Buck the Robber Baron

There are many mixed feelings towards so-called “robber barons”. Some say they were selfish, money hungry scumbags that only looked out for number one. Others say they were simply great entrepreneurs that managed to crack the system and exercise capitalism to the fullest. The man this writer has chosen is one of the lesser known “robber barons”, at least when compared to the likes of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, or Carnegie, but this man impacted not only our economic system, but Great Britain’s as well.

James Buchanan Duke, better known to his friends and family as “Buck”, was the youngest son of Carolina businessman Washington Duke. Buck was more ambitious than his brother, Benjamin, and when the brothers took over Washington’s tobacco company in the 1880’s, Buck was the one who obtained a license to use James Bonsack’s automated cigarette machine. He also agreed to exclusive use Bonsack’s machines, so Bonsack would reduce the royalties by $.10, and in a stroke of genius, Buck hired one of Bonsack’s mechanics, which caused far fewer breakdowns than his competitors. Because of these innovations, the W. Duke, Sons & Co. tobacco company supplied about 40% of America’s “pre-rolled tobacco” cigarette market within ten years.

Benjamin Duke had branched off into the textile industry by this time, but to power both brothers’ industries, they founded Southern Power Company, a hydroelectric power company we will look at shortly. Later known as Duke Power, this venture into the energy business was supplying the power for over 300 cotton mills, factories, cities and towns in the region of Peidmont, covering areas in both Carolinas. (King, 2002)

Then, in 1890, Duke bought out his top 4 competitors, creating the American Tobacco Company, an essential monopoly on the America cigarette market for 11 years, until being ordered to disband by the Supreme Court, citing the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, instead of disbanding, Duke moved his massive company and formed a coalition with the Imperial Tobacco of Great Britain and Ireland, Ltd., otherwise known as just Imperial Tobacco. The end result of this was the British American Tobacco Company (BAT), one that is still a powerhouse in today’s market. (“Early Years”, 2011) Even though the government came after Duke again to try and disband BAT, the British side came in and bought its former parent company out, reuniting the American Tobacco Company and British American Tobacco. In fact, due to a deal in 1994, BAT now owns some of our most recognized brands of cigarettes, including Pall Mall and Lucky Strike.

After his spats with the government regulators, and after his first marriage ended in divorce, Duke turned his attention to energy, and using the Southern Power Company, began his venture into hydroelectric technology with his new bride: a widow from Atlanta, Nanaline Holt Inman. Southern Power was actually the brainchild of Dr. W. Gill Wylie, a gynecologist by trade, but was an innovator when it came to electric power. Funded by the fortune amassed by Buck’s cigarette business, Southern Power bought the rights to build a dam on the Catawba River, and that dam ran a number of the nearby textile mills, many of which were owned by Buck’s brother, Benjamin. Up until roughly 1920, residential power consumption was minimal at best, and Buck founded Southern Power without any residential power ambitions. But when his brother’s factory chiefs began coming to him, asking to supply power for their worker’s nearby homes, he consented. Soon, hydroelectric power was being offered to anyone living near the lines, regardless of profession, and within a matter of years, Buck was forced to create a new division within Southern Power, to deal solely with residential customers in both North and South Carolina, called the Southern Public Utilities Company. (Murray, 2011)

After this revolutionary move, Buck renamed the corporation Duke Power in 1924, and it continued to expand after his death in 1925. However, during the Great Depression, Duke Power became one of the many targets of the anti-private business politicians. If you stood up for Duke or other successful companies like that, you were ridiculed, despised, or in the case of one Senator Cameron Morrison, even voted out of office. The federal government tried to eliminate Duke Power by using the Tennessee Valley Authority and Public Works Administration to construct and maintain taxpayer-funded hydroelectric facilities, and Duke Power’s executives tried to block these. Sometimes they failed, but they also succeeded, and managed to survive throughout the Depression years. (Murray, 2011)

Buck Duke’s innovative legacy was carried on through World War II and the Cold War years, with Duke Power opening and still operating nuclear power plants, and after a 2006 merger with Cinergy Corporation, dove into the natural gas arena.

