Dear readers:

This essay continues the statistcal aspect of gun control started in part 6.  Because of its length, it is available only in PDF format.

Thanks for reading,

Ed Duvall

Dear readers:

The 6th part of the series on gun control is avalable only in PDF, owing to the charts contained in it.

Thanks for reading,

Ed Duvall

Having reviewed the cultural, historical, and moral aspects of gun control, we turn now in this edition to the technological aspect.

Some prominent members of the media are opposed to the Second Amendment on the grounds that modern guns (so they claim) are too dangerous; that the Second Amendment logically only applies to muzzle-loading single shot muskets of the type commonly in use at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.  What they seem unable to understand (or are unwilling to admit they understand) is that the modern semi-automatic pistol or rifle is nothing more than the 21st century equivalent of the Brown Bess musket, just as the daily newspaper, radio, TV, and the internet are nothing more than 21st century equivalents of the weekly newspaper and handbill.  If the members of the media claim it is logical for gun owners to be limited to 10-round magazines, it is equally logical that TV news shows be limited to 10 minutes per day and newspapers to 10 pages.  If the citizens are to be limited on a logical basis to purchasing one gun per month, there is no reason why The New York Times cannot logically be limited to publishing one day per month, and the TV networks likewise limited to broadcasting once per month.  If we are to have logical background checks on anyone who seeks to buy a gun, there is no logical reason why we should not impose background checks on every reporter, editor, publisher, writer, broadcaster, advertiser, and producer.  If gun owners are to be logically forced to put trigger locks on their guns, and keep ammunition stored separately in their own homes in order to prevent “accidental discharge”, there is no logical reason why a government employee cannot be deployed to lock down all newspaper, radio, and TV productions until the intended material is reviewed in order to prevent “accidental disclosure of inconvenient facts”.   In short, if the rights of the people are to be denied simply due to the advance of technology, it is evident that every right could logically be so limited.  This may be a good way for the people to obtain a more “responsible” media: demand a plan to regulate it the same as the Second Amendment.  Let us see if our illustrious First Amendment advocates are willing to be restricted to the same extent as the Second Amendment advocates they are so quick to demonize.

But that is not the only technological aspect to be considered.  If we look back at the long development of the firearm, we see a steady progression in its improvements [1].  Here is a quick summary of the advance of firearms technology:

1249:  The first description of gunpowder inEurope(which we would now call blackpowder).

1346:  Cannon were used by the English at the Battle of Crecy.

1381:  The first cannon that could be deployed by a single person (town of Augsburg).

1418:  Mortars were used at the Battle of Cherbourg.

1460:  The first matchlock rifle was invented.

1586:  The first paper cartridges invented.

1610:  The first magazine-fed rifle was invented.

1690:  The first “revolving” pistol was invented (the barrels revolved instead of the cylinder).

1730:  The first breech-loading rifles were invented.

1774:  The percussion cap method of ignition was invented (i.e., first use of self-priming cartridges).

1830:  The double-barrel sporting shotgun in popular use.

1835:  The modern 6-shot revolver was invented.

1840:  The combined self-priming cartridge was invented.

1845:  The first magazine-fed pistol was invented.

1860:  The lever-action rifle was invented.

1862:  Invention of the belt-fed rapid-fire gun (Gattling).

1866:  Gun-cotton (which we now call gunpowder or smokeless powder) was invented.

1884:  Invention of the first full-automatic belt-fed machine gun.

1885:  The first semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine was invented (Mannlicher).

1886:  The first bolt-action rifle with a detachable magazine was invented.

1895:  The automatic repeating rifle (full-automatic machine gun) invented.

1902:  The semi-automatic shotgun was invented.

1918:  The hand-held full-automatic machine gun (Thompson) was invented.

It is not necessary to go any further.  All the common firearms now in production are simply improvements and variations on these; including those for greater safety or for a variety of calibers.  The famous AK-47, M-1, M-14, and M-16 semi- and selective-fire types were not invented until the middle decades of the 20th century.  The important thing to remember is that all the guns that are now so feared by governments are based on technology that is over one hundred years old; comparable to being afraid of telephones, washing machines, and toasters.  Secondly, anyone with a machine shop capable of 1920′s accuracy and tolerances can build as many machine-guns (and all lesser types) as necessary.  If drug dealers can build ocean-going submarines to smuggle cocaine into the U. S., it does not take much imagination to see that a similar thing can be done with clandestine production of guns, should the government attempt to regulate the current legal ones out of existence.

[1]        W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, London: Cassell and Company, Ltd., 1910

Having reviewed the cultural and historical aspects of gun control, we turn now in this edition to the moral aspect.

3          The Moral Aspect

In considering the moral aspect of citizen disarmament, commonly called “gun control”, it is helpful to return once again to English jurist William Blackstone [1]:

In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties, more generally talked of than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon they are founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other.  And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property.  So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or the other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed.  To preserve them from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliament be supported in its full vigor; and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative.  And, lastly, to vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.  And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints.  Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further inquiry, that no man of sense of probity would wish to see them slackened.  For all of us have in our choice to do every good thing that a good man would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing, but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or to our fellow-citizens.

So it is that every citizen is to be aware of his rights to life, liberty, and property, and at the risk of being both a coward and traitor to freedom and posterity, be prepared with arms to defend those freedoms should the government fail to perform its duties to preserve them.  But what about those “necessary restraints” that Mr. Blackstone refers to — doesn’t “gun control” fall under the category of “gentle and moderate” restrictions conducive to the happiness of the people?  No.  Gun control is quite the opposite: it is the means by which you, the citizen, are turned into a helpless dependent subject because it removes the ultimate restraint upon the power of governments and criminals alike. It is the means by which you, the citizen, are convinced that your life, liberty, and property are not worth fighting for; and you should leave that to the professionals, since you might get hurt and not be able to pay taxes.  It is the means by which your moral compass is forced to always point toward the government, begging them to save you; or maybe worse, subordinate yourself to the whims of some gang of professional criminals.

