The United States has experienced yet another mass shooting, this time in Nashville, Tennessee at a religious school. Six people died and the killer carried two assault-style weapons and a handgun. As always, the nation will go through another period of impotent "thoughts and prayers" as its citizens will debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "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." It is a poorly written amendment, subject to all sorts of weird interpretations. When it was being debated in 1789, its intent was clear. 

The citizens at the time were tremendously suspicious of a standing army since their experience as colonial subjects proved to them that standing armies, maintained by a powerful state, represented a threat to liberty. The writers of the constitution therefore wanted the common defense to be maintained by state militias in order to fragment centralized military control and assumed that militias would only be called upon when there was a specific threat to be addressed. 

The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights adopted in 1780 gives a rough idea of what the concerns were: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."

The most important dimension of this concern was the fear of a powerful state. To that end, the states were not expected to arm the militias. Instead, every citizen was expected to bring their own weapons when the militia was called upon. The "original intent" of the 2nd Amendment was to assure that states never developed their own weapons-producing capabilities. 

This meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been lost and its tortured language is currently interpreted by the US Supreme Court as a right of individuals to possess weapons even though the states now buy weapons for their militias (in the US, the National Guard) and the Federal Government regularly purchases weapons to arm the various branches of the US military. Indeed, soldiers in the US military are not allowed to use personal weapons when they are officially deployed in combat. The reasoning behind this prohibition is obvious: massed armies require standardized equipment so that it is easier to provide the necessary training, ammunition, and maintenance of weaponry. And very few citizens could afford to buy their own modern weapons. 

The Militia Act of 1792 makes it clear that citizens were expected to provide their own weapons: "That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good How to be musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a armed and ac- knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"

This interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was washed away in the Supreme Court's decision, District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The decision was 5-4 and the Majority Opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. That Opinion was summarized as follows: 

"To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to 'guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.' This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment."

The Supreme Court went even further in its decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in 2022 and the Majority Opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. In that opinion , Justice Thomas argued that all gun control legislation needed to be assessed in a manner "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." I personally have no idea what that phrase means. What is the "historical tradition" relevant to an AR-15? It only became widely available in 1963 when the Colt Manufacturing Company sold it to civilians.

The interpretations of Heller and Bruen are hypertrophic and have no logical connection whatsoever with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. To equate the right to carry an automatic or semi-automatic weapon in a public place to the right to speak freely or to assemble peaceably is dishonest nonsense. Indeed, the right to speak freely is itself limited to speech that does not incite violence. And the invocation of "original" intent is itself nonsense. 

The "original intent" of the Constitution was to codify and normalize the kidnapping and enslavement of millions of people. The "original intent" of the Constitution was to deny women the right to vote. Fortunately, the people of the United States decided that slavery was completely inconsistent with the true aspirations of the Constitution and that the voices of women in governance was essential to a well-functioning democracy. One would be hard-pressed to argue that the slaughter of innocents was consistent with the ideals of "domestic tranquility".

We should repeal the 2nd Amendment since its current interpretation apparently only allows "thoughts and prayers" for those who are mindlessly killed and for those who have lost loved ones. And we should examine seriously the health of a society which holds that children should be protected only by participating in "active shooting drills". That advice resonates strongly with me as I remember huddling under my wooden desk in 3rd grade as adults tried to persuade me that it was an effective defense against a nuclear blast.

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would leave a vacuum with respect to gun policy. Much would have to be done to fill that vacuum, but I only offer one suggestion on the issue of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I want to avoid the inevitable controversy over the possible "confiscation" of guns. That policy would never work and would simply aggravate the untenable situation in which we find ourselves. Instead, I suggest a Federal law along the following lines;

1.The sale of any weapon with an automatic or semi-automatic firing mechanism will be prohibited.

2.Citizens can possess such weapons but they can only be held on the property of the primary residence of a citizen.

3.The carrying of an automatic or semi-automatic weapon in a public space will be prohibited and any such weapons found in a public space shall be confiscated and destroyed.

We can debate background checks or the mental health requirements on all other weapons at a future point. But there is no reason why the burden of proving an acceptable solution to gun violence should be borne exclusively by those who want the weapons to be controlled. The burden should more appropriately be borne by those who insist that they have a "right" to possess military-grade weapons. They should be forced to defend that right in the face of all the horror and instability that society faces every day and with stunning regularity. 






