I am not a person of color: how color is used to mask the implicit model minority

           For awhile, I've been struggling to see where I stand in what is still a Patriarchal White America. The term minority is definitely accurate, but that doesn't fully express the extent to which my own identity is oppressed. While I believe all minorities are oppressed, I don't believe all minorities are oppressed equally. And this is a talking point that people simply don't want to talk about. The reason why is because it has the potential for causing a rift between identities within the minority community. Soon we'll find ourselves lumping into camps and blame will be thrown from one community to the other, arguing  over "who has it worse". Such a debacle would be self defeating for minorities everywhere and hurt the movement for greater equality for all minority groups. However, this doesn't excuse us from addressing the issue and within minority groups a dichotomy has been created to mask this potential sticking point. We have masked this issue by denoting people as "people of color" and leaving a silence for those who are not.
          The term "people of color" has a long history and I have no doubt that it probably existed just as long as the term "minority", but the question of who "is a person of color" (and subsequently who is a minority) is one that changes according to modern conceptualizations of race. I do not intend to argue the historical construction of the term. Instead I'm merely forwarding that the word in its current use has become ambiguous to the point that many people won't agree with who has a legitimate claim to the identity.
           I often find that the way the term is employed usually has very little to do with a "lexicon" sense of the term. For example, people have accepted me as a person of color, yet my skin can be lighter than many of my Asian friends. I have heard the term used to circumvent what people really want to say, latinos and blacks. The reason Latinos and blacks fit so perfectly together is because they often are the ones doing economically and educationally the worst. There are definitely some smaller minority groups that join Latinos and Blacks (South Pacific Asians, Native Americans, etc), however Latinos and Blacks make up a majority of the demographic. Naturally the big minority group being left out are Asian. One might argue that Asians aren't people of color, however this simply isn't true. And not only because South Asians tend to have dark skin. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and other "Asian" groups that aren't typically identified as South Asian have noticeably different skin tones from Whites. These skin tones have led to racial designations such as "the yellow man", which are clearly based on the physical appearance of Asians. Are they not people of color? The use of color was done specifically to distinguish between those who are white and those who aren't. It's clear that Asians typically don't have White skin. Yet they find themselves consistently lumped with White people when it comes to whether they are a "person of color".
     One might think that this is using a darker is color approach. For example, one could argue that some Asians (typically not South Asian, though some South Asians are very light skin, so don't take this as a sweeping generalization) have very light skin tones, thus making them free from the stigma that comes from the "darker is bad" perception in this country. However, I've had people who have referred to me as a person of color. The issue with this is my skin is far lighter and paler than most Asians. If you asked me to describe my skin tone without any racial bearing in mind I'd call my skin tone white (or light peach). Yet I'm afforded membership to color, while those who can actually be racially discriminated against based on color are excluded.
      It's clear that color isn't being used as an actual physical designation, but instead is embodying many of the racial stigmas of our current system.  The term "person of color" is a way of masking the concept of the "model minority" that has existed for a very long time. The "model minority" is the belief that certain minorities are the good minorities who contribute to America, since they are docile and subservient to normative American culture (i.e. white male patriarchy). The "model minority" was also employed to fuel further racism towards blacks. The point is that we use people of color often to make this distinction, without acknowledging who we're leaving out and without justifying why we're leaving them out. And while some Asians can care less (just as some blacks, latinos, and pretty much any kind of person could care less about race, which is sad because it truly has pervasive effects on your life), many of them take notice to this kind of exclusionary behavior.
         Now, I'm not going to argue whether the model minority distinction is deserving. I'm not going to even claim that African Americans and Latino's "have it worse". Instead I want to open up the floor for people to discuss this. I know sometimes my opinions can be strong and dismissing. I want to avoid this kind of dismissal. Instead I just want people to know that I don't consider myself a person of color. I am not discriminated against based on my skin tone, but instead based on my last name. I write this as an attempt to point out the ambiguous nature of the term "person of color" and instead suggest that the minority community needs to address the issue of a perceived "model minority" before the distinction divides us from our goal of achieving equality.