Is it moral to leave people in situations where the police are not available or cannot be of use, such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy, the LA riots after the O. J. Simpson verdict, or the many riots that took place in the 1960′s, including most major cities?  The police have not signed up to protect you from everything.  The police generally do a fine job, but their task is to investigate crimes after they have occurred, make arrests in accordance with the evidence, and thus bring the suspect into the justice system.  The judicial system may limit the future actions of criminals, but have no effect on the crime that is about to happen.  You, as a moral agent, are responsible for your own safety.  In fact, the police are not legally obligated to protect you from anything, or even to show up when they are called, especially in those unusual times when the number of calls greatly exceeds the capacity of the system to respond.  Is it moral on your part to demand that the police risk their lives to defend yours?  The police do not sign up for responding to large-scale civil breakdown.  Many of the police in New Orleans fled to Baton Rouge during Katrina; many LAPD members fled to San Bernardino during the LA riots.  Rightfully so — they have families to look out for, which supersedes your needs and demands.  What if 9/11 had been a larger, more general attack in which the normal governance had broken down?  The criminals would have gone berserk, as they are always looking for an excuse.  History shows that you will be on your own. The National Guard troops were in their barracks by sundown during the LA riots; during Katrina they actually disarmed the citizens, leaving them easy prey for the gangs.

Politicians are always protected by bodyguards with high-capacity weapons — this is more than hypocrisy; it is immorality of the highest order: no moral government would permit its employees to arrogate an exemption for themselves while requiring the common people to go about unarmed.  Recall that all legislative authority is vested in the Congress; consider now the words of James Madison in The Federalist Papers #57:

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society.  This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and people together.  It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.  If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws, and the manly spirit which actuates the people of America– a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

The same principle applies at the state and local government levels.  How can a just government exempt itself from its own laws?  But yet it is evident that “We the People” have failed to enforce this dictum upon our politicians; we see at every turn numerous exemptions to the laws created for the benefit of politicians, bureaucrats and their associates.  It is especially evident in the gun laws: our (allegedly) morally-superior government employees parade the streets with taxpayer-paid (supposedly) morally-superior bodyguards, while the people are forced by law to remain defenseless at all times and in all places.

Vice President Joe Biden took the time recently to look down his nose and lecture us lowlifes that we only need a double-barrel shotgun for self-defense, even at home.  I wonder what type of weapons, containing how many rounds, and of what type, his Secret Service detail carries with them when protecting him, even in his home.

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) recently released a video claiming “that no one is going to take my guns away”.  He’s right — no one is going to take his guns away because he is a member of the (allegedly) morally-superior ruling elite.  He will have access to all the guns and ammunition he wants for the rest of his life, and so will all his friends and family for all of their lives.  It will be interesting to see what Senator Manchin thinks of you and your rights in the upcoming disarmament votes in Congress.

When the government is armed and the people are not, one has tyranny; when the people are armed and the government is not, one has anarchy; in America, both are armed, wary of each other, and each side is able to suppress the worst instincts of the other.  But our modern politicians do not like the idea of any challenges to their quest for arbitrary power.

Criminals know two things: a) they will always be able to get a gun, no matter what the law is; and b) they are likely to get shot by their intended victims if those intended victims have guns.  It is evident that criminals always favor gun control for the same reasons the politicians do: it has no effect upon their livelihood and makes their job easier.  Conversely, armed people don’t have to take any crap from criminals or from governments.  It is immoral to be afraid of criminals, but yet that is what our government demands.  The reason they demand it is simple: the government needs the existence of large criminal networks to justify part of its existence, and it also helps keep the people in fear.

We commonly hear arguments that “one doesn’t need a semi-automatic rifle” since the Second Amendment was written during a time when only muzzle-loading muskets were available.  But exactly the same argument could be made about radio, TV talk shows, and internet sites, since only newspapers existed when the First Amendment was written.  I would be curious to know, given their self-appointed superior moral righteousness, what part of the First Amendment is the mainstream media willing to give up in order to reduce the incidence of libel, defamation of character, and slander?

“We the People” would do well to recall the words of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid.  To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

The U. S. Constitution clearly states that the right the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and every state and local officer swears an oath to also uphold the federal Constitution.  Under what pretended morality do they claim power to do what is prohibited by their oath?  Or carve out exemptions to the laws for themselves?  Or tell us that we are not morally suitable to possess the tools necessary to take care of ourselves should the need arise?

[1]        William Blackstone, Commentary on the Laws of England, 1765, Book 1, Chap. 1, pp. 144, 145

Dear readers:

This post is available only as a pdf owing to its considerable length.  It continues the examination of the historical aspect of gun control, focusing on the true extent and meaning of the Second Amendment.

Thanks for reading.

EDD

In my previous essay on this topic [1], I addressed the importance of national culture with respect to the ownership of arms.  This essay reviews gun control, or as it is more properly called, citizen disarmament, in its historical context.

2          The Historical Aspect

It is no secret that governments always lust for more power, and the one clear path to power is to make the people defenseless.  A few examples will show that an unarmed population is ripe for any brand of tyranny the powerful care to dish out, not to mention the professional criminal element.

