of laying the law down to civic, religious and educational institutions which may be opposed to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. If we see changes, expect to see them in the areas where you would expect to -- the coasts and up in the Northeast.
The Boy Scouts have taken a giant step forward with this policy change. Eventually (and sooner rather than later), I'd like to see them take the final step and throw the organization open to all boys, gay or straight, without fear, without reservations and without conditions. I'd like to see them use their massive influence with boys to teach not only honesty, service and patriotism, but also tolerance
and respect for others' differences. When that happens, and I believe it will, our society will be better for it.
I have always loved Scouting. I joined at age 8 (this is well before the creation of Tiger Cubs. Back then, you just joined the closest Cub den.) after weeks of bugging my parents incessantly to sign me up. I had heard great stories from my friends about the adventures they were having, and I wanted to be part of it.
Scouting was always great fun for me. Not only did I get to hang out with my friends, but we got to do cool things together. We learned archery. We took tours of cool places such as newspapers and police stations and fire houses. In fact, I can honestly say that the tour we took of my local newspaper helped pique my future interest in journalism. As I got older, we started camping on weekends and going to "Camporees," a gathering of local and area Scout troops. All in all, it was great fun.
But all fun aside, I loved (and still love) Scouting because it helped reinforce what my parents were teaching me at home. Scouting teaches honesty and loyalty. It teaches boys the importance of service, and encourages members to help other people (the Scouts' slogan is "Do a Good Turn Daily"). And it instills a sense of patriotism. All are great things to teach the next generations of boys. So why should the fun and those great life lessons be limited only to heterosexuals?
For years, the BSA has argued that homosexuality, in essence, went against the traditional morals it was trying to instill in its members. The Scouts also argued that, as a private organization, it had a right to discriminate. That position was affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court in 2000 in the landmark case Boy Scouts of America et al v. Dale. Still, I always thought it was short-sighted and silly to kick a good Scout out or to expel a popular troop leader just because of his sexual orientation -- something he has absolutely no control over.
I believe a good portion of the reason the BSA has been slow to embrace gay Scouts and Scout leaders is simple fear fueled by ignorance, Back in 1910, when Robert Baden Powell founded the Scouting movement in his home country of Great Britain, homosexuality was largely unheard of. It was certainly never discussed or acknowledged in polite company, though everyone knew it existed. For many decades, until the 1970s, in fact, homosexuality was widely considered a mental illness. No wonder the BSA didn't want gay Scouts in its ranks or gay leaders influencing boys.
Times have changed, though. Today we understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Our sexual orientation -- gay, straight or bisexual -- is genetically predetermined. Today, more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and recognizing the equal rights of homosexuals. So why shouldn't the BSA finally recognize that a gay boy can be just as good a Scout as his straight counterpart? Why shouldn't the BSA recognize that gay men are fully capable of leading troops, just like straight men? Right. It just doesn't make sense to differently.
When I was in Scouting, one of the biggest fears I heard expressed about allowing gays in the ranks is that they would molest boys, or worse, try to "convert" them to the "gay lifestyle." Well, the BSA itself has taken steps to make sure this doesn't happen. Every Scoutmaster and assistant Scoutmaster is required to receive training in how to recognize sexual abuse and what to do if a boy comes to them with charges of inappropriate contact with a leader. The same is true of camp counselors. There are strict rules in place which dictate showering times when camping. Boys don't shower with adults. Ever. No leader is allowed to be alone with boys without at least one other adult present. That's called the "two-deep leadership rule," and it's been in place for at least two decades.
As for the idea that gay leaders will molest boys, we're talking about two different issues here. Gay men aren't attracted to every man or boy they see. They're not interested in "converting" anyone. And the problem of sexual abuse isn't about orientation, anyway. It's an issue of power. It's true that some gay men do molest boys. But they don't do it because they're gay. And the truth is, statistics (and the Scouts' own files) have shown that straight men are far more likely to be molesters than gay men are.
The BSA's new policy is likely to have very little discernible effect in the short term. Councils in the South and other reliably conservative parts of the country will continue to ban gay Scouts and Scout leaders, just as they always have. That's their right under the new policy, which wisely steers clear of laying the law down to civic, religious and educational institutions which may be opposed to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. If we see changes, expect to see them in the areas where you would expect to -- the coasts and up in the Northeast.
The Boy Scouts have taken a giant step forward with this policy change. Eventually (and sooner rather than later), I'd like to see them take the final step and throw the organization open to all boys, gay or straight, without fear, without reservations and without conditions. I'd like to see them use their massive influence with boys to teach not only honesty, service and patriotism, but also tolerance
and respect for others' differences. When that happens, and I believe it will, our society will be better for it.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Some thoughts on Obama's second inauguration
Like a lot of Americans, I took time out on Monday to sit and watch President Barack Obama's inauguration festivities. Since this blog basically began five years ago with my thoughts on his first inauguration, I thought I would take time today to give my impressions on his second.
1. This inauguration, though it had much of the same pageantry as Obama's first celebration four years ago, was missing something. Four years ago, there was a sense of excitement in the air, a feeling that we were witnessing something historic with the inauguration of this nation's first black president. Four years ago, there was a feeling of hope, a fundamental belief that things were going to get better. Today, that hope has largely been dashed against the rocks of harsh reality.
While the stock market continues to set new five-year highs, millions of people remain unemployed and uninsured. Instead of coming together as a nation to address our problems, we remain a nation divided along party lines, more interested in being right and gaining power than in addressing our very real, very serious problems. That initial sense of hope we felt with Obama's inauguration four years ago has largely been replaced with disappointment, if not outright disillusionment.