                            



REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Israel is preparing for a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip and it has encouraged the Palestinians in the north of the Gaza to move to the southern part of the territory so that civilians will not be subjected to what will likely be a very intense campaign.

It is difficult to move 1.1 million people in such a short period of time given that much of the Gazan infrastructure has been destroyed by bombing. Many people in Gaza have no place to go in the bleak southern part of the Strip and Egypt has not opened the Rafah crossing into Egyptian territory. I suspect that Egypt does not want to be responsible for such a huge influx of refugees. And many Palestinians do not want to leave their homes or familiar neighborhoods. Hamas has encouraged the people not to move to the south, which has been interpreted by some as an attempt to use the civilians as a shield from Israeli bombardment.

The more likely explanation for the number of Palestinians who chose not to evacuate is the fear that they could never return to their homes. While Israel has a "right of return" for any Jew who wishes to emigrate to Israel, it has not allowed the more than 750,000 Palestinians who left their homes in 1948 upon the creation of the state of Israel to return. Many Palestinians refer to that episode as the Nabka ("the Catastrophe"). That refusal is a violation of international law as described by the Institute for Middle East Understanding:

All refugees have a right to return to areas from which they have fled or were forced, to receive compensation for damages, and to either regain their properties or receive compensation and support for voluntary resettlement. This right derives from a number of legal sources, including customary international law, international humanitarian law governing rights of civilians during war, and human rights law. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 13(2) that "[e]veryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his own country." This is an individual right and cannot be unilaterally abrogated by third parties.

In December 1948, following Israel's establishment and the attendant displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians from areas that fell within its control, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194, which states, "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

The Palestinian right of return has been confirmed repeatedly by the UN General Assembly, including through Resolution 3236, which "Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."

There were Israeli settlers who lived in the Gaza Strip after the 1967 war but all 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip were unilaterally evacuated in 2005. I suspect that many Palestinians fear that depopulating the Gaza will offer an opportunity for Israel to assert renewed territorial control in the Gaza. I doubt that Israel is thinking about such a radical move and most Americans do not seem to be aware of that historical episode. But the Palestinian fear is not far-fetched to a people who suffered displacement. It remains unclear, however, what the Israeli plans for the Gaza are. Given the level of destruction that has already occurred in the Gaza, it is unlikely that anyone will be living comfortably there for an extraordinarily long time.
OCTOBER 14, 2023 - ISRAEL AND GAZA

 VINNIE'S BLOG
​"This constant lying is not aimed
at making the people believe a lie,
but at ensuring that no one believes
anything anymore.

A people that can no longer distinguish
between truth and lies cannot distinguish
between right and wrong.

And such a people, deprived of the power
to think and judge, is, without knowing
and willing it, completely subjected
to the rule of lies. With such a people,
you can do whatever you want."

Hannah Arendt
German hisgorian and philosopher
(1906 - 1975)
August 2024
January 27, 2025
​President Trump recently suggested that the Gaza Strip should be "cleaned out". This strategy is hardly new, as detailed by The Guardian:

"The suggestion by the US president, Donald Trump, that Gaza’s Palestinian population could be “cleaned out” and moved to Egypt and Jordan is an idea that has long been circulated by the Israeli right.

"Over the decades since the Six Day war in 1967, when Israeli forces first captured the Gaza Strip, which had been under Egyptian military rule, Israeli officials and commentators have periodically pushed the notion that Palestinians in Gaza could be resettled in Egypt.

"Most recently that notion was floated in a leaked paper by Israel’s intelligence ministry – which prepares studies and policy papers rather than representing the intelligence agencies – a few weeks into the war in Gaza.

"That 'concept' paper recommended that Israel 'evacuate the civilian population to Sinai' then create 'a sterile zone of several kilometres … within Egypt' that would prevent return."

The idea is profoundly offensive and clearly violates the Geneva Convention prohibition against ethnic cleansing. It is also something that the Palesstinians would reject, even though mush of the Strip has been completely decimated. It is extraordinary to view the numbers of people who have taken advantage of the cease-fire to move back into northern Gaza--even though living there will be dangerous, difficult, and uncomfortable. The photograph of the Palestinians moving back is a powerful statement on the Palestinian determination to not repeat the tragedy of the nakba of 1948. 