Buck also established a large endowment to the Methodist college his father helped relocate to the Carolinas: Trinity College. The Duke brothers’ had a lifelong commitment to the school, and to helping many of the downtrodden throughout their successful lives – often without regard to skin color. So when a full-fledged university was to be added on to the college because of Buck’s endowment, Trinity President William Preston Few insisted the school be rechartered as Duke University, in honor of Washington, Benjamin, and James “Buck” Duke. (King, 2002) All three men are interred in the Memorial Chapel at their beloved university.

Overall, Buck Duke was a shrewd businessman, one who knew how to get things done, and how to do them well. Yes, he drove his entire national and almost all his international competition out of business, but he did so by dropping his prices, and keeping them there even after he monopolized the tobacco industry. He was a philanthropist in more than a superficial sense, perhaps because of his religious background, and was, at least in this writer’s opinion, one of the more noble “robber barons”. Ruthlessness tempered by charity, an iron fist with a soft touch, Buck was an anomaly in business, and one that we here in modern America could use once again.

References

King, William E. (2002). James Buchanan Duke. The Duke University Libraries: University Archives. Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/histnotes/james_b_duke.html

Murray, Jonathan. (2011). Duke Power Company. North Carolina History Project. Retrieved October 16, 2011, from http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/279/entry

British American Tobacco: Early Years: 1902-1932. (2011) Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO5DTGBV?opendocument&SKN=1#ow_top

A House Divided

The Civil War was not as cut-and-dry as many people would assume. The complexities of the political and social climate surrounding it are copious, and this writer will do his best to give you a brief glimpse of them in this paper, as well as a breakdown of the Battle of Gettysburg and its long-term effects.

Most Americans today think that the Civil War was about slavery from the beginning. While slavery did have a role, it was not the main factor. It was simply another item on the list of grievances the southern states had against the federal government, which they believed held too much power over the states. From the outset of the south’s succession into the Confederate States of America, everything should have gone in the Union’s favor: 23 states boasted over 21 million people, to the South’s 11 states and 9 million people, of whom 3.5 million were slaves. (ushistory.org, 2011) It is interesting to note that in spite of the population difference, the Confederacy’s army was roughly the same size as the Union’s for the early years of the war. The Union also had had a stronger industrial base, complete control of the seas (and therefore, the import of gunpowder), was home to America’s top military academy, and had a stronger transportation network and central government. By all rights, the Union looked far better on paper.

However, the Confederacy had its advantages as well: as an agrarian society, it had no trouble producing the food it needed, although transporting it to the front lines proved to be a problem later on. It also had a plethora of fantastic military officers: Robert E. Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and J.E.B. Stewart are just a few examples of the South’s exemplary military leaders. The Union may have had West Point, but the other 7 military academies were located within Confederate borders. But leaders are only as good as their followers, and the troops are only as good as their equipment, and that was something that they were sorely outclassed on. Nevertheless, the southerners’ ingenuity meant that they had built several gunpowder mills and melted down church and plantation bells in their foundries for much-needed iron.

All of this meant the war was more or less a stalemate, even tipping in the Confederacy’s favor at times, until the Battle of Gettysburg. What began as an unplanned skirmish between Union scouts and Confederates looking for shoes, the Battle of Gettysburg soon grew to an unprecedented bloodbath, with involving 160,000 Americans, and leaving over 51,000 killed, wounded, missing or captured in just 3 days. This slaughter was the turning point in the war, as Lee’s battered army had take unsustainable losses and never drove into the North again. This was in part due to the need to stretch their army on the northern and western fronts; in fact, Lee lost more men at Gettysburg than Confederate Generals Braxton and Bragg had in their entire Army of Tennessee. (Chambers, et al. 1999) Because Lee was unable to replenish his numbers, he was forced to play defense, and the Union generals simply tightened the noose around the Confederacy, until there was nowhere left to run from Appomattox.