2. Obama has aged some since he took office in 2009. He's a little grayer. Still, I thought he looked remarkable when compared to how George W. Bush looked as he left Washington at the end of his second term. The presidency has traditionally been unkind to those who hold the office. It ages a person, being the most powerful person on Earth and having the weight of the world squarely on your shoulders. When last we saw the younger Bush four years ago, he looked ancient. He looked completely wrung out by the pressures of the job.
By contrast, Obama looks relatively fresh. He looks like he still has a bit of spring left in his step. The question is, will he be able to handle the pressures of the next four years? Or will the job age him, just as it has done for just about every one of his predecessors?
3. Former President Bill Clinton was clearly in his element on Monday. He looked like he was having a ball. And why not? Clinton is clearly the most powerful, influential person in his party, as well as the most popular. He is a modern-day "king maker." Without Clinton, Obama would have lost the general election. The truth is, he was floundering until the Democratic Convention, when Clinton, with one speech, did a better job of making the case for Obama's reelection than the candidate himself had done up to that point.
A lot of Americans don't like Clinton. A lot of us remember the absolute sewer the presidency was dragged through because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and the ensuing impeachment. But it cannot be denied that the man is a brilliant politician. He is arguably the most gifted politician this country has seen in the past half century. And it cannot be denied that without his endorsement, this election would have had a very different outcome.
4. I thought Obama's inaugural address was brilliant. A lot of people in the last couple days have criticized the president for the political nature of his speech. But I liked how he focused on the need for bipartisanship and the necessity of us all working together to address our problems. I was also quite pleasantly surprised that he put the spotlight on the issue of equality for ALL Americans, especially for gay Americans. It was a bold move made by a president who is clearly looking at his legacy.
Personally, I think the criticism that Obama's speech was too political is disingenuous. Presidents, from the beginning, have used inaugural addresses to lay out their agenda for the next four years, and Obama is no different. I thought his speech struck the perfect balance between pragmatic (this is what I'm going to do) and statesman-like. No complaints from me.
5. The whole controversy over whether singer Beyonce sang the national anthem live or used a pre-recorded track is ridiculous, and it has gotten entirely too much coverage in the media. Look, we all know the woman can sing. She's been in the spotlight since she was a child.
This is not a repeat of the Milli Vanilli scandal, where the two singers not only DIDN'T sing their own music, but COULDN'T sing, and still sold millions of records, even winning a Grammy. So what if she used a pre-recorded track? It was her voice doing the singing. She's not the first to do it (assuming she did), and she won't be the last. And really, considering that she was singing in front of not only a nationwide, but a worldwide audience, can any of us really blame her if she wanted perfection?
Whether she was live or Memorex, the continued focus on this only shows how obsessed our nation has become with frivolous entertainment. We have real, serious problems in this country. To spend so much time worrying about whether Beyonce sang live or not only shows how skewed our priorities have become as a nation. How sad.
1. This inauguration, though it had much of the same pageantry as Obama's first celebration four years ago, was missing something. Four years ago, there was a sense of excitement in the air, a feeling that we were witnessing something historic with the inauguration of this nation's first black president. Four years ago, there was a feeling of hope, a fundamental belief that things were going to get better. Today, that hope has largely been dashed against the rocks of harsh reality.
While the stock market continues to set new five-year highs, millions of people remain unemployed and uninsured. Instead of coming together as a nation to address our problems, we remain a nation divided along party lines, more interested in being right and gaining power than in addressing our very real, very serious problems. That initial sense of hope we felt with Obama's inauguration four years ago has largely been replaced with disappointment, if not outright disillusionment.
2. Obama has aged some since he took office in 2009. He's a little grayer. Still, I thought he looked remarkable when compared to how George W. Bush looked as he left Washington at the end of his second term. The presidency has traditionally been unkind to those who hold the office. It ages a person, being the most powerful person on Earth and having the weight of the world squarely on your shoulders. When last we saw the younger Bush four years ago, he looked ancient. He looked completely wrung out by the pressures of the job.
By contrast, Obama looks relatively fresh. He looks like he still has a bit of spring left in his step. The question is, will he be able to handle the pressures of the next four years? Or will the job age him, just as it has done for just about every one of his predecessors?
3. Former President Bill Clinton was clearly in his element on Monday. He looked like he was having a ball. And why not? Clinton is clearly the most powerful, influential person in his party, as well as the most popular. He is a modern-day "king maker." Without Clinton, Obama would have lost the general election. The truth is, he was floundering until the Democratic Convention, when Clinton, with one speech, did a better job of making the case for Obama's reelection than the candidate himself had done up to that point.
A lot of Americans don't like Clinton. A lot of us remember the absolute sewer the presidency was dragged through because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and the ensuing impeachment. But it cannot be denied that the man is a brilliant politician. He is arguably the most gifted politician this country has seen in the past half century. And it cannot be denied that without his endorsement, this election would have had a very different outcome.
4. I thought Obama's inaugural address was brilliant. A lot of people in the last couple days have criticized the president for the political nature of his speech. But I liked how he focused on the need for bipartisanship and the necessity of us all working together to address our problems. I was also quite pleasantly surprised that he put the spotlight on the issue of equality for ALL Americans, especially for gay Americans. It was a bold move made by a president who is clearly looking at his legacy.
