A Security Threat, Not Protection

July 7, 2014

A Security Threat, Not Protection

Gun Control. To many people, these two words bring sighs of relief and feelings of security. To others, they mean encroachment on Americans' rights. Before determining how you should feel about it, let's define gun control.

Theoretically, gun control is implemented by laws that prohibit certain guns or ammunition. A gun control law can also ban concealed carry permits, or simply the right to own a gun. In other words, gun control increases the difficulty of buying or owning a gun.

Firearms come in all shapes and sizes, with many different features and accessories. Whether prohibitory gun laws focus on restrictions on the characteristics of a gun or just gun rights, the end result always complicates the process of buying a gun. Despite the ultimate goal of these laws, to take guns from criminals, who don't even obtain guns legally, the laws are not only useless but also harmful to law-abiding citizens who only want to protect their property ("10 Arguments Against Gun Control"). Thus implications hinder the goal: protection of law-abiding citizens.

You have likely heard of the saying, “You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.” If you are assaulted by a criminal who is armed, defending yourself would be extremely difficult unless you are also armed. Gun control laws are preventing citizens from defending themselves in the face of crime.

In many cases, a villain will not assault someone if he suspects that person may be concealing a firearm, and although nobody should assume that an armed populous prevents all crimes and casualties, it does decrease them greatly. In fact, "the United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people, and, almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws" (Snyder). What if the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School had known that one of the teachers carried a gun? Perhaps, because of the presence of an armed teacher those children would not have been mass-murdered. And what of the shooter in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater? If one of the spectators had had a gun, the shooter would have been stopped sooner. Unfortunately, though, the movie theater was a gun-free zone. In any case, when a crime is committed, if an armed citizen is present, the crime itself may actually be stopped, or the shooter disarmed sooner if a victim has a gun.

Advocates of gun control often don't see the unintended consequences in their logic. Suppose a national law states that no one can own a gun. Period. This idea omits all crimes committed with weapons other than guns. It also overlooks crimes committed by law-abiding citizens who buy their firearm legally and then take illegal action. It’s impossible, if not at least difficult, to determine if a person who initially purchases a gun as a law-abiding citizen will use his or her legally acquired firearm to commit a crime. Therefore, gun control actually would not rid the nation of crime or murder.

The second amendment to the Constitution clearly 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.” This is a matter of interpretation, but militia or no militia, the most basic interpretation of that amendment is that all private citizens have the “right to bear arms.” Notice that it does not read: The right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed. If the founding fathers had intended that interpretation, they surely would have written it that way ("Gun Control: Five Reasons Why It Won't Work").

The false logic behind gun control is that because guns are limited, there will be fewer guns, and less crimes. That is often not the case. However, because of anti-gun laws, Americans would be stripped of their constitutional rights and of the strongest defense against violent crime, while the criminals obviously will always have weapons. This creates a defenseless society. Anyone can see through the well-meant but faulty logic of gun control advocates, realizing that banning weapons used in crime does not prevent crime. It disarms victims.

By Liz Ann Berg

Edited by Cheyanne Durham

and Otis Slugsworth

Works Cited

"10 Arguments Against Gun Control - Listverse." Listverse. N.p., 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 03 July 2014.

"Gun Control: Five Reasons Why It Won’t Work." The Clause. N.p., 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 July 2014.

Snyder, Michael. "18 Little-Known Gun Facts That Prove That Guns Make Us Safer." Infowars. N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 04 July 2014.

Crimea: Past, Present, and Future

April 13, 2014

Crimea: Past, Present, and Future

Civil unrest. Democracy verses tyranny. The ever-present struggle remains the deciding factor in the world's latest conflict, the Crimean rebellion. Pro-Russian Crimean rebels have taken over the government buildings in the capitol of Crimea, and, as an ally of the Ukraine, it may seem that the United States should intervene to “save” Crimea. However, a wise decision would be to think before you act, then act with prudence. The outcome of the struggle must be determined by the Crimean citizens. In this case, the Crimean people may think us presumptuous to interfere of our own accord; perhaps we are hindering their true wishes. Also, history often holds the key to first-glance pandemonium. So first we will examine the history of the area, then consider the possible wishes of the Crimean people, explore why an intervention would be imprudent, and determine if action will maintain positive relations with Russia and the Ukraine.

Map of Crimea Courtesy of lonelyplanet.com

Russia first annexed the Crimea in 1779, a decade after having defeated the Ottoman Turks, later exiling all the Muslims to nearby countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Crimea remained a part of the Russian Czarist Empire, and incidentally transferred to the Soviet Union, becoming part of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics) in 1917. Secretary Nikita Krushchev supposedly gave it to Ukraine in 1954 as a present on the 300^th anniversary of the past union of Ukraine and the Russian Empire back in 1654. Some historians also propose that Krushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine because the two were close culturally and economically. Still other historians think those theories are invalid, for logical reasons, and that Krushchev gave the Crimea away to solidify relations between the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic (Calamur). Whatever the reason, the Crimean Peninsula remained a part of the free country of Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Apparently, some Russians think that the “gift” of Crimea was a political mistake on the part of Krushchev. I would happen to agree with them. Current President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, “In people's hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia.” (Walker). He is partially right because Crimea was an influential part of Russia, providing the Russian port and naval base Sevastopol, on the Black Sea. Also, Crimea is culturally more Russian in heritage than Ukrainian. About 60% of the current population is Russian. In my opinion, the re-uniting of Russia and Crimea was inevitable, because of the Russian heritage and influence in the area. It seems that the Crimean people are content with this outcome.

