Re: Slippery Slopes

Ferris, thanks for commenting, man.  You raise a bunch of good issues, and it is probably fair to say that I created a straw man while arguing against the use of straw men. I agree that a slow, unwitting march to a dystopian future is more likely than some nefarious back room cabal, but I don't see gun rights as a fundamental right, nor a cornerstone of our freedom. Let me just reiterate a few points and bring up a new one.

First, people have a right to protect themselves and a right to protect their homes.  Similarly, people have a reasonable expectation that passerby on the street aren't packing heat.  I see the two rights in a balance, a freedom to bear arms as well as a freedom from those bearing arms.  Because these rights are in a balance, there must be regulations and laws to ensure that citizens know when and where to expect guns as well as in which situations they are legal.  This is why I see it as absolutely essential that every gun owner pass a background check as well as a gun safety course.  This ensures that the laws regarding firearm possession and use are known and reduces the chances that gun accidents will occur.  When you wish to enter into a potentially dangerous activity, such as owning a gun, driving a car, or operating heavy machinery, you should have to register, undergo some sort of background check, and have some training.




Statistically speaking, it is more dangerous to own a gun than it is to not.  Possessing firearms can escalate situations that may have ended less violently, and self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a common problem with gun ownership.  Rather than thinking of government regulation as tyrannical overreach, gun owners should receive free gun safety classes from the government.  The government has a responsibility to ensure public safety, and educating gun owners is a natural extension of that responsibility. By providing services to gun owners, instead of simply penalizing them, the conversation can shift from an antagonistic debate to one where all citizens are stakeholders.  Everyone should be engaged in preventing gun violence, even those like you and me, who have no desire to possess or use firearms.  Gun violence is someone else's issue until it affects someone in your life.  Attacks like the Clackamas Town Center shooting remind us that heinous acts of violence can occur anytime, anywhere.   

Second, I agree that the bill of rights has been snipped away at the corners for years.  The problem is that gun rights have become, for some, emblematic of the entire bill of rights.  For example, some of the same people who decry universal background checks as an assault upon the liberties of law-abiding citizens were the same who enacted the Patriot act, which legalized spying upon millions of law-abiding citizens. The Patriot act, which treats all Americans as potential terrorists and threats, is a direct violation of constitutional rights, whereas universal background checks can be defended as constitutionally valid under the commerce clause, or the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment.  You cannot cry wolf when the government asks to know the reason for purchasing a firearm if you stand idly by when they conduct warrant-less wiretapping, or other (il)legal forms of spying. The use of drones in America, whether for surveillance or otherwise, is a more disturbing overreach of government power than the restriction of firearm possession, yet it is sanctioned in the name of "national security."  Isn't keeping the streets clear of guns also a job for national security?

If you want to talk about a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I am much more concerned at the conduct of law enforcement officers surrounding the Occupy and similar protest movements of the last few years.  Examples of police brutality and violations of civil rights were sanctioned in the name of keeping the order and allowing traffic to pass.  The conduct of police officers in California universities, on the streets of New York, and in Oakland is deplorable.  It is a much more direct assault upon civil liberties to restrict the right to protest and to violate the rights against search and seizure, arrest without a warrant, and to physically attack protesters.  If an infringement upon the second amendment represents the eroding of American values, nothing should be more important than protecting the first, fourth, and fifth amendments.

Lastly, this isn't 1776, and the people's right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with protecting citizens from government armies.  Even if you are armed to the teeth, you simply do not stand a chance against the US armed forces.  As has been made abundantly clear by Holder and the justice department, the use of drones against American citizens is not illegal, so long as those citizens are deemed "enemy combatants."  Go ahead and buy all the assault rifles you want, good luck taking on the guy sitting in a room in D.C. who is piloting a drone.  My point is that quibbles over which types of guns are legal to purchase and use is a moot point.  No matter what sort of firearms you own, technology has progressed to such a point that it is not a level playing field.  An individual's right to bear arms is not protection against government tyranny.  On the other hand, my interpretation of the second amendment, that it protects a collective right to arms, is an effective safeguard against governmental tyranny.  Until the last few decades, that was the accepted reading of the second amendment: it protects the people's right to bear arm in a militia, not an individual's right to own firearms.