   

My Race card: Race isn't contained in six words.

            A website was created for the new LSA theme, which surrounds race. The website http://theracecardproject.com/ allows one to put what they want to say about race on an online card template with a six word limit. While the project has good intentions, it is ultimately a microcosm of how race is currently talked about in modern day. We constantly want to reduce the issue of race into simple concepts that people can easily wrap their minds around. The reason we do this is because it makes  those who agree and disagree able to easily recognize who's on their side, prompting them to begin hurling "knowledge" at the other side in what makes for the most passive aggressive list of comments you'll ever read in your entire life. What's sad  is that the conversation between them ends up being a race (subconscious pun) to the bottom in terms of content and education because people are trying to win these tiny intellectual battles instead of making a meaningful contribution towards the war on racism (this applies for all forms of discrimination). The race card is a farce. It asks us to create a simple conception of race, instead of recognizing that the issue of race is a large and complicated one. It's not impossible to understand, but true effort needs to be put into even scratching the surface. So no I don't have a race card. I have a race manifesto and I want meaningful discussion about it, not vacuous debate.

Possible backlash:
People might think I've gone too far with this one, but I think if you read the homepage you'll see that its language supports my claim. The homepage even refers to the race card as a "six-word essay". Essays are supposed to be documents that make earnest attempts at explaining something. They aren't mere musings or abridged thought, but instead they represent the very intellectual process I believe we are forgoing with race.

Note: I just realized the website's creation had nothing to do with the LSA theme (in terms of one causing the other), so sorry for the misconception. 

New Section: Raymond Responds to a comment on a random website

Once in awhile I'll be perusing through the web and someone says something that I think is so wrong, I feel compelled to thoroughly comment in reply, explaining to them why they are wrong. Since I'm lazy and I always feel a bit dissatisfied with just leaving the comment on the site to languish, I thought might as well post it and let everyone read it. So here is the first ever Raymond Responds.

Source: http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/04viewpoint-when-privilege-blinds-us11

Comment:

I am in agreement that Miss Suzy Lee’s bitterness is over-the-top. She not seems to understand that hearing “be yourself and you’ll do fine” from her peers and believing it constantly makes it ridiculous that she would play Monday morning quarterback upon rejection.

Having said that, to chastise others as somehow overcome by whiteness or blinded by their own privilege for believing that their seemingly flawless resume ought to get them into their dream college is quite disconcerting. The notion that people like Suzy Lee are “riddled with unearned privilege and completely unaware of it” completely oversimplifies how complex a journey it can be to overcome privilege. I am just as “disheartened by these realities” as you, and have participated in 2-3 programs during my time here at Umich that have exposed me very harshly to them. I regularly came home overwhelmed, even crying.

But. The uneasy feelings that arise from being privileged when few others around you are is never a reason to resign oneself to simply “having a million reasons to be thankful.” It seems many with this attitude are blissfully ignoring their own potential because they dont want to feel bad for those with fewer reasons to be thankful. Like it or not, most of the potential you have to succeed in college and beyond is the result of your privilege, and you should not believe that those with less privilege are rooting against you or want you reduced to "their level".

So. It is nice that you have undertaken conscious efforts to come to terms with your own privilege and have found fulfillment by exposing directly yourself to those dealing with these very unfortunate problems. But Suzy Lee’s bitterness and your suggestion that privileged individuals' first reaction when facing hardship should be some sort of "complacency masked as humility" are equally poor ways to react to good fortune. That is why I do not think your “disgusted” attitude is relatable to 95% of those who come from privileged backgrounds.
(I've decided I'm not going to post people's names in case for some reason people agree with me and then consider that as the greenlight to lambast the individual. I know people could simply just go back to the article, but I'd rather them put the extra work into finding it then helping them troll someone unnecessarily. That being said, don't feel restricted from commenting on the articles or event responding to the comments yourself if you feel you have something constructive to say.)

