Seriously Are Barrels Ever This Long?

I understand the need for a graphic to represent the hot-button issue. But I can't recall ever seeing a barrel of a handgun long enough to do this:

Jesus Guns (UPDATED)

It turns out, the military has for years been buying sights and guns from a Michigan manufacturer which contain Biblical references -- at what looks like the tail end of the serial number, you'll find a code that looks something like JN8:12 (Gospel of John, chapter 8, verse 12: "Then Jesus said again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life").  You can get a good look at the sights and scopes here.

Now, you might say, "Our soliders need guns and the guns need sights and these sights work.  So what?"  The "so what" is that our enemies very much want to gain political support in their own countries and constituencies to say that America is guilty of making war on Islam.  So when we have references to Christian gospel verses literaly emblazoned on our guns, the claim that we are forcing Christianity on Muslims literally at gunpoint gains at least some cachet.  After all, we've got Christianity literally on our guns.  Stipulated that these may well be the best gunsights ever made by anyone.  We shouldn't be handing our enemies ammunition for propaganda even if we have a much better system for delivering a more traditional kind of ammunition than they do.

The company's defense, by the way, is that they've been doing this for years.  To that, I say, "So what?"  If it's been years since I killed anyone, I'm still a murderer, and just because the manufacturer has been violating government procurement regulations for years does not mean that it's an okay thing to do.  Especially when the political stakes are as high as they are.  Just a day or so ago, the Taliban staged an open attack on the streets of Kabul (link has video and audio that auto-starts, shame on you, BBC).  It's becoming popular to think that we have no interests in Afghanistan, but I really don't want to see those bastards win and re-take the country.  This is the sort of thing that they can use to gain new recruits and new strength.

Just as I call for a secular attitude of the government towards religious activities at home, we should have a military that uses secular weapons when it makes war.  I hadn't ever particularly thought that this might be an issue, but frankly, I think it's bullshit.  We shouldn't be in the business of shooting people with Jesus guns.

UPDATE (1/22/2010):   Trijicon has issued a statement indicating that it will stop this.  Good.

Second Amendment Incorporated

The only surprise is that the Ninth Circuit was the court that did it. But I don't see how you could have got away from this result.

How To Use Hole Cards: Play It Cool

Now, Newt Gingrich has to get the nod for coolest line of the week, when he urged President Obama to attempt to prevent the North Koreans from launching their ill-concealed ICBM test very early this morning with our SDI program -- in other words, using frickin' laser beams to take down the missiles -- but the calm, no-drama approach is probably the better one.

Here's why -- it's not clear how good the system is just yet. It's not been (publicly) put to a full-scale test. So that means that we could try to shoot the North Korean missile out of the sky, and we would either succeed or fail.

If we succeed, then we proceed to scare the hell out of everyone. Which means we're back in the 1960's with the missle gap, only done in a multipolar instead of a bipolar world. If we're suddenly immune to missiles, that changes the game in terms of balance of power and utility of nuclear weapons. The right game-theory response to an adversary who can demonstrate immunity to nuclear missiles is to make lots and lots and lots of nuclear missiles -- so many that when they're all fired at once, they overwhelm the missile defense system, and some get through.

If we fail, then we get egg on our face. We prove to the world that we can spend a ton of money and get nothing to show for it. Which encourages our enemies to build more missiles at a time when they have none (or few) because they know that despite our best efforts, they will have a way to attack us which we cannot defend.

Better to develop and test the system privately and keep its efficacy a secret. A missle defense system's political utility comes best from everyone's not knowing how good it really is. No one knew in the 1980's that our technology couldn't possibly have shot a Soviet missile out of the sky. But because the Soviets didn't know, they had to react as if it worked, which caused them to go bankrupt and disband the USSR completely.

So while 57% of Americans think a military response to the North Korean missile launch is warranted, cooler heads should prevail. For one thing, we need to realize that we're looking at the fruits of the North Korean agricultural and economic program -- native agriculture is so inefficient in that nation that there is massive starvation despite having plenty of fertile, arable land. So North Korea extorts food from the rest of the world. We learned in the Cold War that you can starve an enemy into submission, and cruel as that may seem to the innocent people who are enslaved by their government there, that is probably the best way to effect change in that part of the world.

Another Bright Democratic Idea

I want to see a balanced budget. And I don't think I'm overtaxed, so that means spending cuts. Spending cuts, in turn, means that things everyone likes will get cut. I like the military and I'm prepared to see some cuts in military spending.

Some.

Not 25%, as Barney Frank seems to think is a good idea.

The reason I think the military is properly treated differently than other kinds of federal programs involving the expenditure of money is that the military is the essence of the government. Without a functioning, capable military, it is only a matter of time until our government will be replaced by another one that will support a functioning, capable military.