The Roman Empire

The correct name of the “Roman Empire” was “The Senate and People of Rome”.  The fact is that the people never mattered too much; and after a while, neither did the Senators as the emperors increased their powers.  The empire declined gradually from many causes, most of them related to exorbitant taxes: so bad in fact, that although Italy has the best farmland in Europe, the empire ultimately had to import food because the farmers were literally taxed off their land.  The people were always unarmed, and always subject to the caprices of the higher ranks.  But things became much worse for the people once the Germanic tribes began to encroach on the territory.  Consider the words of the historian de Sismondi, regarding the results of domestic civil wars and the subsequent attitudes of the barbarians upon entering Italy in the middle of the third century AD [2]:

Ninety-two years of nearly incessant civil war taught the world on what a frail and unstable foundation of virtue of the Antonines had reared the felicity of the empire.  The people took no share whatever of these intestine wars; the sovereignty had passed into the hands of the legions, and they disposed of it at their leisure; while the cities, indifferent to the claims of the pretenders, having neither garrisons, fortifications, nor armed population, awaited the decision of the legions without a thought of resistance.  Yet their helpless and despicable neutrality did not save them from the ferocity or rapacity of the combatants, who wanted other enemies than soldiers, richer plunder than that of a camp; and the slightest mark of favor shown by a city to one pretender to the empire, was avenged by his successful competitor by military executions, and often by the sale of the whole body of the citizens as slaves. …

In all their invasions, the barbarians preserved the recollection of the long terrors and the long resentment with which the Romans had inspired them.  Their hatred was still too fresh and fervent to allow them to show any pity to the vanquished foes.  Till then they had seen nothing of the Romans but their soldiers; but when they suddenly penetrated into the midst of these magnificent and populous cities, at first they feared that they should be crushed by a multitude so superior to their own; but, when they saw and understood the cowardice of the enervated masses, their fear changed into the deepest scorn.  Their cruelty was in proportion to these two sentiments, and their object was rather destruction than conquest.  The population, which had been thinned by the operation of wealth and luxury, was now further reduced by that of poverty.  The human species seemed to vanish before the sword of the barbarians.  Sometimes they massacred all the inhabitants of a town; sometimes they sent them into slavery, far from the country of their birth.

The Frankish Empire under Charlemagne, Louis I, and Charles II (the Bald)

The famous Charlemagne (whom the French regard as Charles I, one of their greatest kings) presided over a system of continuous foreign warfare and increasing domestic poverty and serfdom.  He engaged in no less than 53 military campaigns during his reign (768 – 814), mostly against the Saxons and Slavs [3].  Meanwhile, the main domestic feature of his reign was internal disintegration as evidenced by the growth of servitude and the expansion of overt slavery.  These trends came about because the small freeholders were ruined by the wars; the politically-connected nobility deprived freemen of inheritances through court intrigue; and some people voluntarily became serfs in return for protection, since the disarmed population could no longer defend their rights or property [4].

The domestic situation became slightly better under the just Louis I (814-843), but very much worse under the corrupt and incompetent Charles II (843-877).  The general trends of the empire included a growing irresponsibility of the nobility, interested now only in their wealth and power, continual degradation of the once-free farmers, overall weakness, both morally and spiritually, and exposure of the unarmed people to every evil, foreign and domestic alike.  The consequences of these trends came to their fruition during the invasions of the Danes beginning in 841 [5]:

In the year 841, Oscar, duke of the Northmen or Danes, ascended the Seine as far as Rouen, took and pillaged that great city, to which he set fire on the 14th of May, and continued to lay waste and plunder the banks of the Seine during a fortnight.  Not an individual appeared to resist him.  The inhabitants of the country were confounded in one common state of degradation and servitude with the cattle, which aided them in their labors; those of the towns were vexed, oppressed, unprotected; all were disarmed; all had lost the requisite determination, as well as physical strength, to defend their lives as well as the slender remnant of property which the nobles had left them.  …  The progress of cowardice and debasement among the sons of Charlemagne’s soldiers, — among the French, in whom courage seems generated by the very air they breathe, — is one of the most remarkable phenomena, but also one of the best attested, of the age we are contemplating: it proves to what a degree slavery can annihilate every virtue, and what a nation may become in which one caste arrogates to itself the exclusive privilege of bearing arms.  …  Another division, leaving their boats at Rouen, had advanced by land as far as Beauvais, and had spread desolation throughout the adjacent country.  The Danes passed two hundred and eighty-seven days in the country lying on the Seine; and when they quitted it, with their ships laden with the spoil of France, it was not to return home, but to transfer the scene of their depredations to Bordeaux.  Yet, we do not hear what either Lothaire or Charles the Bald were doing during this period; nor why those nobles who had reserved to themselves the exclusive right of bearing arms, could not draw a sword in defense of their country.  Those ambitious chiefs, who had destroyed at once the power of the king and of the people, seemed now to rival each other only in abject pusillanimity.”

The Byzantine Empire

The risk of civilian disarmament is not limited to foreign invasion.  The Byzantine Empire, oriental successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, likewise continued the old tradition of rendering the population unarmed and defenseless.  By the twelfth century the empire came to be dominated by a military aristocracy, which preyed upon the people as it wished [6]:

The military were the ruling class in the state and they lived off the rest of the population.  …  Military service had become the only lucrative profession.  The people were crushed by intolerable burdens.  The state increased its demands for taxation, and the last straw was provided by the usual extortions of the tax-collectors, who now included a number of foreigners to the great resentment of the taxpayers.  In the cities a great many sold their freedom in order to find protection in the service of some powerful lord, a practice by no means unusual in Byzantium.  …  But the whole trend of the times, with the growth of the great estates, and the overburdening and impoverishment of the lower classes, made it inevitable that ever wider strata of the population were bartering their freedom to become, if not slaves, then at least serfs.

France during the Hundred Years War

People are often forced to fend for themselves when the government either turns out to be derelict in its duty, or becomes part of the criminal element itself.  Guizot, quoting the contemporary chronicler William of Nangis, writes of conditions in France between 1350 and 1390 [7]:

 ”There was not”, he says, “in Anjou, in Touraine, in Beauce, near Orleans and up to the approaches in Paris, any corner of the country which was free from plunderers and robbers.  They were so numerous everywhere, either in little forts occupied by them or in the villages and country-places, that peasants and tradesfolks could not travel but at great expense and great peril.  The very guards told off to defend cultivators and travelers took part most shamefully in harassing and despoiling them.  It was the same in Burgundy and the neighboring countries.  Some knights who called themselves friends of the king and of the king’s majesty, and whose names I am not minded to set down here, kept in their service brigands who were quite as bad.  What is far more strange is that when those folks went into the cities, Paris or elsewhere, everybody knew them and pointed them out, but none durst lay a hand upon them.”