My Response:
Interesting that you choose to evoke "others" when the author is clearly chastising Suzy for her comments, which implied that she thought she didn't get in for a host of reasons, one of them specifically being the fact that she wasn't a minority. You on the other hand undermine the egregious nature of the article, referring to it as merely "over-the-top". Such a designation implies that there is a more tame version of this article that can exist. A tame version of this article (that maintained all the of the points Suzy made (i.e. instead of calling out Elizabeth Warren, just focusing on her lack of diversity) would still be an act of unrecognized privilege. Furthermore, one doesn't overcome privilege. One accepts it. I accept that as a man I am endowed with certain privileges and in that acceptance I make an effort to fight against normative implications of a patriarchal society. Also, you generalize those who accept privilege as "[people] blissfully ignoring their own potential because they don't want to feel bad for those wither fewer reasons to be thankful." This language is unrepresentative of how privilege actually functions. When you refer to those from a targeted identity as having "fewer reasons to be thankful" you create the image of all people being in a surplus of blessings, with some groups being blessed more. Those from a targeted identity can see it in the exact opposite framework. It's most groups being in a deficit (i.e. institutional barriers), while some either breaking even (no barriers) or record a positive gain (institutional privilege). When we work from my framework, the likelihood becomes that the author isn't ignoring her privilege in an attempt to let those without it feel better, but instead is most likely using that privilege and her own hard work to help better the lives of those without it (or people in general). So, no the author isn't suggesting that those of privilege put things in perspective, but instead is making a very specific appeal to someone who evoked an ignorant position that is clearly not cognizant of its own privilege. (note: unedited written at 3 am, but if you want to criticize my grammar/spelling/coherency go ahead 

I hate TEDX conferences

            Just the other day my University had its own TEDx conference, where students, faculty and random pseudo-intellectuals alike, gathered to bask in their own self-enlightenment. It was a day of snobbery and silent judgement.

       What many of the people who attend this conference don't realize is how superficial these conferences really are. It's "inspiration" fetishized and commodified for an elitist group of a particular creed, the creed of "the self-enlightened". I embarrassingly admit that I used to consider myself among their membership, until I actually went to a TED conference, just to find myself in a passive audience being lulled into a false sense of importance by a myriad of both inspiring and self important speakers.
         It was at that moment when I looked around. I scanned the people around me, taking mental snapshots of the facial expression and all I could see was superficiality. Among the the grimaces, I could spot some people, who were truly engaged with the subject matter of the conference, yet afraid to engage in conversation out of the fear that one of the pseudo intellectuals sitting next to them would intervene with their own overvalued two cents. I guess I don't actually hate these conferences, but instead despise the people who herald them.
        The conference claims to be akin to the salons of the European Enlightenment, but I never hear the fierce debates the salons were known for. Ideas never clash, instead we are fed perfectly stitched together propaganda, the likes of which promote a liberal slanted point of view on the world, and I hold no political malice, but I also know that liberal does not always equal intellectual. The purpose of a conference such as TED is to supersede these political ideologies, but I often find myself growing frustrated as the neo-liberalist and the technocrats speak about the world as if they have it figured out. And there will be a token minority here and there, who is allowed to speak about their own personal experience, just to be followed by a loud thunderous applause, which is then proceeded with solutions that aren't germane to the minority's experience. One might ask," how do you know this is the case Raymond? Are you not the presumptuous one?" I can only agree with these accusations, but at least I am presumptuous on a blog, which is self-aware of its critical tone and its short-comings. TED is not self aware. It's a crafted utopia for those who want to feel better about the world they inhabit. When people leave TED they feel they have been enlightened. When people leave TED they feel as if their minds have been dilated. What they don't realize is how little time they were ever given to engage with issues at hand. TED serves as a spoon feeding, fed to a perfectly chosen stock. And this is not intended to disrespect those who give TED speeches, many of them are genuine. But the forum is silent. People consume your ideas and leave. You hope to implant a seed in people with your speech, but when 10 plants are growing simultaneously in a person, do they turn into a forest or simply collapse under the weight of their own gravitas?
      If you want to fix TED, get rid of the application. Get rid of the ridiculous fees. Get rid of the passive sit back and enjoy format and instead open it up to debate. Have people talk. Make it loud and rambunctious so that the ignorant everyday public outside can hear the small cries of the intellectual process in action. Spoon feed them hope, then open up the floor for despair. Let them hear the speech of the angry minority. Let them hear the speech of the disgusted woman. Let them hear the speech of the spiteful poverty stricken person. Then coax them with solutions. Try and test the restorative abilities of your sermon, after someone is so viscerally exposed to the reality of their society. Then claim the enlightenment of the Salon. In fact, reject its orientation and claim the enlightenment of the TED talk.