Still, American leaders think that this kind of reunion with Russia is outrageous. Barack Obama is working to ensure that Crimea and Ukraine stay together. He believes that in the name of democracy, the U.S. and other NATO countries should intervene to keep Crimea liberated. Is this what the Crimean people want?

To fully understand the supposed significance of this “crisis,” you must employ sufficient knowledge of the origin and treaty of NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949, when a group of 12 nations from the UN came together to draft a treaty for an alliance of nations specifically in the North Atlantic region. The original twelve members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952, Germany in 1955, Spain in 1982, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004, and Albania and Croatia in 2009. (NATO)

Wait a minute. Ukraine is not on the list of member nations in the NATO treaty? Even though Ukraine is an ally of the United States, we are not bound by treaty to defend it. Second, the issue does not affect America or endanger our borders. Therefore, we should not intervene, but leave the Crimean populous to choose if they want to become part of Russia again. Third, a free election was held for Crimeans to voice their decision on the issue, and they voted to join Russia. The U.S. should remain neutral on this one.

That doesn't mean that we should completely abandon Ukraine. In 2009, President Obama confirmed that he would uphold the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, basically a pledge that the U.S., U.K., and Russia would “Respect the sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” (Arend). This treaty also promises that, “Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments” (Arend). In other words, we three nations are supposed to respect Ukraine, and if anyone encroaches on Ukraine the other parties should point out the disrespectful conduct at a UN Security Council meeting. But we do not promise to protect the Ukraine with force in that treaty, so support should be limited to the treaty's paramiters.

You knew this question was coming. Do the Crimeans want us to intervene? Pushing a rescue of Crimea could cause them to think that we have an interest in their territory or politics, which we don't. Our current stance is increasing the already gaping crevice in our relations with Russia. Basically, just like Theodore Roosevelt's “world policeman” foreign policy toward the Central and South American countries fostered feelings of enmity, our presumption that everyone wants our help will multiply negative responses from Eastern Europe and Russia.

Another reason to remain autonomous in this international argument is that first we must investigate the constitutionality of such an intervention. Congress (the Senate) has the authority to declare war, not the President. Reading Section Eight of the Constitution, it states that, “The Congress shall have Power To.....declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; to raise and support Armies...to provide and maintain a Navy; to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” among other privileges. So the Senate has the power to make these decisions. If President Obama were to try to recapture Crimea for Ukraine, it would be unconstitutional. I also believe many of Obama's sanctions on Russian diplomats are a misuse of executive orders, exemplified by his newest executive order giving him power to freeze the assets (private property) of anyone who speaks out against Crimean independence.

The last reason, but certainly not the least, is our economic capacity. This reason hinders any attempted action on the part of the United States. As of last October, US debt had risen to a monstrous 17 trillion dollars, (Dinan) and that is not even the major issue. Hundreds of thousands of people who are and will receive funds from federal programs like Social Security and Medicare would obviously expect to receive those in the future. This creates a monstrous unfunded federal liability. Burdened by these social debts, the Federal Government does not have funds to spare. Past experiences, like when president Lyndon Johnson tried to maintain his Great Society domestically and support troops inVietnam, have proven that a nation “cannot have both guns and butter”.

To further clarify, let me summarize my position. Russia has annexed Crimea. The US does not need to defend Crimea because first, it wanted to be reunited with Russia, and second, it was and is more culturally and economically similar to Russia. Also, Congress is not making any move to declare war on Russia, and the President does not have power to do so. Finally, America cannot afford to defy an inevitable situation. Despite the seemingly innocent annexation of Crimea, Americans should not become naive and blind to other scenarios. World War II began with a pacifist mentality that later developed into a massive security threat. If a situation were to arise in which Vladimir Putin tried to annex any other Eastern European territory, we need to remain on our guard.

                                                                                                                           By Liz Ann Berg

Bibliography

Arend, Anthony C. "A Legal Obligation to Use Force to Protect Ukraine? The 1994 Budapest Agreement." Anthony Clark Arend. N.p., 2 Mar. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.

Bandow, Doug. "Washington Should Not Defend Ukraine Or Expand NATO: U.S. Should Shift Responsibility For Europe's Defense to Europe." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

Calamur, Krishnadev. "Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point." NPR. NPR, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

Dinan, Stephen. "U.S. Debt Jumps a Record $328 Billion - Tops $17 Trillion for First Time." Washington Times. The Washington Times, 18 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

Kramer, Mark. "Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago? | Wilson Center." Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago? | Wilson Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.

Lowen, Mark. "Ukraine: Gunmen Seize Crimea Government Buildings." BBC News. N.p., 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

Myers, Steven Lee, and Peter Baker. "Putin Recognizes Crimea Secession, Defying the West." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

"NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization." NATO. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

Slavo, Mac. "New Executive Order: "Obama Has Just Given Himself the Authority to Seize Your Assets"" Infowars.com. N.p., 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

Walker, Shaun. "Ukraine and Crimea: What Is Putin Thinking?" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 24 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.