England under Henry VII and Henry VIII

The risk of consolidation of power is evident in the history of the first two Tudor kings of England, Henry VII (1485-1509) and Henry VIII (1509-1547).  The social structure of feudalism was rapidly declining, and Henry VII enforced the Statute of Livery and Maintenance in order to reduce the nobility [8, 9]:

The introduction of gunpowder had ruined feudalism.  The mounted and heavily-armed knight gave way to the meaner footman.  Fortresses which had been impregnable against the attacks of the Middle Ages crumbled before the new artillery.  Although gunpowder had been in use as early as Crecy, it was not until the accession of the House of Lancaster that it was really brought into effective employment as a military resource.  But the revolution in warfare was immediate.  …  Broken as was the strength of the baronage [from the civil wars of 1453-1485] there still remained lords whom the new monarch [Henry VII] watched with jealous solicitude.  Their power lay in the hosts of disorderly retainers who swarmed around their houses, ready to furnish a force in case of revolt, while in peace they became centers of outrage and defiance to the law.  Edward [V] had ordered the dissolution of military households in his Statute of Liveries, and the Statue was enforced by Henry with the utmost severity.

Here we see Henry VII suppressing the organized bands of nobles who had caused the civil unrest during the War of the Roses and afterward.  But to concentrate power in one place did not work out too well; we see that within 40 years under Henry VIII, the unarmed people became subject to the worst tyranny in England’s history [10]:

The ten years which follow the fall of Wolsey [1531] are among the most momentous in our history.  The New Monarchy at last realized its power, and the work for which Wolsey had paved the way was carried out with a terrible thoroughness.  The one great institution which could still offer resistance to the royal will was struck down.  The Church became a mere instrument of the central despotism.  The people learned their helplessness in rebellions easily suppressed and avenged with ruthless severity.  A reign of terror, organized with consummate skill, held England panic-stricken at Henry’s feet.  The noblest heads rolled on the block.  Virtue and learning could not save Thomas More: royal descent could not save Lady Salisbury.  The putting away of one queen, the execution of another, taught England that nothing was too high for Henry’s “courage” or too sacred for his “appetite”.  Parliament assembled only to sanction acts of unscrupulous tyranny, or to build up by its own statutes the great fabric of absolute rule.  All the constitutional safeguards of English freedom were swept away.  Arbitrary taxation, arbitrary legislation, arbitrary imprisonment were powers claimed without dispute and unsparingly exercised by the Crown.

In the space of a few pages, the great historians de Sismondi, Ostrogorsky, Guizot, and Green demonstrate that an unarmed population is regarded with contempt by foreigners and domestic tyrants alike.  All the other honest historians have reached like conclusions. These are but a few instances where history shows the risk of disarmament — I mean risk to the people, not to the government; governments are never disarmed.  It should not be necessary to add to these the more recent examples: a) the policy of universal starvation-and-gulag under Lenin and Stalin in Russia; b) the same under the Kim regimes in North Korea; c) the genocide of the Jews by Hitler, d) the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; e) the genocide of his fellow Cambodians by Pol Pot; f) the garden-variety tyrannies of Pinochet in Chile, Amin in Uganda, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, and Castro in Cuba; g) the genocide of the recently-disarmed Tutsi’s by the Hutu’s in Rwanda (as the American administration stood by and watched); and last but not least, h) Mao Zedong [Tse-tung] of China.  Together, these regimes murdered about 200 million of their own people in the 20th century alone.  Why would we expect any better behavior from governments in the 21st century?

When disarmed, people are executed, massacred, and sold into slavery according to the whims of the armed.  We in America may have little fear of an invasion by Canada or Mexico, but be certain that every domestic government contains the possibility of tyranny, and there is of course no need to mention the deeds of criminals who take the same opportunity whenever offered.  We shall see a similar case of tyranny in America as enacted by the southern Democrats against the newly-freed slaves.  But first, in the next edition, I will address the true context of the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

References:

[1]        Edward D. Duvall, “Practical Aspects of Gun Control, Part 1″, 20 Jan 2013

[2]        J. C. L. de Sismondi, A History of the Fall of the Roman Empire, London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, and John Taylor, 1834 , Vol. 1, pp. 37 – 40

[3]        Francois P. G. Guizot, The History of France, New York: John B. Alden, 1885, Vol. 1, p. 168

[4]        J. C. L. de Sismondi, A History of the Fall of the Roman Empire, London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, and John Taylor, 1834 , Vol. 2, pp. 82, 83, 100, 101

[5]        ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 134, 137 – 139

[6]        George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State,New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, Revised Edition, 1969, pp. 393, 394

[7]        Francois P. G. Guizot, The History of France, New York: John B. Alden, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 153, 154

[8]        John Richard Green, A Short History of the English People, New York: American Book Company, 1880, p. 301

[9]        W. F. Finlason, Reeves’ History of the English Law, London: Reeves and Turner, 1869, Vol. 2, p. 444; Vol. 3, p. 196

[10]       John Richard Green, A Short History of the English People, New York: American Book Company, 1880, pp. 331, 332

In my previous essay on this topic [1], I was clear in my opinion that the way to reduce mass shootings is to lock up the dangerous people in appropriate mental institutions, not to impose regulations on the 150 million citizens who exercise their rights.  I also mentioned then that I would address the practical aspects of “gun control”; this is the first installment, which addresses the importance of national culture.

1          The Cultural Aspect

The advocates for disarmament of the American people are constantly misinforming us with claims that other advanced nations have adopted “sensible” laws regarding gun ownership, and that we Americans should “get modern”, join up with “civilized society”, and either abolish the Second Amendment or neuter it with regulations.  But these same disarmament advocates fail to point out (knowingly or not) that the real issue regarding the Second Amendment is not what kind of guns should be available; it is ultimately about the degree of individual freedom that the citizen possesses and how it is to be preserved; to what extent the people should passively trust any government (with its enormous powers); and whether in fact, any government is willing or capable of fulfilling its promises in times of emergency.  The debate is not about guns per se, just as the First Amendment is not about the color of ink or the scheduling of talk shows.