Entrepreneurship has become the new word for bullshit

         There is a new buzzword being thrown around my campus and it's Entrepreneurship. I can't count the amount of vacuous discussions I have to listen to about the "virtues" of entrepreneurship. To top it all off the University seems intent on pouring thousands of dollars into various entrepreneurial programs. The only question I have amidst all of this hysteria is whether anyone actually knows what entrepreneurship is? I mean can anyone give me a hard definition for Entrepreneurship? The scary thing is that there are some here on campus who think they can. From what I learned in high school, entrepreneurship is supposed to be something that's undefinable. Anything could possibly be in the realm of Entrepreneurship, that's what makes it so magical and gooey at the center. When we have organizations "teaching" entrepreneurship, unless all they're saying is "do something" then they're distorting the free spirited nature of entrepreneurship.
      But who cares? Entrepreneurship in America is probably the most unbecoming part of our history. Yes, I said it. American entrepreneurship, which is often our claim to fame and economic security, is a farce. The entrepreneur isn't the content creator, instead he often takes the ideas from people around him and then forces people to pay for them. Let's take for example one of the greatest entrepreneur's of all time: Thomas Edison. For the sake of time and because he explains it far better than I do, go check out this comic about Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla. It explains how awesome Nikola Tesla was and the true nature of the entrepreneurial spirit in Edison. In fact, this comic has given me a good definition for entrepreneurship today: "the only thing [entrepreneurship] truly pioneered is douchebaggery." So in short entrepreneurship for all intents and purposes is simply the study of douchebaggery.
     Entrepreneurs are the one uppers in the world. They want to play the game and they're willing to do what ever it takes to get there. Gone are the days of risk and reward. Entrepreneurs are taught that you make the game as fair for you as you possibly can. This means taking out other businesses. This means being deceitful and deceptive. Entrepreneurs rarely make content. They simply frame it and then ship it off.  Let's take a top 10 list of entrepreneurs and see how many of them has actually invented something novel.
list from: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5519861/#.UVL_kjeFX68

1. King Croesus- this is one of the few people on the list who actually created something. He created money. This doesn't surprise me since the only thing entrepreneurs study is douchebaggery and the creation of money for the purpose of putting yourself in a lavish lifestyle (which is exactly what he did) is the most douchebag thing I can think of.

2. Pope Sixtus IV- made people pay for sins. Again sins have always existed. Just making people pay for it isn't novel.

3. Benjamin Franklin- another one of the few legitimate entrepreneurs here. I probably wouldn't even call him an entrepreneur, but give him the benefit of the doubt.

4. P.T. Barnum- created the modern circus. Circuses have always existed, he just commercialized them and made it so that more people payed him for it. A classic entrepreneurial move.

5. Thomas Edison- refer to article above

6. Henry Ford- Ford falls into the same category as Edison. A man who invented nothing, but found ways to streamline everything.

7. Benjamin Seigel- invented Las Vegas, again douchebaggery

8. Ray Kroc- founded McDonalds. Oh wait, no he didn't he, bought them out and then stream lined them. The burger joint to begin with wasn't special and because of him we have scores of obesity within this country (not only because of him, just being dramatic is all)

9. H Ross Perot- hired by two government organizations to do "data processing". While I'm sure that's a critical faculty in American business now, I'm not impressed by him, but impressed by the US gov for jumping on the wagon earlier.