Personally, I think the criticism that Obama's speech was too political is disingenuous. Presidents, from the beginning, have used inaugural addresses to lay out their agenda for the next four years, and Obama is no different. I thought his speech struck the perfect balance between pragmatic (this is what I'm going to do) and statesman-like. No complaints from me.
5. The whole controversy over whether singer Beyonce sang the national anthem live or used a pre-recorded track is ridiculous, and it has gotten entirely too much coverage in the media. Look, we all know the woman can sing. She's been in the spotlight since she was a child.
This is not a repeat of the Milli Vanilli scandal, where the two singers not only DIDN'T sing their own music, but COULDN'T sing, and still sold millions of records, even winning a Grammy. So what if she used a pre-recorded track? It was her voice doing the singing. She's not the first to do it (assuming she did), and she won't be the last. And really, considering that she was singing in front of not only a nationwide, but a worldwide audience, can any of us really blame her if she wanted perfection?
Whether she was live or Memorex, the continued focus on this only shows how obsessed our nation has become with frivolous entertainment. We have real, serious problems in this country. To spend so much time worrying about whether Beyonce sang live or not only shows how skewed our priorities have become as a nation. How sad.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Fixing our violent culture begins with us
It was shocking, even to a nation that has grown numb to school shootings and acts of senseless public violence. Three days before the Newtown, Conn., shootings, a lone gunman walked through a shopping mall, killing two people and then himself, but that hardly caused a ripple in the public consciousness compared to the Newtown massacre that occurred just days later. Newtown stood out, even in a violence-soaked culture that has seen similar shootings at places as diverse as Columbine, Pearl, Miss., and Virginia Tech. Maybe it was the sheer number of casualties -- 27 dead, including 20 children. More likely, it was because of the age of the victims. They were elementary-aged children, some as young as kindergarten. Whatever the cause, the tragedy in Newtown caught this nation's attention, and it has kept it.
In response to the shooting, President Barack Obama vowed to take "meaningful action" to make sure tragedies like this never happen again, although what that means is yet to be determined. On the other side of the aisle, the National Rifle Association has come forth with a proposal to turn every school in America into an armed fortress under the mistaken assumption that "the best solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
It seems clear that America is finally ready to take a hard look at our violent culture. It's a discussion that is long overdue. But as the initial shock wears off, the question remains: What's the best way to reduce the violence in our society, to put an end to these random bloodbaths?
Whatever path we take, I think it's clear that the solution has to begin by taking a look at our current gun laws. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we go door to door confiscating people's weapons. But it's clear that even though we are the most armed nation on earth, we still have a violence problem. When we have 11 mass shootings in our nation over a two-year span, we have a problem. When it remains easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons -- even through legal means -- than law-abiding citizens, it's clear that we have a problem and that the status-quo is no longer working. So what should we do about it?
I would start by establishing a national database for the mentally ill. I know. This isn't as easy as it sounds, thanks to medical privacy laws. So why not make it easy? Start with the names of those people already in prison who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. That information should be available through public records. How about inserting an exemption in existing medical privacy laws allowing mental health professionals to submit to the database the names of those they believe to be a danger to themselves or others? We're not talking about your everyday, garden-variety mental illness such as depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder. We're talking about people with schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, those illnesses where a person's view of reality is compromised, or where they could conceivably become violent. Establishing this database might seem like an unforgivable invasion of personal privacy, but think about how many lives could have been saved at Virginia Tech if the shooter, who had a long history of serious mental illness, had been flagged and kept from getting his hands on a gun. Think about all the lives that might have been saved over the past 20 years if such a database had existed to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. We have already established a database for convicted sex offenders. Why not do the same for the seriously mentally ill?
Along the same lines, I believe it is time we took a serious look at our mental health care system in this country. We need to look at how easy and affordable it is to screen for mental illness. And we need to look at what it costs to treat, both in terms of therapy and in terms of medication. President Obama already has taken an important step in his health care reform law that prohibits people from being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Now, we need to look at capping the prices that can be charged for medications, especially psychiatric drugs. After all, what's the point of having an easy, affordable diagnosis if you can't afford the medicines to treat the illness?
In terms of new gun laws, I don't believe many changes need to be made, although we DO need to do a better job in enforcing the existing laws. Two changes I WOULD like to see, though, are the return of the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons and the closing of the "gun show loophole." That loophole allows the ownership of a weapon to be transferred without the benefit of a background check. Given recent events, and the number of mass shootings over the past couple of years, that just seems like common sense.
Perhaps the biggest change we can make in changing our violent culture doesn't lie in any piece of legislation. It lies with each of us. Specifically, it lies with how today's children are being raised. To put it bluntly, we have raised a generation of heathens. We have abdicated our responsibility as parents and as a society in making sure our children are equipped with the basics, what my parents used to call "home training." A majority of kids today aren't being raised with a sense of respect, or even basic manners. Many parents (but certainly not all) are so interested in being their child's "friend," that they forget to instill in that child a sense of right and wrong, a basic moral compass. Many parents today are so busy chasing after money and possessions that they don't have time to spend with their kids. Instead, they turn them over to the "electronic babysitter" -- TV, computers and video games -- and go on their merry way. And without proper parental supervision, what are our children gravitating toward? Shows like "Jersey Shore. " Violent games like "Need for Speed" and "Call of Duty," which glorify killing. And who knows what on the largely unregulated Wild West frontier of the Internet. We allow our children to be exposed to these violent influences unsupervised for hours each day. We fail to teach them basic respect or manners. We fail to instill in them a sense of basic right and wrong, and then we wonder why we have raised a selfish, self-centered generation with no conscience?