The so-called American “gun culture” is nothing more than a by-product of the American “freedom culture”.  The advocates for disarmament claim that other nations and societies have “progressed” to the point that privately-owned arms are now unnecessary, and that the Second Amendment is an interesting but useless anachronism.  It is in fact the other way around: many other nations and societies have “regressed” to the point that the individual freedom is being abolished in the face of bureaucratic tyranny.  The nations of Europe were the first to develop the concept of individual liberty, but now most of them have abandoned it; a few illustrations should suffice to show that these so-called “progressive” nations are not worthy of emulation when it comes to firearm restrictions, since these same restrictions are symptoms of a larger problem, namely, the degradation of the importance of the individual.

The once free and vigorous Germans have fallen furthest.  It was the Germanic peoples that infused the subjects of theRoman Empirewith the notion of individual freedom, so foreign to Roman understanding.  And so it was for many centuries, until the gradual encroachment of the state under the influence of the Prussians.  The Germans were prepared for the scientific prescription of tyranny outlined by their fellow countryman Karl Marx in the 1870’s.  Only the scientific German mind could conceive of Marxism, the foundation of the modern systematic totalitarian systems of Fascism and Communism.  For some reason, the Germans have gradually combined traditional duty with modern blind obedience.  It was no surprise that the German people embraced Hitler when he said in 1933 [2]:

“Our aim is to draw from the midst of the people a class of leaders which shall be as hard as steel.  When in this way the people have been rightly trained through its political leadership, then the social spirit will come to its own, for he who thinks only in terms of economics will never be able to think and act truly socially.”

Or again in 1935 [3]:

“The question of fallibility or infallibility [of the government] is not under discussion; the individual has as little right to question the action of the political leaders as the soldier to question the orders of his military superiors.”

The past few centuries of history shows that the average German will do anything that anyone with a government ID tells them to do — “Tote that barge” — “Lift that bale” — “Round up those Protestants” — “March those Jewish children into that gas chamber.”  Never a hint of protest, or questioning of authority; they have become so suppressed in their thinking that they no longer believe there is any legitimate need for self-defense; they implicitly trust all government employees.  They are willing to have all means of resistance licensed and registered. They will not object to the universal weapon confiscation that Hitler implemented, simply because the government says they must.  It is true that the people ofGermanycollectively own about 5 million firearms, subject to some of the strictest control in existence; each firearm must be licensed, and a justification for the license must be stated.  Self-defense is not a valid reason.

The German mindset is nothing new.  The German Confederation (1815 – 1866) was a full police state, complete with censorship, arbitrary searches, internal passports, no right to trial by jury, and no right to bear arms [4].  The German Empire (1866 – 1918) continued in much the same manner, complete with persecution of Catholics and protection of the anti-Semite National Socialists [5].  Even after the First World War, a civil service bureaucracy with a strong tradition of exercising absolute authority, and which retained all its traditional privileges, continued to dominate the German people [6].

The Germans have had their Frederick William, their Bismarck, and their Hitler; another one will arise sooner or later, and there will be no domestic resistance to him.  Tyrants do not tolerate competition.  When that new German tyrant emerges, he will find it a simple matter to seize absolute control by seizing all the guns; it will be easy because the registration and licensing requirements will point him to all the potential sources of resistance.

The British once had a long tradition of individual freedom, but has eroded since the Second World War.  Apparently the British have fallen prey to the notion that guns are only for evil.  They have lost their original notion of human dignity and the right to self defense; they are no longer a model useful to America.  For some reason, the British no longer read Blackstone [7]:

“Both the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed se defendendo, or in order to preserve them.  For whatever is done by a man, to save either life or members, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion.”

They no longer read even Hobbes.  Here was a man who advocated the absolute divine right of kings, believed one was guilty until proven innocent, and endorsed the punishment of groups for the crimes of individuals; and yet recognized the immutable right of self-defense, both for oneself and for others [8]:

“Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it, it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby.  For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.  And therefore there be some rights which no man can be understood by any words, or other signs, to have abandoned or transferred.  As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force to take away his life, because he cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself.  The same may be said of wounds, and chains, and imprisonment, both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience, as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded or imprisoned, as also because a man cannot tell when he seeth men proceed against him by violence whether they intend his death or not.”

The modern British have even forgotten John Locke, who extends defense to liberty and property [9]:

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design, upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away from him, or anyone that joins with him in his defense, and espouses his quarrel: it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction. …  For I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased, when he got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it: for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that, which is against the right of my freedom, i.e., to make me a slave.  To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation: and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom, which is the fence to it: so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. … This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any further than by the use of force, so as to get him into his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases from him: because in using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not when he had me in his power, take away everything else.  And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e., kill him if I can, for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

And yet, the modern British subject cannot legally practice self-defense for themselves or their family, nor to defend their property, nor to preserve any liberty.  While it is possible to obtain a Firearms or Shotgun Certificate, allowing one to own a gun, self-defense cannot be legally cited as the reason for wanting one.

Perhaps the Parliament decided that they should have a clean, tidy kingdom, and should not have to tolerate the Queen’s innocent subjects going about defending themselves from her criminal subjects.  Having adopted this notion that self-defense being obsolete — regarded now as too messy, too violent — Parliament decided it is better to disarm the innocent than to have this kind of inconvenience.  Better the peaceful subject tolerate any indignity or violence than to resist.  Parliament accordingly passed a series of laws disarming the people in response to a school shooting there, knowing full well that no law prohibiting self-defense will affect them personally any more than laws affect the Queen or the criminals.  So the modern law-abiding British gave up all their guns (except for an occasional two-shot hunting shotgun) for Queen, country, and public safety; the only problem being that it has not made the subjects safe, since the criminal subjects do not care about the innocent or the law.