10. Steve Jobs- apple is special, but not all that special. Most of apples success has come from their ardent branding of their product. Sure Jobs created modern typography (through a humanities course by the way), but other than that most of apples achievements are purely that of the aesthetic and profit.

      So, we've just proven that the entrepreneurs in our country are mostly ass hats, who probably shouldn't be the people we ask our kids and ourselves to strive to be like. The question then remains: who should we honor and respect? Well should've seen this coming.

Artist

When I use the word artist, I use it in the most broad sense possible. Artist are the people who explore the unknown. The ones who tussle with new notions and consistently fail. Artists are scientist before their experiments. Artist are inventors and innovators, who are driven by pure knowledge. Writers that work to explore the human condition. These are the people who take risks. These are the people who potentially live their lives in agonizing poverty because they are never fully credited for their work (mostly due to the antics of the douchebag entrepreneurs). They are the claim to fame for America. 

Does this mean everyone should be Artist? No. You don't have to take on that herculean task of exploring the unknown. But you should at least respect those who choose to attempt it. More importantly, don't respect entrepreneurs in their current function. If entrepreneurs start doing more innovating and less douchebaggery, maybe they'll be respected too. 

      

Why the "friendzone" can be a punishment

              The friend zone  a metaphysical prison where one finds themselves shunned from the romantic possibilities of another. The friendzone is typically ascribed to men, when in fact all people have the ability to end up in the accursed friendzone. The reason I've suddenly felt compelled to write about this is because my friend put up a comic, http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/13-reasons-why-nice-guys-are-the-worst?fb_action_ids=10151290471369355&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151290471369355%22%3A215322128592936%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151290471369355%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map, (wow that was an annoying link to put on this) that hilariously details why the stereotypical "nice guy" is just a self pitying manipulator, who is trying to siphon sex through guilt trips and false unconditional affection. This "nice guy" doesn't actually care about the woman he is trying to woo, and instead engages into these relationships (I'm using relationship without romantic implications here) with the inherent expectation of sex (or other things e.g. love, companionship, more sex). Before I explain why this is a mere caricature of what happens, I would like to point out that the description given above can pretty much categorize all men. When a man engages in a relationship where he has deemed romantic potential, he does so with the expectation that he will receive the things listed above (well some of them at least). He might not receive these things and may come to the conclusion that he doesn't deserve them, but there is no initial difference between the mindset of a "nice guy" and a regular guy; the only differences are set off after the relationship has begun to take its course. So I guess this one goes out to all the "nice men" and "nice women" out there, who have now been thrown under the bus with this idiotic indictment of justified disappointment.

          First, the characterization of the "nice person" (in an effort to not make this a male dominated conversation I will be using person as often as my normative patriarchal tendencies allow) as a person who cares very little about the partner they are trying to woo is just an over sweeping generalization. There are plenty of nice people who care deeply about the person they're trying to woo. In fact, this is where the root of their disappointment comes from. They believe truthfully that they care far more about the person in question than the person that person is currently with. Sometimes this is just subjective evaluations made with clear bias for themselves, but other times nice people have to watch their special someone be disrespected and hurt on a consistent basis.

        It doesn't help that the special someone tends to use the nice person as an emotional crutch. A "nice person" is often elevated far higher than their other friends. Frequently, they'll put that person above other friends because this person is far more consistent and always seems to be there for them. It never crosses the special someone's mind that this consistency might be motivated by something other than friendship. Likewise, it never crosses the mind of the nice person that their actions could be misinterpreted as something merely done out of friendship, since they're clearly doing more than their special someone's other friends. Both are in the dark with regards to how the other feels, until finally when things between that special someone and their partner stabilize (either through a breakup or a fixing of problems), they find themselves at an impasse in regards to their relationship.
     