Tragedies like Newtown are horrific, and I sincerely hope that some good does come out of the tragedy in the form of a much-needed national dialogue about our violent culture. I hope our gun laws are tweaked in ways that get assault weapons off the streets and make it harder for the mentally ill and the criminal to get guns. But if we really want to change our culture, talking isn't enough. New laws aren't enough. Change will only happen when we take an honest look at ourselves and how we're raising the next generation. Only by changing ourselves, by returning to the basic standards of decency and morality, can we have hope of making our culture less violent.
In response to the shooting, President Barack Obama vowed to take "meaningful action" to make sure tragedies like this never happen again, although what that means is yet to be determined. On the other side of the aisle, the National Rifle Association has come forth with a proposal to turn every school in America into an armed fortress under the mistaken assumption that "the best solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
It seems clear that America is finally ready to take a hard look at our violent culture. It's a discussion that is long overdue. But as the initial shock wears off, the question remains: What's the best way to reduce the violence in our society, to put an end to these random bloodbaths?
Whatever path we take, I think it's clear that the solution has to begin by taking a look at our current gun laws. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we go door to door confiscating people's weapons. But it's clear that even though we are the most armed nation on earth, we still have a violence problem. When we have 11 mass shootings in our nation over a two-year span, we have a problem. When it remains easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons -- even through legal means -- than law-abiding citizens, it's clear that we have a problem and that the status-quo is no longer working. So what should we do about it?
I would start by establishing a national database for the mentally ill. I know. This isn't as easy as it sounds, thanks to medical privacy laws. So why not make it easy? Start with the names of those people already in prison who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. That information should be available through public records. How about inserting an exemption in existing medical privacy laws allowing mental health professionals to submit to the database the names of those they believe to be a danger to themselves or others? We're not talking about your everyday, garden-variety mental illness such as depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder. We're talking about people with schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, those illnesses where a person's view of reality is compromised, or where they could conceivably become violent. Establishing this database might seem like an unforgivable invasion of personal privacy, but think about how many lives could have been saved at Virginia Tech if the shooter, who had a long history of serious mental illness, had been flagged and kept from getting his hands on a gun. Think about all the lives that might have been saved over the past 20 years if such a database had existed to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. We have already established a database for convicted sex offenders. Why not do the same for the seriously mentally ill?
Along the same lines, I believe it is time we took a serious look at our mental health care system in this country. We need to look at how easy and affordable it is to screen for mental illness. And we need to look at what it costs to treat, both in terms of therapy and in terms of medication. President Obama already has taken an important step in his health care reform law that prohibits people from being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Now, we need to look at capping the prices that can be charged for medications, especially psychiatric drugs. After all, what's the point of having an easy, affordable diagnosis if you can't afford the medicines to treat the illness?
In terms of new gun laws, I don't believe many changes need to be made, although we DO need to do a better job in enforcing the existing laws. Two changes I WOULD like to see, though, are the return of the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons and the closing of the "gun show loophole." That loophole allows the ownership of a weapon to be transferred without the benefit of a background check. Given recent events, and the number of mass shootings over the past couple of years, that just seems like common sense.
Perhaps the biggest change we can make in changing our violent culture doesn't lie in any piece of legislation. It lies with each of us. Specifically, it lies with how today's children are being raised. To put it bluntly, we have raised a generation of heathens. We have abdicated our responsibility as parents and as a society in making sure our children are equipped with the basics, what my parents used to call "home training." A majority of kids today aren't being raised with a sense of respect, or even basic manners. Many parents (but certainly not all) are so interested in being their child's "friend," that they forget to instill in that child a sense of right and wrong, a basic moral compass. Many parents today are so busy chasing after money and possessions that they don't have time to spend with their kids. Instead, they turn them over to the "electronic babysitter" -- TV, computers and video games -- and go on their merry way. And without proper parental supervision, what are our children gravitating toward? Shows like "Jersey Shore. " Violent games like "Need for Speed" and "Call of Duty," which glorify killing. And who knows what on the largely unregulated Wild West frontier of the Internet. We allow our children to be exposed to these violent influences unsupervised for hours each day. We fail to teach them basic respect or manners. We fail to instill in them a sense of basic right and wrong, and then we wonder why we have raised a selfish, self-centered generation with no conscience?
Tragedies like Newtown are horrific, and I sincerely hope that some good does come out of the tragedy in the form of a much-needed national dialogue about our violent culture. I hope our gun laws are tweaked in ways that get assault weapons off the streets and make it harder for the mentally ill and the criminal to get guns. But if we really want to change our culture, talking isn't enough. New laws aren't enough. Change will only happen when we take an honest look at ourselves and how we're raising the next generation. Only by changing ourselves, by returning to the basic standards of decency and morality, can we have hope of making our culture less violent.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Why did Romney lose?
In the weeks following Election 2012, there has been a lot of complaining and gnashing of teeth from Republicans who were sure they were going to win, yet who came up short. In the "sour grapes" moment of the year, Mitt Romney has even said that Obama won because of the "gifts" he gave to some voters. Those comments from Romney are beneath a man of Romney's stature and obvious gifts, and they don't really answer the question of how Romney lost, especially with a weak economy and high unemployment that usually guarantees a Republican victory. So why did Romney lose Election 2012?