The Civil War had many different affects on the United States. It is important to note that it merely preserved the Union of states, but not national unity in and of itself. Probably the most prevalent affect, at least in the modern mind, is the downfall of slavery in the U.S., which spawned the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution. However, that was one that didn’t even come into play until the last half of the war. It also made us as a nation choose between systems of free labor versus bonded labor, which was the economic side of the abolition of slavery. Militarily, it marked the advent of “total warfare”, a military doctrine that targeted not only one’s warfighters and war-making facilities, but the general populous. This wasn’t classified as a ‘doctrine’ until World War I, but General William T. Sherman used it very effectively, and unknowingly opened the door to what is known today as “psychological warfare”. It also proved that sheer firepower does not always determine the outcome of a battle. The previously so-called “dishonorable” tactics of entrenching and fortifying your position revolutionized warfare, with all its pomp and sheer insanity. It also debuted the conical bullet, rifled barrels, shell casings containing the gunpowder and bullet pre-assembled, and repeating rifles, which advanced war tactics, but sadly added to the slaughter of the time.

All in all, the Civil War is an ugly blot in our past. It could have been avoided, and should have been, but if the end justifies the means, I still don’t think it was worth it. With more Americans killed in one war than in all the rest combined, we learned a hard, bloody lesson, and one that, God willing, we will never have to be refreshed in.

References

Chambers, John Whiteclay II & G. Kurt Piehler. (1999). Major Problems in American Military History.  pg. 176.

ushistory.org (2011) A House Divided: Strengths and Weaknesses: North vs. South. U.S. History Online Textbook. Retrieved October 9, 2011, from http://www.ushistory.org/us/33b.asp

The Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Presidencies

Thomas Jefferson: Founding Father, statesman and author, Democratic-Republican, third President of the United States. Andrew Jackson: war hero, self-proclaimed Jeffersonian Democrat, seventh President of the United States. These two great men were both similar, yet dissimilar at the same time. In this paper, this writer will attempt to compare and contrast the lives of these two Presidents, and show how their administrations mirrored each other, and also starkly contrasted each other.

First, let’s look at Thomas Jefferson. Often referred to as the Sage of Monticello, the home he designed, Jefferson was born in Virginia, educated at the College of William and Mary, and held the titles of planter, inventor, teacher, architect, philosopher, lawyer and statesman before ever earning the title of President. Married to Martha Jefferson-Randolph, Jefferson and his First Lady took office on 4 March 1801. Aaron Burr, his first Vice President, was a friend in the sense that the two men had common enemies; namely, Alexander Hamilton. Burr eventually killed Hamilton in a duel, but the scandal that led to said duel – Hamilton and Burr had the same mistress – so marred Burr’s reputation, Jefferson was forced to choose a new running mate in his bid for reelection. Thus entered George Clinton, but he didn’t have nearly an eventful role with Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson is most remembered for the Louisiana Purchase, which seemed to contradict his view of a smaller central government. For this, he was attacked by his opponents, even though the first whispers were being heard of what came to be known as Manifest Destiny. However, this writer would like to focus on a few of his accomplishments that fell in line with his views on government. One of the major items was his repeal of the tax on liquor that had sparked the “Whiskey Rebellion”. Not only did this add stability and prevent another armed uprising, but it meant less governmental regulation. Another interesting move of Jefferson’s was letting the Alien and Sedition Acts expire, instead of face repeal. The Alien and Sedition Acts were one of President John Adams most unpopular, being seen as his way to clamp down on a free press; Jefferson was appalled by this, but found it easier to simply not sign it when it came up for renewal under his presidency.

After 8 years in office, Jefferson followed George Washington’s example by not seeking a third term, and he died on 4 July 1826, just a few hours before his rival and friend John Adams. He was 83 years old.

Andrew Jackson, or often known by his military nickname “Old Hickory”, was our seventh president, and by far, our most headstrong. He was educated in what he called “Old-field school”, and was a farmer, prosecutor, judge and warfighter before becoming president. A self-proclaimed ‘Jeffersonian Democrat’ because of his view of a smaller government, but he, like Jefferson, expanded the powers of the executive branch. He served two terms as President of the United States, and both of his Vice Presidents – John C. Calhoun and Martin van Buren – ended up being his challengers during his elections. He is known mostly for his Indian Removal Act, but also for his balanced budget and destruction of the national bank.