         This impasse tends to work out in two scenarios. Either the special someone broke up with their partner and begin to use the nice person as an emotional restorative point, which they usually rebound from, leaving the nice person feeling used. Or the special someone finds themselves working things out with their significant other, prompting the abrupt end to the usefulness of the nice person, leaving the nice person feeling again used. In both scenarios, the common factor here is that the nice person is being used as a substitute for what is typically a companion specific faculty. You expect your significant other to be there for you emotionally on a much higher level than that of your friends. When you're going through problems, the person who goes above and beyond should be that of your significant other. The biggest issue comes when your significant other is the root of those problems, which leads to the introduction of the "nice person", who definitely cares about you on a personal and friendship level, but also feels they are doing what's necessary not only to be a good friend, but to be a suitable replacement.

       Of course anyone who has any experience with relationships knows that as a rule of thumb you shouldn't try to engage in a relationship with someone who is currently in one. But that doesn't stop people from developing feelings for one another. And when someone is going through tough times in a relationship, often that is when they let their guard down the most. This emotional connection that seemed to be natural from the account of the "nice person" is actually just a product of distress. The special someone feels like this is clear, but the "nice person" never catches on (or never wants to catch on). Again, miscommunication riddles their friendship, leading to the conceptualization of the punishment known as "the friend-zone".

         People need to get real though. Both "nice people" and special someones have elated their self-importance far too much and both contribute to why some people have been raging on this topic. First, "nice people", you are not always the best person to be in a relationship with. There are plenty of legitimate reasons your special someone doesn't view you romantically. Don't think that because they complain to you about partner x, that there are no redeeming qualities to that person. On to the special someones in the world, your friendship, while nice, isn't the most amazing thing in the world. Considering that friendship is probably one of the most common relationships people engage in, having yours added to the list really isn't that much more special than the friends "nice people" already have. So when a "nice person" complains, it's not that they don't treasure your friendship, it's that they have plenty of others to take its place.

        I've been at both ends of the stick and I have to say I think both parties are idiots. I think "nice people" can definitely be jerks, but special someones can definitely take advantage of people as well. So in the end my final suggestion is to be more like me by: 1. not investing emotionally in people who are in relationships 2. not allowing people to become your exclusive comforters while you go through relationship issues 3. being more awesome. Follow those 3 tenets and you'll find yourself never having to deal with the nonsense of being friend-zoned or applying the friend-zone to someone else. 

Gun control: Framing the Debate

           In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and countless other massacres it seems that yet again, the American political machine has awoken to unleash its wrath on gun legislation and in part gun owners alike. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the legislation that's going to be passed in these next few months will be legislation that significantly limits gun owners' access to their second amendment right. However, it's important to emphasize that limit and deny aren't the same thing. From the chatter that has been surrounding legislation and with the current legislation passed in NYS, gun owners aren't going to be denied their right to bear arms, they are only going to be restricted in the way they can access it. But instead of there being any meaningful dialogue concerning whether some provisions that are being suggested/passed are effective or not, both camps (gun enthusiast and everyone else) have firmly planted their feet down, refusing to make any compromise. This makes slight sense for gun enthusiast, who for the most part have no way of stopping originally strict anti gun states from going down even harder on current gun legislation. Everybody else however have what I can only gather as an emotionally induced stubbornness, that has stopped any meaningful conversation surrounding what policy will be most effective to help prevent a massacre like Sandy from ever happening. In this post, I'm going to touch on all sides of the debate. First, I'm going to put forth my view of a Gun enthusiast's gripe, affirming their rights in some cases, while completely disagreeing in others. Second, I'm going to touch on where new legislation (mostly using the NYS example) is significantly failing and what provisions could be made to better to address the shortcomings. I've got to be honest, I'm incredibly anti- gun, especially in regards to my home, NYC. However, spending time in University of Michigan has shown me that there are, in my opinion, semi legitimate claims to the access of weapons.