To sum up, restricting an individual's right to bear arms should be treated as a public health and safety concern.  Research should be done into the causes of gun violence and possible means of protection.  When lobbying organizations stand in the way of research into gun violence, as the NRA has done since the 90's, they are standing in the way of progress.  If research into gun violence can prevent even a single gun murder, it is a good thing.  If one more person will be left standing because of assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans, then they should be enacted.  You may have the right to bear arms, but I have the right to life.  The latter should be protected, even at the expense of the former.

And Go Pacers.

Education is an Investment

I've always dreamed of becoming a teacher, and I graduated last spring with that dream in mind.  Since graduation, I've been presented with a number of conflicting opportunities, all of which are more profitable than teaching, but none of which particularly appeal to me beyond their salaries.  The practical side of me says the smart thing is to jump straight into the workforce, make as much money as I can, then hopefully become a teacher in the next 5 years or so.  The other, more personal side of me knows I wouldn't be happy as a business analyst, or in an office job.  I need to be working with people, helping others, striving to make the world a better place.  Those are the reasons that, although it is much more expensive and less profitable, I'm going to graduate school to become a teacher.

The sad thing about this country is that it is so difficult to become a teacher compared to other professions, when education is the foundation for one's future.  I've received tons of offers to sell insurance, study economics or financial mathematics, or pursue some other graduate degree, each offer coming with significant financial incentive.  When it comes to paying for an education degree, however, the offers are much less juicy.  There are scholarships and grants available, but they are fiercely competitive and do not cover the price of tuition.  Even in my best estimates, all of my financial aid can only defray the cost of tuition, not pay for it all.

Why is it that in a time of record profits for Wall Street, in a time when we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, in a time of drawbacks in two wars, that we cannot find the money to properly fund education?  How is it that education is included in that umbrella category of "discretionary spending?"  I cannot think of a single service that the federal government provides that is more integral to how society functions than public education.  An educated populace is a more productive, happier, healthier, and better society.  Education is not discretionary, it is necessary.

The most maddening thing about budget debates is that we know that cutting education spending does not do anything to alleviate the deficit or the long-term debt.  Cutting education spending exacerbates the debt, by reducing the productivity of future generations.  It also kills jobs in the present, slowing down economic activity and forcing thousands of public workers to work part-time or lose their jobs altogether.  Since the recession hit, the private sector has consistently added jobs, while the public sector has shed jobs year after year.  There is no economic difference between public and private sector jobs - both are real jobs, held by real people, and both allow individuals to participate in the economy.

There is no more effective stimulus than education spending.  Every dollar spent on education pays for itself, several times over, in future productivity, teacher spending, and community engagement.  Good schools make good communities, lessen crime, increase parent involvement.  There is not a negative to public education spending, whether we consider head start programs or higher education funding.  Here's a pretty quick read on what head start provides.  Head start provides child care services to lower-income parents, allowing them to return to the workforce or seek employment.  It is not just an opportunity for the children, it is a service for the parents, too.

Finally, it should not be such a difficult decision for college students to choose a career in education.  Education should be the shining city on the hill - the destination that every bright graduate wishes to reach.  There are programs that are working to make education careers more appealing: Teach For America, Blue Engine, and many other private/public partnerships.  These programs are great, but they are extremely competitive and difficult to join, and can only serve parts of the country.  It should be a national initiative to provide energetic, qualified, and passionate instructors to every single child across the country.  The only way to do this is to change the national discourse around education.  Educational dollars are not to be bandied about in budgetary discussions, and simply privatizing education is not a realistic solution to a nationwide problem.  If the national debt is a danger to future generations, an educational deficit is much more frightening, and much more damaging.  Stimulate education: it's good for the economy, good for the debt, and good for children.  The last point is all that should matter.