The Indian Removal Act was supported at the time, but is now viewed as a blemish in our nation’s history. However, Jackson counted “killing the bank” as one of, if not the most important accomplishment of his presidency. Not only did he have a severe distaste – and a personal vendetta – against the bank’s chairman Nicholas Biddle, Jackson believed, correctly, that the bank was unconstitutional, and the nation’s finances should be handled by the U.S. Treasury. Calling the Second Bank of the United States, a forerunner of the Federal Reserve, which is also a private bank, a “den of vipers” and vowing to rout them out, Jackson refused to renew the bank’s charter, and thus began to dismantle it piece by piece. In fact, legend says that when asked what his greatest accomplishment as president was, Jackson replied “I killed the bank!”

Old Hickory was also the first, and only, president to balance the nation’s budget, which some speculate was because of the lack of a national bank. Regardless of the reason, it was one of the few things Jackson, his allies and his enemies could agree on. Most of his policies were what we would call ‘politically incorrect’ today, as Jackson seemed to hold to the adage of “It’s better to seek forgiveness than permission.” He was a very popular president, constantly being hailed as a man of the people through both of his presidential terms, and the entire nation mourned his death on 8 June, 1845. Interestingly, he died of untreated heat exhaustion.

Jackson’s enemies were so vehemently opposed to his policies, they formed a new political party: the Whigs. Taking their name from the British political party who championed the fight against royal tyranny, the Whigs campaigned against Jackson’s seemingly unbridled presidential power. Their numbers were boosted considerably when other third parties shattered, such as the Anti-Masonic Party, and by the popularity of luminaries, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. They managed to get their own candidate elected, William Henry Harrison, who – ironically – was selected for his similarities to Jackson, and also got Zachary Taylor, our twelfth president, elected.

The Whigs slowly began to fade along with Jackson’s memory and the deaths of Webster and Clay; however, many of the Whigs joined the newly-formed Republican Party. Also, in the course of studying for this paper, this writer discovered the Modern Whig Party, a rapidly-growing third party based on the principles of the original Whigs, and re-founded in 2007 by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Truth that history still lives!

Overall, these two presidents were some of the greatest our nation has ever seen, even if there are only a few facts commonly known about them. Their legacies, whether it be the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark Expedition, or just “killing the bank”, these men and their accomplishments should be a source of inspiration for all Americans.

References

Andrew Jackson vs. Thomas Jefferson: A Side-by-Side Comparison (2011). Retrieved 25 September 2011 from http://us-presidents.findthedata.org/compare/8-31/Thomas-Jefferson-vs-Andrew-Jackson

The Whig Party (n.d.) Retrieved 25 September 2011 from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h279.html

Who Are The Modern Whigs? (2011). Retrieved 25 September 2011 from http://www.modernwhig.org/handbook/who-are-modern-whigs

Causes of the American Revolution

There were many, many factors that led to the America Revolution. To make the assertion that one event led to the Revolution is beyond ridiculous, although may people believe something along those lines. The Intolerable Acts, Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, or any one even was not the catalyst behind it, but each of these helped shape the Revolution. In this essay, however, this author has chosen to focus on the legislation passed in England that drove the colonists to the brink of war.

The most basic, root cause of the Revolution was, quite simply, this: the colonists felt that they were still Englishmen, and as such, should receive all the rights and proper treatment, however, the British felt that the colonies were there to be exploited for the greatest benefit to the Crown. This is best seen in the years following the French and Indian War. Britain, saddled with years of war debt, believes the colonies should help pay for this, since a portion of the wars were fought on American soil. In 1763, Parliament passes the Proclamation of 1763, thus creating what is dubbed “the Proclamation Line”, not allowing colonists to settle west of the Appalachian Mountains. This act was passed primarily to protect the colonists and satisfy the Indian tribes, but to many of the colonists, this was highly offensive. The next year, the Revenue Act of 1764, more commonly known as the Sugar Act, was passed in Parliament, increasing duties on sugar to raise revenue for that pesky English war debt. (“Revolutionary War: Birth”, 2008) This act also taxed molasses, silks, wines and potash, and worked the colonists into a near frenzy. There were other Acts passed that year by Parliament that were harmful and suppressive to the colonies as well, such as the Currency Act, but the next major Act passed that was incredibly degrading to the colonists was the Quartering Act of 1765.