And I notice that Congressman Frank is not suggesting across-the-board 25% cuts in spending. This is just for the military. And it's entirely in character for a guy like Barney Frank to single the military out for especially deep spending cuts after a change in the political weather like we're about the experience.

I don't pretend to know how much waste, fraud, corruption, and redundancy can be purged out of the military budget and I wouldn't buy it if a politician told me that was all that needed to be done for the budget given to defense to be reduced in an appropriate amount for a time of belt-tightening. But we need boots on the ground, an air force to support them and ensure their superiority, and a navy to get them where they need to be.

Now, I suppose someone could make the pitch to me and I'd listen that cuts of that size can be done without appreciably impacting our operational effectiveness. But I'[d be skeptical that a cut that deep would not have an impact.

We may have to do without a program or two and it probably wouldn't be too hard for me to educate myself about what kinds of programs we could do without. The V-22 Osprey does not seem like it fits into any sort of operational situation we would plausibly find our military in, or at least not any that alternative means of getting that operation done with more traditional and affordable sorts of equipment that we already have. I lack the time to confirm that, and I'm sure the Osprey has its advocates, but that seems like a plausible sort of thing we might cut.

I'm prepared to accept some military spending cuts, because it must become a national priority to stop deficit spending and rein in our national debt. At the same time, we cannot stop having a government -- a government that can effectively protect its citizens from threats and hunt down and kill our enemies. Cutting out one in four dollars spent on the military, while still asking it to fulfill that mission, seems like an unreasonable and incompatible set of priorities.

Guns Guns Guns

One of the most important decisions I will ever see was handed down by the Supreme Court today. The Supreme Court today definitively (if by only a narrow margin) resolved the question of whether the Second Amendment confers an individual or collective right to keep and bear arms. The author of the majority opinion will tell you what the outcome was: Atonin Scalia.

The 5-4 majority opinion, finding an individual right to own firearms, is actually fairly modest in its scope – it does not purport to set forth the contours of the right, nor the applicable standards for jurisprudence concerning the right, nor does it muse on the question of what kinds of regulations on the exercise of the right are Constitutionally permissible.

All we know is that a law that is, in effect, a flat ban on owning handguns violates that right. The rest, according to the majority, will be left to future cases. That is the basic holding of District of Columbia v. Heller.

John McCain has a good issue to run on now, one that will sound a little bit familiar to others interested in the interplay of law and politics: “My fellow citizens, you are one vote away from losing your individual right to have a gun. How do you think a Justice appointed by President Obama would vote if this issue came before the Court again?” An interesting political tonic to the invocation of Roe v. Wade as the holy grail of Constitutional law, I should think.

More importantly, Scalia is right on this one. If the right to own weapons is one that resides in groups – specifically the military and more specifically the National Guard – then the concept of a “militia” is eviscerated and the Second Amendment is rendered ultimately a nullity. The National Guard is already an organ of the state. The state is an entity which, by definition, has the legitimate right to use force to achieve its goals.

There was never any doubt (at least to me) that the National Guard or other military organs of the state could use guns. If the Second Amendment did not exist, there would still be a military (other sections of the Constitution authorize the creation and maintenance of an Army and Navy). So the Second Amendment must be aimed at something more individualized than the military.

That means it is an individual right. What’s more, the Bill of Rights was created to protect individual rights, and it is entirely consistent with history to note that several states enacted portions of their Constitutions to state rights they believed already existed. So to say that the right was there all along and the Second Amendment just explicated it seems to me to be a perfectly valid insight into the way the Framers were thinking back in the 1780's and 1790's.

I don't own a gun myself. No real desire or interest. But I'm very glad that I have the right to if that desire should change.

An Individual Right

Today was one of the most interesting days in Supreme Court history. District of Columbia v. Heller involved a challenge to the District’s gun control laws, which pretty much outlawed all firearms in private residences within the District. Heller was a security guard who wanted to keep a handgun in his house for personal protection, and he brought a declaratory relief challenge to the law. The federal court for the District of Columbia struck down the law, saying in its holding that the Second Amendment provides a fundamental, personal right to own a weapon.

There has been no Supreme Court jurisprudence on the scope and application of the Second Amendment aside from a single case in 1939 that obliquely indicated that the “well-regulated militia” clause indicated that the purpose of the amendment was military in nature and not intended to create private, individual rights. The argument derived from this case is that back in the 1790’s, it was thought that all wars would be fought like the Revolution, so every able-bodied man needed a musket in case he was called to muster to arms and serve in the local or state militia. Since then, we’ve created a professional military, both at the federal and state level (the “state militia” being replaced now by the National Guard) and therefore there is no need of individual firearm ownership and the Second Amendment is little more than an anachronism.