In animo legis

          You can't have any meaningful conversation concerning gun control without joining the conversation surrounding the second amendment and what it meant. While I don't pass myself off as an expert, I am an undergraduate majoring in Political Science, so I know something concerning the constitution and its "proper" application. When we look back at the second amendment the commonly cited reasoning behind the amendment was to prevent the unlawful take over of government, specifically alluding to the tyranny of the British. The amendment itself first starts off with no mention of citizens' rights to bear arms and instead talks of a state's right to a well regulated Militia (a right that has probably been restricted more so than one's right to bear arms). Then the amendment enumerates the part of the amendment that gun enthusiast cling on for dear life. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This statement has been debated by political scientist and law professors alike for decades. One common argument (an argument I vehemently disagree with) is that the right to bear arms is situated in the context of a militia  and that the founding fathers never intended for all individuals to bear arms. Another argument is that amendments, such as the second amendment, can grant several different uses and meanings, forwarding the notion that the amendment both allows for the people to arm themselves individually and as a militia. For the sake of not being stubborn and making an argument that holds little weight in validity, let's assume the second interpretation is the one we'll be using for our preliminary understanding of the amendment.
          Even after we've agreed on this interpretation, people still have plenty to argue about when it comes to the language of the amendment. What constitutes as "infringed"? Is restricting akin to "infringing". Gun enthusiast will argue that any limitation is an infringement upon their right to bear arms, and in a lexical sense they're right. But when we see the application of such infringement in the law, clearly too many gun restriction provisions still exist for anyone to honestly argue that infringement is an all or nothing condition. Furthermore, there is argument over what constitutes the right to "keep and bear arms". One can argue that the decision to make a distinction between "keeping" and "bearing" applies that it's unlawful to restrict one's ability to carry a weapon anywhere. Others can argue that this was just semantics and that one's ability to have arms in their house and public property is sufficient in meeting both provisions.
         While, I have opinions on both of these debates, I think both are superseded by an even more important question. I mentioned before the commonly cited reasoning behind the law. I think the animus legis (for those of you who are not versed in latin or legal jargon, this means "spirit of the law") is the most essential part of a law. If the law isn't functioning to carry out what it was intended for, then it should be revisited (insofar that it should be given a new animus) or it should be scrapped. The animus legis of the second amendment was a safeguard against tyranny, that supposed an armed population cannot be forcibly coerced by an unjust government. The question that I think most people on both sides don't want to bring up is whether this safeguard is a facade in the 21st century. Are people truly safer from the unfair abuse of the government with these weapons at their side or are they just giving themselves false reassurance? The truth of the matter is that the military complex that is the United States can at anytime, wipe out our entire population (if it ever fell into such disarray). No amount of assault weapons or semi automatics will stand a chance against the American legion. So when people describe their owning of guns as a civic duty to protect their country from the abuse of government, I begin laughing. The government can wipe out entire city populations, militia or no militia. I would never expect it to do so and I hope others don't either because if we did believe there was a legitimate fear behind the U.S. governments propensity for tyranny, then we shouldn't be arming ourselves, we should be pushing for the disarming of the army that has a significant fire power advantage over us.
       A more sensible strain of argument  that could be forwarded as a critique is the use of fire arms as a protection from a police state. Sure the army can kill us, but we don't frequently get invaded by our own army. The police on the other hand, can become incredibly corrupt and violent. This argument to an extent is legitimate, too bad most of the people griping about gun control don't fit into the category of those who have a legitimate bone to pick with the police. In fact, the group that has consistently in our history had their rights infringed upon by the police are minorities, often people of color. This is primarily a problem in inner cities (in modern day America), where gun laws are the most strict. Minorities frequently have to defend themselves from corrupt cops and do have a legitimate claim to defending themselves in the animo of the second amendment. And there are some minority driven gun lobby groups that are complaining. But the NRA, which is the major player in the gun lobby, is reflected primarily through the mouthpiece of their director: a white upper middle class male. Their claim to arms is that of the delusional citizen, who believes he is making his country safer by urging everyone to carry dangerous weapons.
     