The Quartering Act forced the colonists to house, feed and care for any English soldier that came into their home; this Act allowed the British government to have an increased troop presence in North America without having to worry about overpopulating their barracks or paying for food, as well. The real price, however, was the increased tension between colonists and the British Regulars, as the close contact and the fact that colonists’ homes were – for all intensive purposes – being broken into, it wasn’t exactly the best atmosphere to engender good feelings and mutual respect. The Stamp Act was introduced and passed the very next year, which put a tax on virtually all things printed, and spawned the Stamp Act Congress, a group of colonial gentlemen who compiled a list of grievances against the Crown, and the Sons of Liberty, who come into play later in the story.

The Townshend Acts, passed in 1767, caused increased duties on imported glass, paper and tea, but these were simply bypassed by the colonists smuggling said items into ports illegally. When Parliament heard about the smuggling rings, however, they sent more troops to the Americas in an attempt to quash the unlawful commerce. There were no more Acts passed by Parliament for three years; but, in 1770, a mob of colonists clashed openly in the streets of Boston, where the British Regulars opened fire on the civilians after being harassed and pelted with ice and snowballs with rocks inside. Five colonists were killed, and the soldiers, along with their commanding officer were tried via court martial. Defended by John Adams, who would eventually become the second President of the United States, and Josiah Quincy, only two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter: the rest, including the officer, were all acquitted. (Jones, 1999) This incident was put to excellent use as propaganda to unite the colonies against the British Crown. Both Paul Revere and Samuel Adams, among others, had the story of supposed British cruelty, and its accompanying image spreading like wildfire throughout the colonies within days of it occurrence.

The Tea Act of 1773, coupled with the tea portion of the Townshend Acts, was purely to assist the British East India Trading Company’s sales in the colonies, buy essentially creating a monopoly for them via legislation. The colonists would have none of that, so a group from the Sons of Liberty – who we saw earlier – disguised themselves as Indians and snuck aboard three British ships carrying East India Co.’s tea, and dumped all 342 chests of it overboard into Boston Harbor. This outraged the British, and when the government of Boston refused to pay for the tea, and the duties required by law, the English closed the port.

To deter any further demonstrations, Parliament passed what became to be known as the Intolerable Acts. These were passed in response to the Boston Tea Party, and placed many restrictions on the colonists, including outlawing town meetings and any sort of public assemblies and the official closing of Boston Harbor.

After the First Continental Congress met later that year, and a boycott of British goods was agreed upon, the Crown decided to take more extreme actions. In April, 1775, British Regulars set out to the town of Concord to seize colonial munitions, and to arrest both Samuel Adams and John Hancock. However, at a small town called Lexington, the Regulars encounter a group of men from the local militia. No one knows who fired the first shot, dubbed the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”, but all it took was that little spark. The America Revolution had begun.

References

Jones, Jeremy. (1999). American Revolution Persuaders. Connecticut Business Web. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.ctbw.com/jones.htm

Kelly, Martin. (2011). Causes of the American Revolution. American History on About.com. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/a/amer_revolution.htm

Revolutionary War: Birth of a Nation. (2008) Retrieved from http://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/causes.html

Killing Violent Crime in America

There are copious things that are iniquitous with humankind, and one question that has plagued mankind since the days of Cain and Abel is that of violent crime. It’s not just a modern problem, nor is it restricted to randomized crime in citigs, but that is what I will be investigating in this essay.

First, what constitutes a violent crime in America?  Well, that really varies from state to state, so we’ll focus on federal felonies – murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault – and lump the rest together in a separate category. Now that we know what crimes we’re focusing on, what can we do to not only reduce, but actually prevent them? Some would say we need a utilitarian element added to our culture, like Confucius tried in ancient China, but that doesn’t seem like it would be able to mesh with our modern American culture. However, I agree with Confucius that most people are responsible enough to manage their own affairs without a “nanny state” type of government, and we all know that the police cannot be everywhere all the time, as underfunded as they are. I propose, for your consideration, that if more upstanding citizens were armed, our crime rates would drop exponentially.