I’ve never bought into that argument. Seems to me that the Second Amendment does create an individual right to own a weapon. Perhaps the framers of the amendment were thinking about local militias but at the same time, it is abundantly clear to me that they wanted to make sure that people could have weapons. But the fact of the matter is, we really don’t know; the case from the thirties only discussed the “militia” argument in dicta and there has never been any case that has directly addressed the Second Amendment at all.

So today the Heller case became the biggest thing to hit the Supreme Court since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 Presidential election case. Akin Gump’s Supreme Court blog has a summary of the oral arguments which may be faster to read than the arguments themselves, which result in a ninety-one page transcript because the argument was more than two hours long. For instance, I’m heartened to note that Justice Kennedy, who looks like he’ll be the swing vote, considers the Amendment to possess an “operative clause,” meaning that there must also be a clause that is something other than “operative”. Of course, we’ll just have to see how it goes, but it’s looking like a 5-4 finding in favor of the existence of the individual right.

Good Questions For Anyone

Over at Volokh, readers have responded to Fred Thompson's calls for questions on his policy platform with some damn tough questions:

1. What is your view of civil asset forfeiture in the absence of a criminal conviction? Would you make any changes in current executive branch policies, or propose any changes in federal forfeiture laws?
2. Do you believe that Gonzales v. Raich was correctly decided? If you were President, would your Department of Justice take action against patients and providers of medical marijuana who were acting in compliance with state law?
3. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, would your commitment to federalism compel you to veto a congressional bill banning abortion? Or in a post-Roe world would you seek to ban abortion by federal law regardless of the wishes of the individual states?
4. Which Attorney General do you most admire? Why?
5. Which, if any, federal gun control laws do you support repealing?
6. You were instrumental in securing passage of McCain-Feingold. Have your views on either the law's effectiveness or constitutionality changed in the years since it was passed, and what would you do about the continually-increasing purview of the Federal Elections Commission? Would you favor new legislation to protect the Internet or non-profits from McCain-Feingold?

As one reader points out, as phrased, most of these questions are too arcane to be meaningful to voters who are not also lawyers or deep policy wonks. And there are good answers available -- whether the candidate being asked these questions is Fred Thompson, some other Republican, or a Democrat:

1. The government should use every weapon available to fight the war on drugs. Civil forfeitures have a lower standard of proof than criminal convictions, to be sure, but don't forget that the government still must show it's more likely than not that a person has taken drug money before the forfeiture takes place.

2. (Republicans) Yes, the case was correctly decided. Although the states can implement whatever laws they want about drugs, there is a Federal interest in regulating drugs, too. This case may not be one of a recreational user or a massive drug dealer, but it's important to demonstrate that these drugs are illegal to deter other people from trying to sell drugs to our children. It's also important to fight drugs on the demand side as well as the supply side, and enforcing the law like this reduces both demand and supply. (Democrats) We have to reserve the right to enforce our drug laws against serious criminals, and that means we need Federal anti-drug laws. As President, I would direct federal law enforcement authorities to review all state laws to see if they were really carving out only compassionate-use situations or were just a cover for recreational use; if it turns out that it's just getting a doctor's note to cover for kids getting high, then yes, I'd authorize the use of Federal resources to go after these users. But I'd focus on big dealers and the most poisonous of the drugs out there.

3. (Republicans other than Giuliani) Overturning Roe is only one step in the process. For a while after Roe is overturned, some states will permit abortion and others will outlaw it. As President, I would use my political power to urge leaders in the various states to adopt laws that were protective of human life. (Giuliani) If Roe were to be overturned, then the question of abortion would go to the states. If I were President when that happened, I would urge the states to very carefully consider all of the issues -- the moral issues, the legal issues, the tough decisions facing a woman deciding whether to bear a child or not -- before making a decision. But at that point, it would be for the states. For myself, I'd like to see states pass laws that would make it easier for adoption to take place as an alternative to abortion. (Democrats) If Roe were to be overturned, I would lead a state-by-state effort to preserve a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, and at the same time pursue a Constitutional amendment reinstating that right once and for all.

4. Edward Bates, who was Abraham Lincoln's Attorney General and urged the emancipation of slaves in the south. Bates saw that it was the right thing to do morally, it was the right thing to do legally, and it was the right thing to do to help end the civil war. It took a while, but eventually he convinced his President to follow through on the promise of full equality for all Americans.

5. (Republicans) Most of them. Gun control should be left to the states, and the states need to abide by the Constitution. There should be a system in place to protect against criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns, but like it or not, the Constitution gives law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms and as President, I would use my power to see to it that the government enforces that right. (Democrats) None of them. The production and sale of assault weapons, Saturday night specials, and other cheap, lethal weapons is a national disgrace and a threat to our children that some Americans have to face every day and every night. We owe it to these people to take that fear away from them so our streets and homes can be safe again.