1. Romney lost because the Democrats successfully painted him as rich, white and out of touch with average Americans: This is the same trick that both parties have been using on each other for years. In 2004, Republicans successfully used it against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Because he is married to Theresa Heinz of the Heinz Ketchup fortune, Kerry was painted as an elitist blue-blood who couldn't relate to average "folks." Never mind that Kerry is a highly decorated Vietnam War hero. His campaign ads, in which he tried to show himself doing regular things such as hunting were tone-deaf and only made the situation worse. In the end, he lost handily to President George W. Bush.
In 2012, it was Romney's turn to be tarred with the "elitist" brush. To be fair, Romney is, for all intents and purposes, a self-made man. He's made millions in business. He managed to get himself elected governor of Massachussets as a Republican, and he was a succesful governor. That's impressive, considering how "blue" a state Massachussets usually is. In a field of candidates trying to outdo themselves as being the most conservative in 2012, Romney was by far the most moderate. He looked and he sounded presidential.
The problem was, Romney never figured out how to talk to average people, or to break down his grand ideas into bite-size, easily digestible pieces. Just like Al Gore in 2000, Romney came across as stiff when speaking and he looked uncomfortable in crowds. He came across as the businessman that he is. He wasn't the kind of guy you could sit and have a beer with in your local bar (a gift shared by both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Instead, he looked like the boss you would complain about over those beers.
2. Romney lost because voters couldn't figure out where he stood on the issues: Romney said all the right thngs. He spoke at length about repealing "Obamacare," even though he had fought for and passed a similar program in Massachussets. He criticized Obama about the weak economy and the high unemployment. The problem was, he didn't come across as a strong man of principle, as Ronald Reagan had.
In fact, if you look at his record, Romney came across as quite the opposite. While governor of Massachussets, Romney said he was for gay marriage, or at least civil unions. In fact, he even instructed the county clerks in Massachussets to start issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. When he began running for president, presto! He was strongly against gay marriage. At one time, Romney identified as pro-choice in the abortion debate. As a presidential candidate, he became strongly pro-life.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds on issues. At one time, I was firmly pro-death penalty. Now, I'm against it. The problem wasn't that Romney changed his mind. It was how he did it. He never came across as someone who had wrestled with the deep moral issues before changing his mind. Instead, he came across as a slightly sleazy political opportunist who would tell voters exactly what they wanted to hear, as long as it won their vote. He came across as the "flip-flopper" that Republicans have detested for years. As a result, voters could never get a clear picture of where Romney stood on the issues, or what he would do if elected.
3. Romney lost because the our nation is changing, and Republicans haven't changed with it: If Election 2012 did anything, it should have showed the national GOP that the message they have relied on since the 1980s just isn't working anymore. In the early 1980s, the GOP hitched its wagon to the "Moral Majority" championed by Jerry Falwell, and later the "Christian Coalition" run by Ralph Reed. Instead of being just the pro-business party, the party of smaller government and lower taxes, Republicans became synonymous with moral issues and religion. They began waging fights against gay marriage and gay rights in general. They fought to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. And they have fought in recent years to stymie promising stem cell research. Over time, moderate and liberal Republicans were driven from the party in the name of ideological purity. Today, it is clearly the extreme wing of the party that is calling the shots.
But guess what? America is not a nation of extremists. In fact, most voters sit somewhere in the middle on political and moral issues. Sure, the GOP enjoys strong support throughout the South and large swaths of the Midwest. But more and more, the polls are showing that increasing numbers of people are in favor of legalizing marijuana and are in favor of same-sex marriage, just to name a couple issues. Americans are becoming more open, while the GOP stubbornly clings to its traditional view on morality.
America is also coming more diverse. Hispanics are growing in number and in political clout. It is estimated that by 2050, if not sooner, they will become the No. 1 ethnic group in America, supplanting whites. Yet, the Republicans continually come across as xenophobes and fearmongers with their push to fence off our southern border and deny the children of illegal aliens a chance at an education and a better life.
Fair or not, that's what Romney represented to millions of people who voted on Nov. 6. Romney wasn't necessarily a terrible candidate (though there have certainly been better). He's a smart, successful man who I believe honestly loves his country. He simply represented a party that is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream.
Hopefully, this Election has woken up the national GOP and given them a clear plan of what they need to do to remain relevant. . Until they abandon the fringe elements of their party and move toward the middle; and until they realize that they are badly out of tune with a rapidly changing America, their defeat in 2012 may be just the beginning of a long stretch in the political wilderness.
1. Romney lost because the Democrats successfully painted him as rich, white and out of touch with average Americans: This is the same trick that both parties have been using on each other for years. In 2004, Republicans successfully used it against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Because he is married to Theresa Heinz of the Heinz Ketchup fortune, Kerry was painted as an elitist blue-blood who couldn't relate to average "folks." Never mind that Kerry is a highly decorated Vietnam War hero. His campaign ads, in which he tried to show himself doing regular things such as hunting were tone-deaf and only made the situation worse. In the end, he lost handily to President George W. Bush.
In 2012, it was Romney's turn to be tarred with the "elitist" brush. To be fair, Romney is, for all intents and purposes, a self-made man. He's made millions in business. He managed to get himself elected governor of Massachussets as a Republican, and he was a succesful governor. That's impressive, considering how "blue" a state Massachussets usually is. In a field of candidates trying to outdo themselves as being the most conservative in 2012, Romney was by far the most moderate. He looked and he sounded presidential.