Take the guns owned to violent crime ratio released by the FBI: in 1991, my birth year, there were 758.1 violent crimes per 100,000 people. This breaks down to 9.8 murders, 42.3 rapes, 272.7 robberies and 433.3 aggravated assaults. In 2008, the FBI’s numbers were as follows: 457.5 violent crimes, 5.4 murders, 29.7 rapes, 145.7 robberies and 276.7 aggravated assaults. This is a 6% drop in overall crime in just 17 years, which doesn’t seem that impressive. But, if you add one more year, and look at 2009’s numbers, the statistics change drastically! In 2009, there were 429.4 violent crimes overall, per 100,000 people, with only 5 murders, 28.7 rapes, 133.0 robberies and 262.8 aggravated assaults. Those stats are a 43% drop from 1991! In fact, the number of robberies alone dropped 51%! (“More Guns, Less Crime… Again”, 2011)

What caused this 35-year low in crime rates, and made the murder rate drop to its lowest in 45 years? Experts have suggested it’s because the Clinton-era gun ban expired and American gun ownership has hit an all-time high, increasing by 90 million registered firearms to approximately 250 million guns. The most popular style of firearm is the AR-15, the semi-auto civilian equivalent of the M-4 that some falsely call an “assault weapon”; in fact, 2008 saw 337,000 more AR-style firearms configured for home defense, target practice, hunting and more were sold. (“More Guns, Less Crime… Again”, 2011)

So, you may ask what this has to do with the drop in crime rates across America. Over the last 25 years, numerous federal, state and local governments have eliminated or relaxed gun control laws, allowing upstanding citizens easier access to firearms. In fact, Bill Clinton’s federal so-called “assault weapon” ban expired in 2004, and was decried by some as the end of public safety and return of the Wild West. However, since then, the murder rate has dropped by 10%! When the National Instant Check System (NICS) was chosen in 1998 over a handgun purchase waiting period, the murder rate dropped 21% over the previous year as well! (“More Guns, Less Crime… Again”, 2011)

Now, some may ask if this would just make it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns. Actually, statistics say no. The NICS is very, very good at catching anyone with the smallest criminal record, and the majority of guns used in a crime are either illegally unregistered or stolen. But what about gun shows? Didn’t New York mayor Michael Bloomberg supposedly prove that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show? There was even a study done that linked gun shows with gun violence, right? Well, as it turns out, Bloomberg and his cronies committed several felonies by conducting his ‘undercover sting operations’, and the facts in said article are “fatally flawed”, according to Garen J. Wintemute. (2010) In October 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research released a study entitled “The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas,” in which Mark Duggan and two of his colleagues asserted that gun shows local short-term effects on the homicide and suicide rates in the towns where they occur.

First, lets look at what a gun show really is. I attended my first gun show in Mesa, Arizona for my 18^th birthday, and was quite surprised. Not only were there guns, ammo and optics – as I expected – but there were collectibles, tactical gear, clothing, knives and a small library of books for sale! That’s where I purchased a belt buckle and Kisa (or Китти), a 1928 Soviet-era M91 Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle, and my first personal firearm. There were local businesses represented, larger corporations like Smith & Wesson and Remington, and a number of private sellers, but all were held to the same standards. When I bought Kisa, it was from a private seller who purchases and restores old weapons, but even though it was a private sale, he still asked me for identification, and verified that I was indeed who I said I was. Duggan apparently didn’t have a firm grasp on this, claiming that the supposed “gun show loophole” caused more gun-related deaths. To back up their claims, they looked to see if there was any correlation between the amount of deaths in a certain location, a zip code, during a given week and the number of gun shows within 5, 10 and 25 miles of that location in the previous 4 weeks. The study concluded that the more gun shows there are, the more guns are available and the more crimes are committed. Wintemute disputed that article, pointing to statistics released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), stating that only 1.3% of traced firearms used in crimes were physically recovered by law enforcement agencies within a 4-week window. That’s comes out to a miniscule fraction of the guns sold at a gun show overall. In addition, Duggan and his group restricted their study to crimes taking place within a maximum of 25 miles of a gun show, which disregards the undeniable findings about the locale of illegal gun “black markets”. Studies have found that up to one-third of guns used in crimes that are recovered in cities are bought outside of that state, and another third are bought in-state, but away from the city where the crime was committed. However, data on traced guns in California and Texas during that same time period shows that 49.5% were recovered within 25 miles of the point of their initial sale. Gun shows firearms are often being resold. In fact that study, which is actually still in progress, states that guns acquired at gun shows travel even farther from the show where it was sold to the location of the crime than other guns.