The French and most other European governments (except for the Czech Republic and Switzerland) have imposed similar restrictions on the people’s ability to keep arms: requiring licenses and “justifications”, and imposing limits on the number of cartridges that can be purchased annually.

The Chinese are certainly no model for America.  Their entire history is one of enslavement by one warlord or another.  There is neither a history of, nor a desire for, freedom as understood in the West.  The Communists, simply the largest and most successful warlords, are now permitting a little economic freedom, but will never tolerate true political freedom, or any notion of the importance of the individual.  They will certainly never permit the notion of self-defense to catch on, nor permit the tools thereof to be possessed freely by the people; it would be the end of their reign.

The Japanese have a similar tradition of allowing themselves to be suppressed by arbitrary government power; it was only in 1945 they accepted the concept that the emperor was not a god.  All guns are prohibited to the people, although the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) is not inconvenienced at all.  That makes perfect sense to the powerful: sometimes the Yakuza works for the government, sometimes the government works for the Yakuza; but the taxpaying Japanese people are always at the mercy of both.

The people of India have a history similar to the Chinese, except they have been pushed around by tribal leaders and colonial masters rather than warlords.

Nothing need be said about the people of Africa: it is the only continent where slavery is still practiced, by blacks enslaving blacks, and sometimes Arabs enslaving blacks.  This is the place where the notion of individual life and liberty is so suppressed that they are willing to watch two million of their children die of malaria every year because some bureaucrat at the UN outlawed DDT.  It is the place where the genocides are most recent (Rwanda, Sudan, Zimbabwe) and in which children are fighters in the numerous tribal and civil wars.

The “rights of persons” is talked about in many places, but America is one of the few places left where those rights are taken seriously enough that the people retain the power to enforce them if necessary. America inherited these concepts from the British, who have now largely abandoned them.  Only a small fraction of the American people believe that self-defense is evil, or that government can always be trusted so long as the people have the power to vote.   Granted, the American politicians have made some progress in weakening these sentiments by increasing dependence on government programs.  But for now, the American culture, generally speaking, still embraces not only the notion of liberty, but recognizes the need for arms in the hands of the people to protect it.

The historical aspect of gun control is considered next.

[1]  Edward D. Duvall, “Retard Control, Not Gun Control”, 26 Dec 2012

[2]  Norman H. Baynes, Hitler’s Speeches, London: Oxford University Press, 1942, Vol. 1, p. 482.  The occasion was a speech at the Fuhrertagung, 19-20 Jun 1933

[3]  ibid., Vol. 1, p. 447.  The occasion was a speech at the Nuremberg Parteitag, 18 Sep 1935.

[4]  Ernest F. Henderson, A Short History of Germany, New York: Macmillan Co., 1906, Vol. II, pp. 335-339, 344, 345

[5]  Carlton J. H. Hayes, Contemporary Europe Since 1870, New York, Macmillan Co., 1953, pp. 139-141

[6]  Hajo Holborn, A History of Modern Germany, 1840-1945, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969, p. 555

[7]  William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 2 (1765)

[8]  Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, chapter 14 (1651)

[9]  John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, (1689), sections 16 – 18

Mr. Bill O’Reilly, host of Fox News’ “The Factor”, spent considerable airtime this past Christmas season calling out liberals, atheists, and some politicians for “waging a war on Christmas”.  He is correct in pointing out that mainstream “liberalism” is devoted to ridiculing religion in general; it is also true that atheists have sometimes gone to extreme lengths to eliminate all publicly-displayed symbols that can be remotely tied to a religion.  Actually, not all public displays of religion are under attack: there is never a criticism of Islam, Kwanzaa, or Marxism.

But in any case, Mr. O’Reilly was very critical of those who are trying to eliminate any hint of Christian symbols in public.  His main argument is: atheists and secularists are wrong to seek removal of certain objects associated with Christianity (such as the manger scenes, Christmas trees, and Santa Claus) because all of these are simply traditions and do not represent a religion per se.  He argued that it is misguided for atheists to reject Christmas symbols on the grounds that the word “Christmas” constitutes establishment of religion by the state.

As Mr. O’Reilly carefully explained to his (atheist) guest Mr. David Silverman: “It is a fact that Christianity is not a religion.  It is a philosophy.” [1]

So Mr. O’Reilly has proclaimed that Christianity is a philosophy.  I guess that shows how stupid I am.  I’ve always thought that Jesus Christ had authority to determine what Christianity is and is not.  For the sake of completeness, here is what Jesus Christ said about Himself, and thus, about Christianity [2]:

Matt 10:32, 33      Whoever acknowledges me [Jesus Christ] before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.  But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

John 3:17, 18       For God did not send his Son [Jesus Christ] into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him [Christ] is not condemned but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 4:25, 26       The woman [at the well at Sychar inSamaria] said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming.  When he comes, he will explain everything to us”.  Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

John 14:5, 6          Thomas [the apostle] said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”  Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”

It is clear that Christianity is not simply a philosophy.  But nor is it a religion, which is any system by which man seeks to pacify or gain the favor of God — Christianity is a relationship with God.  I hope that clears things up.

[1]        The O’Reilly Factor, 28 Nov 2012

[2]        Scripture quotations per the New International Version, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995; explanations in square brackets are mine

We have now just passed one of the darkest Christmas seasons in memory, after so many small children were murdered by a clinical retard at an elementary school in Newtown, CT.  The tiny bodies were not even cold when our Marxist politicians, ever alert to exploit a tragedy, took to the airwaves to demand that all the other citizens give up their Second Amendment rights because of the action of a single retard.  President Obama has since commissioned a task force to develop new and innovative ways to disarm the people; their report is due sometime in Jan 2013.