The problem was, Romney never figured out how to talk to average people, or to break down his grand ideas into bite-size, easily digestible pieces. Just like Al Gore in 2000, Romney came across as stiff when speaking and he looked uncomfortable in crowds. He came across as the businessman that he is. He wasn't the kind of guy you could sit and have a beer with in your local bar (a gift shared by both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Instead, he looked like the boss you would complain about over those beers.
2. Romney lost because voters couldn't figure out where he stood on the issues: Romney said all the right thngs. He spoke at length about repealing "Obamacare," even though he had fought for and passed a similar program in Massachussets. He criticized Obama about the weak economy and the high unemployment. The problem was, he didn't come across as a strong man of principle, as Ronald Reagan had.
In fact, if you look at his record, Romney came across as quite the opposite. While governor of Massachussets, Romney said he was for gay marriage, or at least civil unions. In fact, he even instructed the county clerks in Massachussets to start issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. When he began running for president, presto! He was strongly against gay marriage. At one time, Romney identified as pro-choice in the abortion debate. As a presidential candidate, he became strongly pro-life.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds on issues. At one time, I was firmly pro-death penalty. Now, I'm against it. The problem wasn't that Romney changed his mind. It was how he did it. He never came across as someone who had wrestled with the deep moral issues before changing his mind. Instead, he came across as a slightly sleazy political opportunist who would tell voters exactly what they wanted to hear, as long as it won their vote. He came across as the "flip-flopper" that Republicans have detested for years. As a result, voters could never get a clear picture of where Romney stood on the issues, or what he would do if elected.
3. Romney lost because the our nation is changing, and Republicans haven't changed with it: If Election 2012 did anything, it should have showed the national GOP that the message they have relied on since the 1980s just isn't working anymore. In the early 1980s, the GOP hitched its wagon to the "Moral Majority" championed by Jerry Falwell, and later the "Christian Coalition" run by Ralph Reed. Instead of being just the pro-business party, the party of smaller government and lower taxes, Republicans became synonymous with moral issues and religion. They began waging fights against gay marriage and gay rights in general. They fought to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. And they have fought in recent years to stymie promising stem cell research. Over time, moderate and liberal Republicans were driven from the party in the name of ideological purity. Today, it is clearly the extreme wing of the party that is calling the shots.
But guess what? America is not a nation of extremists. In fact, most voters sit somewhere in the middle on political and moral issues. Sure, the GOP enjoys strong support throughout the South and large swaths of the Midwest. But more and more, the polls are showing that increasing numbers of people are in favor of legalizing marijuana and are in favor of same-sex marriage, just to name a couple issues. Americans are becoming more open, while the GOP stubbornly clings to its traditional view on morality.
America is also coming more diverse. Hispanics are growing in number and in political clout. It is estimated that by 2050, if not sooner, they will become the No. 1 ethnic group in America, supplanting whites. Yet, the Republicans continually come across as xenophobes and fearmongers with their push to fence off our southern border and deny the children of illegal aliens a chance at an education and a better life.
Fair or not, that's what Romney represented to millions of people who voted on Nov. 6. Romney wasn't necessarily a terrible candidate (though there have certainly been better). He's a smart, successful man who I believe honestly loves his country. He simply represented a party that is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream.
Hopefully, this Election has woken up the national GOP and given them a clear plan of what they need to do to remain relevant. . Until they abandon the fringe elements of their party and move toward the middle; and until they realize that they are badly out of tune with a rapidly changing America, their defeat in 2012 may be just the beginning of a long stretch in the political wilderness.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Some thoughts on Election 2012
It's Wednesday morning, Nov. 7, 2012, not quite 24 hours after President Barack Obama secured reelection. Finally, we can breathe again. Finally, the endless campaign ads can stop. Finally, we have answered the questions of who will control Congress for the next two years and who will lead this nation for the next four. Now, life can return to normal, right? Not quite.
If one thing became apparent last night, it's that the system that was brilliantly conceived by our Founders more than 200 years ago is no longer working as I think it was intended. Oh, we had a definitive winner at the end of last night, with Obama collecting 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. And in that sense, the system worked perfectly. But if you looked at the map and saw how many states went to Republicans and how many went to Democrats, something is very wrong.
Specifically, Romney carried the South and large parts of the middle of the country. Obama, as expected carried the coasts and the Industrial Northeast, with a few isolated blue specks in the middle. To look at the Electoral map, one would almost certainly conclude that our country was a strongly Republican nation. Yet, that's not what happened.
Because a good portion of our population lives along the coasts -- in states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and in the Northeast, Obama was able to collect the Electoral votes he needed while leaving the middle of the country largely to Romney, with the exception of a few battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. While that strategy was good enough to win, is it really fair that the middle part of the country and the South went largely unrepresented last night? I don't think so.
The Electoral College is an example of the many brilliant compromises our founding fathers made in creating our Constitution. Although many of the convention delegates originally favored the Virginia Plan, which would have weighted representation in Congress based on a state's population and had the president and vice president selected by Congress, many delegates from smaller states feared intrigue created by a small group of men gathering to select the nation's leaders. They also feared that the president's and vice president's independence would be compromised if they were selected by Congress. And they feared that larger, more populous states would carry disproportianate weight in selecting the president and vice president. And so, the Electoral College was born.
Today, Americans elect the president and his vice president indirectly. When we cast our ballots for president, we are actually selecting a slate of Electors who are charged with voting for that candidate, though they are under no legal obligation to do so. The number of Electoral votes assigned to each state is identical to that state's representation in Congress.