   Legitimate uses and restrictions
      So to be able to move forward on the gun debate, we need to stop acquiescing these ridiculous claims to the second amendment. This blanket protection of the right to bear arms is impractical (since there is no way one can protect themselves from the tyranny of government with arms) and potentially immoral (if you're using your arms only to maintain the delusion of upholding freedom). After we've gotten rid of the second amendment hoopla, the gun question becomes more tangible and therefore more open to reasonable discussion regarding restrictions and legitimate uses. If we think of legitimate uses of guns, we'll find that the list is pretty bare. The only two I can realistically think of are defense and hunting. I'm defining legitimate as something that provides a tangible benefit to an individual. One might think I'm over simplifying the usefulness of guns, but I really don't think I am. If you could give me a good example of any other use for guns besides hunting and defense, then please tell me. What's unfortunate is that while one of these legitimate uses is very effective on what it sets out to do, the other might be detrimental to its overall goal. Let's begin with defense since that is most frequently engulfed in debate.
       The claim to using guns for self defense is a swiss cheese argument that on paper might seem to make sense, but in practice is ignorant of how ridiculous it really is. Plenty of studies show that a gun is effective in being able to deter criminals at the scene of a crime. This makes sense, people don't enjoy getting shot. However, a question of how many crimes are perpetrated due to the access afforded by the personal use of guns is a more important question. What does it matter if Matt can save himself from getting robbed if Mary and Mike both end up getting robbed in the process? Furthermore, this "arm yourself" initiative essentially undermines what should be the first legitimate line of defense for citizen, the police. This was explained best in a NYT opinion article by Jeff McMahan when he states,"

 The logic is inexorable: as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. When most citizens then have the ability to kill anyone in their vicinity in an instant, everyone is less secure than they would be if no one had guns other than the members of a democratically accountable police force."  McMahan NYT 2012          

 He explains in the following paragraph that the entire process is akin to a nuclear arms race. The comparison couldn't be any more spot on. And since the shot of one gun won't cause mutually assured destruction, there's a high likelihood that deterrence won't be effective.
        So when the question of personal defense comes up, we need to have the debate surrounding this crucial tradeoff. The way I view it is that the main purpose of society is to avoid the devolution into self armament. But there is some legitimacy in the opinion of heralding personal access to self defense over society's defense. Self preservation should be sought by individuals in the manner they think best. This is why the debate surrounding guns for personal use is so hostile. Both sides are in the business of preserving themselves and their families and anyone threatening their ability to do so, in their minds, is inadvertently threatening their life.
      The final argument for guns is hunting. This is by far the most legitimate claim to weapons. People enjoy hunting and they deserve to be able to engage in the recreational practice as long as they don't harm others in the process. Ways that this could be effectively implemented without gun ownership is the creation of hunting lodges that houses guns at places where people can hunt, designating more stringent hunting areas and putting limits on what kind of guns can be used for hunting. Among hunting culture, often the most powerful guns (i.e. powerful in the sense of effective at taking out human targets) aren't necessary or at times useful for hunting. This means that hunters are probably going to be the easiest group of gun enthusiasts to incorporate in future restrictions. This is the group that gun control supporters need to target. Not all hunters are ardent supporters of assault rifles. Many of them just want to be able to use their bolt action rifle in peace. If there is anyone that can be accommodated in future policy it's those who use guns for recreational purposes (this includes but isn't limited to hunting, skeet shooting, firing ranges, etc).
   
 The need to engage in the debate
    Many might consider this entire exercise pointless. What's the purpose of debating? The conservative response to your arguments are clear: 1. The Founders intended the 2nd amendment to be for personal defense (a historically incorrect assertion, but one that will be made nonetheless). 2. Guns make people safer, regardless of what you say. I know that I can protect myself with my gun. 3. There are plenty of hunters who use assault rifles, making your restrictions hurt them the most. But I think even in the face of such staunch disagreement, engaging in this conversation makes it so that the debate around gun legislation has actual tangible talking points that can be supported by fact. One can easily refute my claim that guns make you less safe with studies that show otherwise. I can then engage with that material and look it over myself. This process of giving tangible speaking points by which people can exchange information allows the debate to take on a substantive nature, which will hopefully lead to a better end result. Regardless, it's better than what is occurring now. Meaningless semantics that are emotionally charged and irrationally driven. We need to be able to ask the tough questions.