When I use the word “retard”, I am not referring to those who have below-average IQ; I am referring to those who have been recognized as clinically insane by competent mental health authorities – the people that pose a clear danger to themselves and others.

Most of the recent mass shooters, including Retard Jared Loughner of Tuscon AZ fame, Retard James Holmes of Aurora CO fame, and the latest one, Retard Adam Lanza of Newtown CT fame, were all profoundly mentally ill.  In fact, the Christmas Eve shooter of Webster NY, Retard William Spengler, had previously served 17 years in prison for murdering his grandmother.  All were known to be retards by the local health officials — why was nothing done to intervene?  Is this how our illustrious government seeks to protect us — by failing in its duty while taking away the rights of the people?

I suspect that the government prefers to let these retards walk free until they commit some horrific crime; it keeps the rest of the people nervous and fearful.  History shows that people who are afraid are more willing to give up their liberties if they can be convinced that doing so will ensure their safety.  What better way for the politicians and the bureaucrats to kill two birds with one stone: implement some gun control to reduce the Second Amendment guarantee while assuring the weak-minded that we will have a safer nation because of it?  It is typical for that type of politician, already suitably divorced from reality, to actually believe they can eliminate evil by passing laws to regulate inanimate objects.  The real problem, as far as these shootings are concerned, is that we no longer have a viable mechanism to commit these retards to institutions, where they can either be treated as they require by expert medical practitioners and restored to mental health, or comforted and cared for in a place where they can only hurt each other.  It is unfortunate that some will fall into the latter category; but that is how it is.  Or maybe our illustrious politicians would prefer small children being killed in their schools by retards on the loose, either by shooting, by burning the building down, or running them down with a pickup truck.

The National Rifle Association released a statement recommending, among other things, that perhaps instead of giving up liberty, we should have armed guards in the schools.  I am not convinced that it is the ultimate answer, but suffice to say that our Marxist politicians immediately rejected the idea and castigated the NRA for being “tone deaf”.  The mainstream media of course neglected to mention that there are about 130,000 elementary and high schools in America and about a third of them have had armed guards for decades.  They will never mention it; doing so would only remind the voters that armed guards in the public schools are necessary only in cities where the Democratic Party has established their brand of paradise: Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, Baltimore, Washington DC, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Gary, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, and St. Louis.  It is odd indeed that the Marxist politicians would criticize the NRA for recommending something that the Democrats have been doing for decades.  But this omission makes perfect sense when you recall that the goal is not public safety — if it were, we would be committing dangerous retards to institutions where they belong.  The goal is to disarm the people.

It is not just the opportunistic politicians joining the gun-control/disarmament bandwagon.  Now Dr. Fareed Zakaria (commentator for CNN and political advisor to Mr. Obama) also desires to solve the retard problem by essentially killing off the Second Amendment.  In his 23 Dec 2012 article [1], Evidence Overwhelming: Loose Guns Laws to Blame, Dr. Zakaria cites reductions in homicides in other nations after gun prohibition, ridicules existing gun laws in the U. S. as being too lenient, then concludes: “Instead, why not have the government do something much simpler and that has proved successful: limit access to guns.”  He is referring, as stated earlier in the column, to banning all semi-automatic and automatic firearms, as was done in Great Britain, Japan, and Australia.  That brings up an important topic.  Dr. Zakaria is a native of India; India has draconian gun prohibition laws which are a holdover from the British colonial regime.  If India is such a free and safe society, why did Dr. Zakaria emigrate to the U. S., so full of gun owners?   He must have thought there was greater freedom here.  He was right.  What he fails to realize is that freedom exists here but not in India partly because the people are armed.  As the famous Indian activist Mahatma Ghandi wrote [2]:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

Apparently Dr. Zakaria disagrees with Mr. Ghandi and would like to turn the American people into the suppressed subjects that the Indian people were when ruled by Her Majesty Queen Victoria.  If His Lordship Viceroy and Governor-General Dr. Zakaria won’t believe Mr. Ghandi, perhaps he will believe a leader of his adopted nation, Senator (later Vice President) Hubert H. Humphrey [3]:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.  This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.  But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote inAmerica, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

This is the basic fact that His Lord Highness Fareed and other like-minded Marxists deliberately ignore, hoping you will not notice.  Only an armed population has a reasonable chance of remaining free, given the usual long-term trend of every government toward absolute power.  This pattern is true throughout history, no matter the form or construction of the government.  We shall see in the coming weeks ever more shrill demands by the Marxist element for you, the citizen, to give up your right to be armed; which is in essence, a demand that you give up your long-term prospects for freedom.  We shall see who in Washington, if any, are willing to oppose them.

The best answer to the random shootings is retard control, not gun control.  If and when the government finds a backbone and takes action to ensure that retards are placed in their proper environment (where they can get real treatment), we will have fewer tragedies like the Newtown incident.

I shall consider in subsequent essays some other practical considerations regarding “gun controls”.

[1]  The Arizona Republic, 23 Dec 2012, p. B10

[2]  Cited by Abhijeet Singh, “Colonial Roots of Gun Control”, Mahatma Ghandi, An Autobiography OR The Story of My Experiments With Truth, p. 238;  http://abhijeetsingh.com

[3]  Guns magazine, Feb 1960, p. 4; http://commongunsense.net/2011/01/hubert-humphrey-in-1960/

So the elections are finally over and our illustrious federal officials now turn their attention to the so-called “fiscal cliff”.  At issue here is whether the Bush-era tax cuts will expire, along with the Social Security withholding reduction enacted in 2010 as a temporary stimulus measure.  The “fiscal cliff” came about per an interim agreement reached last year, as a result of the debt-ceiling escalation in Aug 2011 and the subsequent failure of Congress to come to a consensus on a fiscal policy.  The idea behind the interim agreement was simple: impose across-the-board spending cuts of $1 trillion over ten years and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire on 1 Jan 2013 unless a long-term fiscal policy is enacted.  The $1 trillion in spending cuts, spread over ten years, result in $100 billion in cuts every year, split approximately equally between defense and non-defense.  This was regarded by its designers as so abhorrent that it would provide sufficient motivation for Congress and the President to actually make a deal.  But the negotiations since the election have not been going too well; and of course both sides are busy blaming each other.