The flaw in this system is obvious and fatal. Although the Electoral College was intended to even the playing field, to make sure that smaller states weren't dominated by larger states, we still have a system where the most populous states can determine an election's outcome. Worse yet, under the current system, a state's most populous cities -- such as Los Angeles and San Francisco in California -- can actually swing a state in a candidate's favor. We saw this last night when California was given to Obama, even before all the votes were counted.
At the end of last night, both Obama and Romney had collected 49 percent of the popular vote, with only a few thousand actual votes separating them. Yet, Obama was clearly ahead in the Electoral College. How is this fair, that the will of so many people was thwarted? And what can we do about it?
One of the advantages of the current system is that it usually provides us with a definitive winner. Whichever candidate collects the most Electoral votes wins, no matter the popular tally. If we wanted to place more emphasis on the popular vote, one way would be to let popular vote determine the outcome. Keep the Electoral College, but only go to the Electoral votes in the case of a tie in the popular tally. In that case, whoever had the most Electoral votes would be declared the winner.
Another idea is to divide each state into districts based on the number of that state's Electoral votes. Each district would get one Electoral vote, and they would be assigned according to how each district voted. The winner in each district would get that district's vote instead of the "winner take all" approach we currently have. This would likely increase the time it takes to declare a winner, but it would have the effect of making each vote mean something. And it would prevent a few population centers in each state from determining who won the state.
Election 2012 is in the books, and while not everyone will be happy with the outcome, we should be thankful that we live in a country where we are free to elect our own leaders and where we continue to have peaceful elections. Our system has worked well, with only a few hiccups over the past 200+ years. That's remarkable, and it's something to be proud of. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked.
My hope is that between now and the next election in 2016, we will seek to improve our system so that everyone's voice, not just a few, can be clearly heard and can help determine our nation's future.
If one thing became apparent last night, it's that the system that was brilliantly conceived by our Founders more than 200 years ago is no longer working as I think it was intended. Oh, we had a definitive winner at the end of last night, with Obama collecting 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. And in that sense, the system worked perfectly. But if you looked at the map and saw how many states went to Republicans and how many went to Democrats, something is very wrong.
Specifically, Romney carried the South and large parts of the middle of the country. Obama, as expected carried the coasts and the Industrial Northeast, with a few isolated blue specks in the middle. To look at the Electoral map, one would almost certainly conclude that our country was a strongly Republican nation. Yet, that's not what happened.
Because a good portion of our population lives along the coasts -- in states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and in the Northeast, Obama was able to collect the Electoral votes he needed while leaving the middle of the country largely to Romney, with the exception of a few battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. While that strategy was good enough to win, is it really fair that the middle part of the country and the South went largely unrepresented last night? I don't think so.
The Electoral College is an example of the many brilliant compromises our founding fathers made in creating our Constitution. Although many of the convention delegates originally favored the Virginia Plan, which would have weighted representation in Congress based on a state's population and had the president and vice president selected by Congress, many delegates from smaller states feared intrigue created by a small group of men gathering to select the nation's leaders. They also feared that the president's and vice president's independence would be compromised if they were selected by Congress. And they feared that larger, more populous states would carry disproportianate weight in selecting the president and vice president. And so, the Electoral College was born.
Today, Americans elect the president and his vice president indirectly. When we cast our ballots for president, we are actually selecting a slate of Electors who are charged with voting for that candidate, though they are under no legal obligation to do so. The number of Electoral votes assigned to each state is identical to that state's representation in Congress.
The flaw in this system is obvious and fatal. Although the Electoral College was intended to even the playing field, to make sure that smaller states weren't dominated by larger states, we still have a system where the most populous states can determine an election's outcome. Worse yet, under the current system, a state's most populous cities -- such as Los Angeles and San Francisco in California -- can actually swing a state in a candidate's favor. We saw this last night when California was given to Obama, even before all the votes were counted.
At the end of last night, both Obama and Romney had collected 49 percent of the popular vote, with only a few thousand actual votes separating them. Yet, Obama was clearly ahead in the Electoral College. How is this fair, that the will of so many people was thwarted? And what can we do about it?
One of the advantages of the current system is that it usually provides us with a definitive winner. Whichever candidate collects the most Electoral votes wins, no matter the popular tally. If we wanted to place more emphasis on the popular vote, one way would be to let popular vote determine the outcome. Keep the Electoral College, but only go to the Electoral votes in the case of a tie in the popular tally. In that case, whoever had the most Electoral votes would be declared the winner.
Another idea is to divide each state into districts based on the number of that state's Electoral votes. Each district would get one Electoral vote, and they would be assigned according to how each district voted. The winner in each district would get that district's vote instead of the "winner take all" approach we currently have. This would likely increase the time it takes to declare a winner, but it would have the effect of making each vote mean something. And it would prevent a few population centers in each state from determining who won the state.
Election 2012 is in the books, and while not everyone will be happy with the outcome, we should be thankful that we live in a country where we are free to elect our own leaders and where we continue to have peaceful elections. Our system has worked well, with only a few hiccups over the past 200+ years. That's remarkable, and it's something to be proud of. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked.
My hope is that between now and the next election in 2016, we will seek to improve our system so that everyone's voice, not just a few, can be clearly heard and can help determine our nation's future.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
What does the Second Amendment really mean?