But in spite of this, some – like the Brady Campaign and Mexican president Felipe Calderón – still say we need stricter gun control laws, not unlike Mexico’s gun laws. Technically, Mexico’s constitution allows it’s citizens the right to bear arms, but the civil unrest in the 1960’s caused the government to begin enforcing strict gun control laws. For example, Article 161 of the Código Penal Federal (Federal Penal Code) requires a license to sell or even carry handguns. Article 162 provides penalties for violations, and also bans the stockpiling of arms without permission. Article 163, one of the most draconian of the articles, states that handguns may only be sold by mercantile establishments, not by individuals. Moreover, handgun carry permit applicants must post a bond, must prove their need, and must supply five different character references! On top of this, Title Two of the federal law bans both .357 Magnum and 9mm Luger parabellum ammunition, two of the most popular types of handgun calibers in the world. And yet, in spite of all their measures, they have some of the worst crime rates in the world, with the city of Ciudad Juarez has being labeled the “Murder Capital of the World”. (Kopel, 2010)

So what can we do to stop violent crime? The police can’t be everywhere all the time, and I believe we must rely on upstanding private citizens to be a ‘Good Samaritan’, and help those who are victims of crime. If we have enough informed and trained armed citizens in our society, we can greatly reduce, and even maybe eliminate, violent crime in America!

References

Kopel, David B. (2010) Mexican Gun Laws. Second Amendment Project. Retrieved April 24, 2011 from http://www.davekopel.com/espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm

NRA-ILA: More Guns, Less Crime… Again. (2011) Retrieved April 24, 2011 from http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

Wintemute, G., Hemenway, D., & Webster, D. (2010). Gun Shows and Gun Violence: Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1856-60. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.191916 Retrieved April, 24 2011 from Wilson OmniFile

America's "Big Stick"

There are many questions that have plagued our modern judicial system for some time – abortion or life? Federal government’s expansion or state’s rights? – but none have caused the stir as of late like those surrounding the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Theodore Roosevelt once said “Speak softly and carry a big stick: you will go far.” America’s “Big Stick” has always been our military dominance, and some claim our military is the extent of the 2^nd Amendment. So the question presented to us today is this: is the 2^nd Amendment an individual right? And if so, is it applicable today? I think so. There are a number of recent court cases in favor of this, the Founding Fathers’ intent appears to show this, and other Amendments seem to support it as well. Join me as I explore my reasoning behind this conclusion to this epic debate.

Let us start our journey by looking at the Tenth Amendment, which some say supports the individual’s right to Keep and Bear Arms. Amendment X of the United States Constitution reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, it may take some stretching of the imagination, but this could support the 2^nd Amendment, due to the fact that the 2^nd Amendment does not explicitly say “the right of the People to individually Keep and Bear Arms,” or “the right of the People through the Federal Government to Keep and Bear Arms.” By using the 10^th Amendment, one could argue that the right to Keep and Bear Arms is reserved to the States and their constituents, since it’s not given to the Federal government. However, this argument is rather flimsy, and has very little real substance. The Ninth Amendment also can support the 2^nd Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This is simply stating that Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. Since the 2^nd Amendment is just that – one of the Bill of Rights – it is obviously an individual right. In fact, if you look at the intent of the Founding Fathers, they seem to support this interpretation.