6. McCain-Feingold is intended to reduce corruption in politics. The internet is a place where politics can happen -- and Americans who comment on political events on the Internet are exercising their Constitutional rights, and we should encourage that. I do not interpret McCain-Feingold to apply to individual Americans who simply comment on political issues; it only comes in to play when the website gets used to raise money for a candidate or a cause. At that point, it becomes a special interest group, and it should be regulated like all special interest groups -- that is, by requiring disclosure of where the money came from and where it's going to.

But these are all long, wonky answers to long, wonky questions. And it's unlikely that any candidate -- especially Fred Thompson, who seems to be running a light-on-substance, heavy-on-personality campaign -- would give deep thought to the questions or the answers. I like wonky answers to questions, but that's not how elections are won. And if the Message For The Day is, for instance, the candidate's bold new direction for America's foreign policy, it's entirely likely that the answer to every question would be to support the troops, get them home successfully and safely, and to increase America's prestige in the world.

Japan's Aircraft Carrier

The balance of power in today's multipolar world just got a little bit more complicated.



The aircraft in question may be helicopters but could, in theory, be Harriers or similar kinds of VTOL aircraft. At the end of this article, the author points out that these ships are as large as British carriers were in the early 1980's, when the British fought and won a war halfway around the globe from their home ports.

Bullet Proof Baby

I don't have kids, but I can sure understand parents who are concerned about their childrens' safety. Who wouldn't do whatever they could to keep their children safe? So now, for the ultimate in child protection -- it's Bullet Proof Baby!



(Yes, that is Monica Bellucci in the video.)

A Desperate Smear

Mitt “4% behind a guy who isn’t even running” Romney today said of Rudy Giuliani, “He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun,” which is about one-third correct. This is a desperate ploy for support amongst social conservatives, but most conservatives, I expect, will prove smarter than this and Romney would be well-advised to back off from the comment.

1. Yes, Rudy is pro-choice. Recently, he’s tempered that with support for bans on partial-birth abortions and support for parental notification laws, as well as promising to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. So far, there is no indication he intends to temper that position any further. I suspect Rudy’s position on the issue overall rather closely mirrors the plurality opinion of the country. This seems to be a winning plank for the ticket’s platform. Romney is more right than wrong about Rudy being pro-choice, but he’s also a very recent newcomer to the pro-life cause himself, whose sincerity of belief is very much to be doubted. (Note: If he were really a die-hard pro-lifer with the zeal of a sincere recent convert, Romney would have called Rudy “anti-life” and not “pro-choice.”)

2. No, Rudy is not in favor of same-sex marriage; he is in favor of civil unions or domestic partnerships providing similar legal benefits as marriage. (Just like President Bush.) This position is more than palatable to thoughtful conservatives, even those who oppose same-sex-marriage. I am not among that number, being in favor of removing gender restrictions on marriage altogether. But Rudy’s position is acceptable to me, too, since semantics aren’t as important to me on this point as substantive legal rights. Seems to me that it is also a nice not-quite-all-the-loaf position that has some play with America as a whole – gays are hardly popular, but most Americans generally have a “live and let live” attitude about them, even in very conservative places I’ve been like Knoxville and Palmdale. So while restriction of the use of the word marriage doesn’t make sense to me (I say we should call it what it is), it does matter to a lot of people, and Rudy’s position is congruent with that concern. So Romney is just wrong here.

3. No, Rudy is not anti-gun, although he does favor mandatory licensing for gun ownership. In 2000, he spoke about the Second Amendment and New York’s gun control laws: “I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun.” This position, like the other two, strikes pretty close to the way most Americans feel. Again, it’s not a perfect mirror of my own position (you should be able to own guns until you demonstrate that you can’t be trusted with them) but it’s an acceptable one, and I certainly don’t think being in favor of licensing is being opposed to guns. Romney is more wrong than right on this point.

I guess Governor Romney is not happy with polling in fourth place among the die-hard, no doubt heavily Baptist, conservatives of South Carolina. The McCain campaign is apparently shopping anti-Giuliani smear material, too – yet Giuliani remains the GOP front-runner despite all of these early attacks focused on him and McCain, the only major candidate with good conservative policy credentials, remains a non-starter with the right wing. Perhaps that’s because these hard-core conservatives realize that they’re better off with a Republican in the White House than a Democrat. At least then, they’ll have a seat at the table. So they see that Rudy’s the only Republican running who has a credible shot of winning the election now that even died-in-the-wool Republicans recognize that the Bush Administration has chained a bloody albatross slightly larger than the state of California to our necks.