The other night, a close friend and I got into a discussion about gun ownership in America. This friend has long been a staunch advocate of guns and gun ownership, while I have slowly come around to the acceptance of people's right to bear arms, though I'm still in favor of common-sense gun control. This particular night, we were discussing the United Nations' stance on gun control, and their latest efforts, at least according to my friend, to take guns away from law-abiding Americans through the Arms Trade Treaty, which is currently in the discussion stages. According to my friend, if this treaty is ratified, it won't be long before we see government agents coming to your door to get your guns.
Intrigued, I decided to do some research. What I found is that the truth had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The ATT says nothing about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. Nor does it say a word about national gun registration, as the Gunowners of America lobbying group claims. The ATT is simply designed to give some uniformity to the international laws governing the illegal trade and transport of weapons. It is designed to keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists and drug dealers, not to disarm Americans. In fact, even supporters of the treaty affirm that each country has the right to regulate guns as it sees fit. In other words, we have nothing to fear.
The controversy over the ATT does raise an interesting question for those who care to ask: What exactly does the Second Amendment guarantee Americans? To paraphrase, the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the national defense, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what exactly does that mean?
Well, if you put it in the correct historical context, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was written was made up of every farmer with a pitchfork or a musket. In other words, the militia was the people, the regular citizens. And this is how gun advocates interpret it: That everyone who wants one should have the right to a weapon.
An equally strong argument could be made that the Second Amendment should be interpreted using today's definition of militia. Under that definition, only trained police officers and members of the military would be allowed to be armed. While that argument makes sense on the surface, I see at least a couple of problems with it.
First, as much as I hate to admit it, the gun advocates are right. If we take the guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding Americans, soon only the criminals will have guns.
Second, if we take guns away from the people, it will, within a generation or two, create a citizenry that is terrified of firearms. If that happens, who, then, will serve in our military?
I have come a long way since my early 20s, when I advocated confiscating guns and "making something useful out of them." Today, I would identify myself as an advocate for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
What that means is that while I acknowledge every American's right to own a firearm, I'm in favor of three-day waiting periods, background checks for prospective purchasers and closing the "gun show loophole." I believe that gun owners should be held responsible for the proper storage and maintaining of their guns. Whether that means a gun safe or a secure lock and key, if there are children in the house, guns should be securely stored out of sight, with the bullets stored separately. Period.
I don't believe that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what irresponsible people do with their products.That would be like holding auto manufacturers responsible when drivers have accidents. But if a child steals his parent's gun, takes it to school and opens fire, that parent should be held liable for that child's actions, since the gun was obviously not secured.
Gun ownership is one of those rights that makes us uniquely American, just as our rights to free speech and freedom of religion do. But the freedom to own a firearm doesn't mean we're free of responsibility. If we're going to allow an armed populace, then it's up to us to make sure that we're thoroughly educated in the proper and safe use of those weapons. It's up to us to make sure that weapons don't fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. And far from passing new gun control laws, it's up to us to make sure the existing laws are properly enforced. If we can do those things, there should be no need to worry about losing our right to gun ownership in America.
Intrigued, I decided to do some research. What I found is that the truth had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The ATT says nothing about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. Nor does it say a word about national gun registration, as the Gunowners of America lobbying group claims. The ATT is simply designed to give some uniformity to the international laws governing the illegal trade and transport of weapons. It is designed to keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists and drug dealers, not to disarm Americans. In fact, even supporters of the treaty affirm that each country has the right to regulate guns as it sees fit. In other words, we have nothing to fear.
The controversy over the ATT does raise an interesting question for those who care to ask: What exactly does the Second Amendment guarantee Americans? To paraphrase, the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the national defense, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what exactly does that mean?
Well, if you put it in the correct historical context, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was written was made up of every farmer with a pitchfork or a musket. In other words, the militia was the people, the regular citizens. And this is how gun advocates interpret it: That everyone who wants one should have the right to a weapon.
An equally strong argument could be made that the Second Amendment should be interpreted using today's definition of militia. Under that definition, only trained police officers and members of the military would be allowed to be armed. While that argument makes sense on the surface, I see at least a couple of problems with it.
First, as much as I hate to admit it, the gun advocates are right. If we take the guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding Americans, soon only the criminals will have guns.
Second, if we take guns away from the people, it will, within a generation or two, create a citizenry that is terrified of firearms. If that happens, who, then, will serve in our military?
I have come a long way since my early 20s, when I advocated confiscating guns and "making something useful out of them." Today, I would identify myself as an advocate for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
What that means is that while I acknowledge every American's right to own a firearm, I'm in favor of three-day waiting periods, background checks for prospective purchasers and closing the "gun show loophole." I believe that gun owners should be held responsible for the proper storage and maintaining of their guns. Whether that means a gun safe or a secure lock and key, if there are children in the house, guns should be securely stored out of sight, with the bullets stored separately. Period.
I don't believe that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what irresponsible people do with their products.That would be like holding auto manufacturers responsible when drivers have accidents. But if a child steals his parent's gun, takes it to school and opens fire, that parent should be held liable for that child's actions, since the gun was obviously not secured.
Gun ownership is one of those rights that makes us uniquely American, just as our rights to free speech and freedom of religion do. But the freedom to own a firearm doesn't mean we're free of responsibility. If we're going to allow an armed populace, then it's up to us to make sure that we're thoroughly educated in the proper and safe use of those weapons. It's up to us to make sure that weapons don't fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. And far from passing new gun control laws, it's up to us to make sure the existing laws are properly enforced. If we can do those things, there should be no need to worry about losing our right to gun ownership in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)