To get the context of the Constitution, and from that, the Founder’s intent, you have to look at the history of our nation. In the 1700s, when the Constitution was written, the American colonies were still under the thumb of the British Empire. The Intolerable Acts had reduced the rights of British subjects across the pond, and one of those rights infringed upon (among others) was the right to bear arms. Now, the British army had plenty of rifles, cannons and pistols, and were supposed to be there for the colonists’ protection, but they ended up being King George III’s riot police and brute squad. That, coupled with the Quartering Act – which allowed British army regulars and Redcoats to be housed in private residences without compensating the owner – drove our Founders to add the 2^nd Amendment. (Kindig, 1999) They didn’t want the citizens of the newly-formed United States of America to ever have to worry about some government official deciding they were too incompetent or too dangerous to have a gun (barring convicted criminals of course). A quote from John Basil Barnhill can sum it up nicely: “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” Our Founding Fathers knew this, and so they sought to protect our right to Keep and Bear Arms – well, all our rights – safe from a dictator’s grasp.

And all of this brings us to the crescendo of my argument: a series of modern day court cases on the 2^nd Amendment. The headline case in regards to this topic is District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, a landmark case from 2008. In this case, the law allowing the indiscriminate banning of firearms in the District of Columbia was challenged by DC resident Dick Heller, and supported by many hunting, gun rights and law enforcement advocate groups, like the National Rifle Association and the Fraternal Order of Police, in addition to numerous persons not affiliated with any of these groups. Various political figures signed the amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief as well, including Dick Cheney as the President of the United States Senate, and our very own Maricopa County Attorney’s office. The case was started when Heller, a DC policeman, attempted to register his personal sidearm with the City of DC. He was refused. Because of this, he sued the city based on the 2^nd Amendment, to keep the city from “enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home.” (DC v. Heller, 544 US 1, 2008) After a ping-ponging of dismissals, reversals and appeals, it finally made it to the highest court in the land, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the 2^nd Amendment is an individual right, and cannot be infringed upon in any federal district. Now, that wasn’t good enough for some anti-2^nd Amendment people, stating that that was only in federal districts, so Otis McDonald, a resident of the City of Chicago, filed suit against Chicago. The mayor at the time was Richard Daley, and he had overseen the enforcement of restrictive gun laws not unlike DC’s, but McDonald’s argument was based on selective incorporation, a legal term meaning – in this case – that laws applicable to the federal government is applicable to the states and cities as well. (Doherty, 2010) This case, too, made it to the Supreme Court, where they ruled by a 5-4 margin in favor of the 2^nd Amendment.

Some people would argue that these cases give to much freedom to the people, that we will abuse it and go back to the days of the Wild West, where the streets get cleaned up with a gun. Statistics have shown that is untrue. According to BATFE (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), gun sales rose dramatically in November 2008 – 450,000 more sales than the year before, when 21,000 a month is the average – and they recorded the crime rates dropped almost as dramatically. The national murder rate dropped 7.4% alone – the largest drop since 1999! Others might raise the issue of Mexican drug cartels getting their weapons from American dealers. We have many laws in place to prevent this, in addition to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. Besides, the cartels are literally waging a war south of our border: real assault rifles are not available to the general public here (and no, the Clinton-era gun ban’s definition of an “assault rifle” is not accurate), just as belt-fed machine guns or rocket-propelled grenades are not. Granted, some of our weapons, especially our pistols, are smuggled across the border, but that is performed by criminals. More laws will not prevent a criminal – who is by definition a law-breaker – to begin obeying the law.

So is the 2^nd Amendment an individual right? And if so, is it applicable today? Yes, it is. The Supreme Court has found that our Founders intended it to be a personal, God-given right to every American citizen, and that it is very, very applicable in our modern day and age! And I am a proud proponent and supporter of this right, and currently exercise it as I plan to do for the rest of my life!

References

Kindig, Thomas. (1999). The Intolerable Acts. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/ declaration/related/intolerable.htm

Doherty, Brian. (2010). You've Come A Long Way, Baby. Reason, 42(5), 24-32. Retrieved from OmniFile

District of Columbia v. Heller, 544 US 1 (2008)

Thus, It Begins...

Not a fan of Google, but provided I can figure this site out, I shall begin posting my works later today!