Stanford economist Paul Romer has coined the term, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." Unfortunately, the statist Obama Administration has adopted this mantra in implementing its radical positions on the rest of us. by Kenn Jacobine
(libertarian)
Monday, April 6, 2009
No, I am not talking about how the President is about to sell us out to the New World Order in the name of ensuring that our economy never again faces a crisis of this magnitude. That rant is for another day. Instead, I am talking about the concern that the Administration will and is using crises to violate our 2nd Amendment rights.
Crisis number one is the horrendous drug war violence in Mexico. Even though Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, it has become one of the most crime ridden, bloodiest societies on earth. First of all, there is only one gun store in the whole country and that is run by the army. It takes months to get a permit to own a gun and if you are one of the lucky to endure the process to the end restrictions are placed on the number of guns you can own and the amount of ammunition you can possess. It is no wonder that Mexico was at one time a one-party dictatorship. It is also no wonder that drug cartels can operate freely within the country without much fear of backlash from an armed citizenry. Mexico is the poster child for the slogan, "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns."
This past week the Administration dispatched Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to Mexico City to meet with Mexican president Felipe Calderon to discuss ways to prevent the smuggling of arms from the U.S. into Mexico. As if he hasn't made conditions in his own country horrific through his intensified War on Drugs campaign of the last 16 months, Calderon has indicated recently that "it is necessary to reduce the sale of weapons, particularly of high-power weapons, in the United States." Jumping on Calderon's lead, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin believes, "Americans should feel guilty about, if not responsible for, drug gangs in Mexico shooting each other and corrupt government officials in perverse numbers-because some of the guns may have been purchased in the U.S."
I mean wow! There is so much to analyze here. First of all, what right does Felipe Calderon have to tell us how to run our country? Isn't it his reignited War on Drugs that has caused the violence upswing in his own? Before he decided to go after the drug cartels with full force brutality levels in Mexico were normal for an undeveloped country. Secondly, Senator Durbin's statement that Americans should feel responsible for drug violence and corruption in Mexico because "some of the guns may have been purchased in the U.S." is a ridiculous statement. As an attorney Durbin should know that "may have been purchased" doesn't pass the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for conviction. Besides, where is law enforcement along the border? Aren't there laws against transporting firearms across the border anyway? If Washington would just get serious about enforcing our border protection laws we would have less illegals here and Mexico may have less illegal weapons there. In any event, Mexico's violence should not be used as a pretense to violate the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans under any circumstances.
Crisis number two is the War on Terror. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to enforce a little known law which prohibits American citizens, who reside outside the United States, from purchasing firearms while they are in America on visits. According to law 18 USC 922(a) (9), "a person who is a resident of no state can only buy firearms for lawful sporting purposes." The language of the statute apparently excludes purchases for self-defense and other purposes. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Maxwell Hodgkins and Stephen Dearth. Hodgkins and Dearth are natural-born American citizens who currently live overseas and have been denied the opportunity to buy firearms in the U.S. because of their residency status. The SAF is seeking an injunction against the law.
18 USC 922(a) (9) does not pass constitutional muster under either the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms or the 14th Amendment's equal protection clauses. Attorney General Holder knows this. So what could be the rationale behind the statute anyway? My best guess is it has something to do with the international crisis Washington calls the War on Terror. Are the Feds concerned that Americans living overseas are more susceptible to being or becoming terrorists. Perhaps the fear is that we might befriend terrorists in our travels who subsequently will visit us in the U.S. and have the means available to do harm to Americans when they step foot on our soil? If you survey Americans who live overseas you will find that many work for the U.S. government anyway "“the military, U.S. State Department, CIA, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Peace Corp volunteers. The rest of us are business professionals, teachers, doctors, and missionaries. None of these groups are usually inclined to join al-Qaeda. No, the fear of terrorism is not a justifiable reason to infringe upon Americans' 2nd Amendment rights, but the Obama Administration is willing to use it anyway.
There is no question the violence in Mexico and the threat of worldwide terrorism is real. However, instead of taking advantage of these crises to take away our constitutional rights the Obama Administration should reevaluate the causes of the conflicts and act accordingly. By decriminalizing drugs and ending the government's war on people who use them the violence in Mexico and the threat it causes to our national security will go away overnight. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said our foreign policy should be focused on, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations "“ entangling alliances with none." Adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy will lower resentments towards the United States and make our people safer. With our national security protected and our people safer there will be no pretense to violate the constitutional liberties of any Americans.
Kenn Jacobine teaches internationally and maintains a summer residence in Haywood County, North Carolina. Visit his blog site online at: The View from Abroad.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kenn Jacobine only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kenn Jacobine is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-04-06 06:47:55
All true, although I wish you also included something about all the shootings that have happened in the past month or so, including the latest in Binghamton, NY late last week. These are the traumatic events that anti-gun advocates use to focus public attention on gun control. These events are a much greater threat to 2nd amendment rights, in my opinion, because they provide tension and public concern far more than the War on Drugs does, and the anti-gun forces use these events so effectively to promote their agenda.
The defenders of the 2nd amendment can also use the local incidents to their advantage. While the anti-gun people try to promote their agenda by claiming that the shooter had access to a gun legally, the 2nd amendment people can also claim that had there been less gun restrictions and some law-abiding citizen with a gun in those regions, then there is a higher probability that less lives could have been lost.
Notice though, that I said 'higher probability' because carrying a gun gives you a higer probability of survival in such an event, but if the shooter is quicker than you, then you are out. There is no guarantee that your gun will save you or others. Nevertheless is better to have a higher probaility of survival when carrying than a near-zero probability when not carrying a gun and be at the mercy of the shooter.
Those anti-gun people claim thats what the cell phone is for...as if dialing 911 will stop bullets...or a piece of paper legislation will stop the crook from killing me.
You are absolutely right. It amazes me how anti-gunners discount all suggestions made by gun rights advocates. Perhaps if there had been one other armed student that day at Virginia Tech all or some of those innocents would not have died. If the anti-gunners are uncomfortable with that, then perhaps the university could have deputized (trained) students to act as "safeties" on campus. They would have been ready with the means to protect life when an emergency arose. We can't expect law enforcement to be everywhere, all the time. We also can't expect that guns are never going to fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately, gun control guarantees that more often than not the only ones with guns will be the bad guys. Â
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-04-06 12:03:02
The 2nd Amendment resulted from the need to preserve the natural freedom of any citizen to shoot at the government if they continue with tyrannical acts.
I suppose its a little stark to view it like that, but the colonies had just fought off the British and were fully aware of the danger it seems Mexican citizens are now going through.Â
However, its preferable one uses up their 1st Amendment to the point of ridiculousness first, thanks for writing this piece! Â
The best bet, when possible, is to choose to live in a safe environment. Both Mexicans and Americas have freedom of choice as to where in their country to live. Both are quite mobile, Americans because they can afford to move and Mexicans because most have few belongings compared to us and it is relatively easy and cheap to move.
Both countries have a wide regional variation in violent death rates. You can live in an American city that has ten murders a year and you can live in one that has three hundred. Mexico is the same way, although the overall per capita rate is higher.
Areas with low violent crime rates also seem to be nice places to live [maybe that is an obvious point!] and are usually prosperous also. Beats shooting your way out of trouble, which works much better in our violent hollywood flicks than it does in reality!