Both Egypt and Jordan have flatly refused to accept refugees from Gaza. Jordan already has several million Palestinian refugees and Egypt fears that its territory will be compromised by the refugees, who would likely continue to attempt moving back to Gaza. The Washington Post reports:

"Reaction from the Middle East was quick — and sharply negative. Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, said that Jordan’s opposition to displacement of Palestinians was 'firm and will not change.' The Egyptian Embassy on Sunday reposted a 2023 comment by its ambassador, Motaz Zahran, saying that 'Egypt cannot be part of any solution involving the transfer of Palestinians into Sinai.'”

The reaction from Germany was also emphatically opposed, despite Germany's historical relationship with the state of Israel.

"Germany on Monday rejected US President Donald Trump’s proposal to move Palestinians from Gaza to nearby countries – Egypt and Jordan.

"Speaking at a press briefing in Berlin, Foreign Ministry spokesman Christian Wagner said that Germany maintains its commitment to the international consensus regarding Gaza's status.

“'There is a common position shared by the EU, our Arab partners and the United Nations, which is very clear: The Palestinian population cannot be expelled from Gaza, and Gaza must not be permanently occupied or resettled by Israel,' he said.
"Wagner added that the G7 group of the world's leading economies, which includes the US, has so far consistently supported this position in multiple joint statements.

“'Expulsions from Gaza, and establishing new settlements here is not possible. This is also something that we made very clear during the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Tokyo in 2023. In this respect, I think our position is more than clear,' he said."
If Trump and Netanyahu succeed in "cleaning out" Gaza, the possibilities for a two-state solution are completely eliminated. John Lyons of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation makes that argument:

"One of Trump's first decisions was to lift sanctions on several of the most violent Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The Biden administration had placed such sanctions on several particularly violent Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

"Trump's move has been seen here in Israel as essentially saying that these and other armed and violent settlers can commit any atrocities against Palestinians with impunity and without interference from the US. Rarely are Jewish settlers brought to justice by Israel for acts of violence against Palestinians.

"Trump's early appointments are also a strong indication that a Palestinian state is very much an endangered species.

"He has chosen former Arkansas governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee as new US Ambassador to Israel. According to The Times of Israel, Huckabee has said that Israel's claim to the West Bank is "stronger than American ties to Manhattan" and he even laid bricks in 2018 as ground was broken on a new housing complex in the settlement of Efrat.

"The website reported that Huckabee had said that "of course" annexation of the West Bank was a possibility during Trump's second term."
Israel is the only country today that occupies territory with such a large population. There is no justification for its war of conquest.







In one of the most shameful episodes in diplomatic history, the US announced it is prepared to vote against a resolution in the UN General Assembly condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine. For the last two years, the US has voted in favor of such a resolution, but this year is supporting a watered-down version simply calling for an end to the conflict. Ukraine is going ahead with the stronger resolution which will undoubtedly pass, but the US will be left with the small number of states who have decided that aggression is permissible despite the plain language of the UN Charter. Among the other states that opposed the Ukrainian resolution were Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and Sudan. Astonishing bedfellows in such a dramatically brief period of time.

This decision represents the clearest example of the US repudiation of the world order it helped to create after World War II. That world order was based on rules and norms that reflected the commitment of several states in 1945 to an alternative to the traditional practices of world politics: imperialism and the balance of power. It was never completely successful (and failed most dramatically in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq despite the UN Security Council's decision not to authorize the use of force against Iraq). But one does not have to believe in the aspirations for a more stable world order to hold that clear aggression across national borders should be readily condemned. The US position on the Ukrainian resolution holds that clear aggression across national borders is acceptable behavior.

There is a second conclusion to the change in US policy toward Ukraine--it represents a significant political victory for Putin that should put to rest all the speculation as to whether Putin has something on Trump. That question is irrelevant. Trump could not be more supportive of Putin and his foreign policy objectives, so whether he is paid to do so or is coerced to do so does not change the outcome. When asked today at his meeting with President Macron of France by a reporter whether he thought Putin was a dictator (a word Trump regularly uses to describe Ukrainian President Zelensky), Trump declined to use the word. I remember the Presidential election of 1976 when President Ford asserted that the East European states under Soviet control were "free": “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” The firestorm that followed effectively doomed Ford in the election. Today, however, few in the Republican Party were willing to condemn Trump for his sugarcoating of Putin.




February 24, 2025 - The Un Vote with Russia