I will review the situation, and show how the Republicans, contrary to conventional wisdom, actually hold all the cards here.  First, a few undisputed facts:

1.  The President campaigned successfully on two notions: that tax rates must go up for the wealthy, and must come down for the middle class.  He has said the marginal rates on the wealthy should go back to the 1990’s; in other words, from 35% now to 39.4% as they were in theClintonera.

2.  If the “fiscal cliff” occurs, tax rates will go up for both the wealthy and the middle class.

3.  The long-term fiscal problem of the nation cannot be solved by spending cuts alone, nor by tax increases alone; a combination of the two is necessary (i.e., a comprehensive package).

4.  The history of past “comprehensive” reforms, as enacted under Reagan and Bush, Sr., shows that the Democrats always insist on tax increases immediately, with a promise of spending cuts in the distant future.  Of course, politicians being who they are, those cuts never happen.  It is safe to say that no Democrat in Congress will ever vote for any bill that actually cuts spending in the near term unless he is forced to do so.

5.  No Democratic President will sign a bill that results in immediate spending cuts, unless he is forced to do so (like Bill Clinton).

6.  If anything bad happens to the economy, the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party (i.e., CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS; plus the major newspapers led by The New York Times) will blame the Republicans; if anything good happens in the economy, they will give Mr. Obama all the credit.

7.  The Democrats and their propaganda wing have long held that the Republicans are the party of the rich (conveniently ignoring the fact that tax provisions favoring the wealthy were passed mostly by Democratically-controlled Congresses over the last 50 years).

8.  The Democrats and their propaganda empire have claimed that the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage to protect the rich.

9.  Mr. Obama has stated that he will only accept a “fiscal cliff” deal if it raises tax rates on the wealthy.  He has claimed the wealthy are those with incomes over $250,000.

10.  The Republicans have thus far admitted that revenue increases are necessary and are willing to do so by removing some loopholes used by the wealthy and limiting some deductions.  They do not want to raise tax rates on the wealthy due to a “tax pledge” made some years ago.

Here are a few observations and applications.  First, consider the cuts in the “fiscal cliff” legislation.  The cuts are across-the-board, without the necessary and prudent prioritization that rational people would do.  However, let’s be realistic: it actually imposes spending cuts immediately, and for that reason alone is probably the best that our ruling elite can do as things stand presently.

Secondly, the wealthy already pay a large portion of income taxes.  So, if revenues are to be increased via the Republican preference (closing loopholes and limiting deductions), or increased by Mr. Obama’s preference (raising marginal rates), the wealthy are going to pay more either way.  In reality, the best thing for the nation is the Republican way, since it will do more to promote fairness in the tax code, and limits the ability of Congress to punish their enemies and reward their friends through the tax code.

Third, if we go over the “fiscal cliff”, taxes will go up for those of us in the middle class.  So taxes will go up — what else is new; and how will it matter all that much?  State and local taxes of all types have been going up all along.  Recall that the Social Security withholding reduction was intended to be temporary anyway (it was also a bad idea).  The increase in taxation via federal marginal rate increases is small compared to the already-occurring increases in the cost of living due to the Federal Reserve’s currency-printing machine.  If either side truly cared about the middle class, perhaps they would take action to restrain Mr. Bernanke.

Fourth, although most Republicans were dumb enough to sign “no-tax” pledges at the urging of Mr. Grover Norquist, the simple fact is that both the expiration of the Bush-era cuts and the repeal of the Social Security withholding reduction are already accomplished facts if a deal is not made.  They cannot be accused of raising taxes if they allow law per a vote already taken in 2011 to occur.  Only a moron would sign such a pledge anyway; since when did Mr. Norquist assume the authority to supersede the needs of the nation and the powers of Congress contained in the Constitution?  If Mr. Norquist wishes to be emperor, perhaps he should run for the office.

Fifth, the “smart money” has known for months that our ruling elites are incapable of anything better than the impending “fiscal cliff”.  As for the future of the stock market, the “smart money” managers have probably already priced-in the effects.

Sixth, if one is going to be accused of something, one may as well do it.

With these facts and observations in mind, it seems to me that the Republicans hold all the cards here, and it is possible to get true reform that actually helps the nation.  Mr. Obama needs to score political points by raising taxes on the wealthy (it won’t solve the fiscal problem, but he needs to score points).  He won re-election, so let him have his political points.  The increases on the wealthy are his most famous political need, but not his most important one.  Many of his supporters are middle-class.  He needs a tax cut for them much more than he needs a tax increase on the wealthy.  The Republicans in the House should immediately pass legislation that raises marginal rates on the wealthy to 50%, with no corresponding demands for spending cuts and no other conditions subject to objection.  This is far above the rates that prevailed in the Clinton era.  In fact, they should pass a series of bills that raise rates on the wealthy to 60, 70, 80, or 90%, and let the Senate Democrats and the President choose the one they want.  This turns the argument around while costing the Republicans nothing: taxes are going up on the wealthy either way.  If the Democrats think those marginal rates are too high, it will be incumbent on the Democrats to negotiate lower rates for the wealthy to protect their friends in the tall buildings in Manhattan.  If the Democrats do not really want higher rates on the wealthy, by all means they shall have their “fiscal cliff”.  If they settle on the new rates for the wealthy, Mr. Obama will have his political points, but leaves the Republicans in control of what he needs more (the middle class tax cut).  Then the Republicans can actually do what they’ve been accused of: hold the middle class tax cuts hostage — not to protect the rich, but to get spending under control and thus stabilize and secure the nation’s long-term financial health.  They should demand immediate spending cuts in return for an immediate reduction in tax rates for the middle class, thus forcing the Democrats to do what is necessary but have never done before.