 Hi, my name is Sandy Baird, and this is what's happening, which occurs once a month approximately, where these experts get to comment on current affairs and everything that's bothering our country, and in fact the world, since our country seems to a lot bother the world. This is Ian Stokes with me, and Mark Estrin, and I'm Sandy Baird, and I guess what we're going to start with today is this controversy about guns. Is that right? Or what? Oh, why not? It's certainly happening today. It's certainly going on. It came to my mind about guns, is that this United States still has what's called a Second Amendment, and we are one of the only countries in the world which probably, first of all, has a Constitution in the first place, and second, has a Bill of Rights, and in that Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment, which guarantees to the people, and there's a controversy about whether people organized in a militia or people themselves have a right to bear arms. And the latest case out of Washington D.C. in the Supreme Court, which was the Heller case, seems to indicate that the court at least at this point feels that individual citizens have the right to bear arms. I would also mention that the right to bear arms is outlined in the Vermont Constitution, and that Vermont Constitution was adopted before the Constitution of the United States. In the Vermont Constitution, it's even much clearer. People under the Vermont Constitution here in this wonderful state have the right to bear arms, but they also have the right not to bear arms, which I think is probably the best kind of definition of the right to bear arms. It also includes the right not to bear arms. I would argue that that means that people don't have to be drafted, but I might be wrong about that. So anyway, let's talk about guns, right? What do you guys think? Since the United States is British, maybe he would have a different take on the Second Amendment, right? Well, it doesn't apply, of course. And guns are much more heavily regulated in the U.K. I mean, in just about every country, I suppose. In the world. Other than the U.S. is one of the least regulated, I suppose. And the regulation is done through legislation, and there's currently a flurry of legislation going through states, legislators, and also in Washington, D.C., relating to the possession and access of guns. So whether those are constitutional or not, maybe, is one issue. But perhaps equally or more important is the question, will they solve the problem? The problem being gun violence, of which mass shootings are the component of gun violence that grabs the headlines and apparently provokes response in legislators. Well, Britain doesn't even have a constitution, a written constitution. Is that also correct? It's not written. Right, right, right. So the United States certainly probably was the first republic that had a constitution. I'll bet you. Not certain maybe the old Italian city-states had constitutions, but the United States certainly was the first republic that I know that had a constitution and most specifically had a bill of rights, which of course are the rights that are guaranteed to individual citizens against the tyranny of government, right? So yeah, so this constitution and its amendments are, they all happened quite a long time ago. So this raises the question, are they pertinent to this? Well, it's the right to free speech, pertinent. The right to worship, as you wish, or not. The right to assemble or not. The difference relating to free speech of course is the availability of internet and the means that people have now to broadcast their thoughts and their speech to much wider audience. And the difference relating to the bearing of arms is the technology of weapons that... Is that such a huge difference? Well, I think the technology has produced a number of changes, so that now although one can possess a hunting rifle, one can't possess, I believe, a running rocket propelled grenade or a tactical nuclear weapon. There are restrictions. There are restrictions have been introduced in response to this. I don't think it's specifically around nukes though. I don't believe that. But you're right, there have been some regulations on guns. Anyway, so Mark, what's your take? There's a couple of things we're talking about. Your take on the Second Amendment. Correct. The decision that the Supreme Court made was in 2008, so it's sort of instructive that it's only this absolute certainty that it's only 10 years old that is on a legal level. And before that, it was everybody, it was a free-for-all, and probably still is because who would expect the Supreme Court with the balance of the Supreme Court being there to argue any other way in 2008 about whether there's a distinction between being part of a well-regulated militia and just being an individual in which way what that was referring to. I personally think it's quite clear that it had to do with militias and militias directed at two things. One of which was slavery, that putting militias, having armed militias, was a way to keep the slaves from rebelling. And in fact, it was a demand of the slave states, the slave owners, that that would be the case. The second one was, as you mentioned, was the extermination of Indians. Our self-defense as it was probably felt at the time. And it certainly wasn't related so that all of these people with guns could revolt against the government, could protect themselves against the government, which is part of what people are saying now with the reason that they need to be able to individually hold guns aside from the break-in at the house or the solution to bad guys with guns as good guys with guns. And it's quite incoherent what people are talking about. And I think so the whole question about the Second Amendment and whether or not the as currently constituted Supreme Court, politically appointed Supreme Court, has any metaphysical reality. It has a political reality, it has a legal reality, but whether in the case of... It has a constitutional reality also. Well, that's what I'm calling a legal. But whether in the case of the well-being of humanity or larger issues on which the Republic was founded, like the best state of the people, it isn't clear that it has anything to do with anything. Okay, I would disagree with that. But what about you, Ann? Remember that I wish we had brought our constitutions because in the Second Amendment it says something like to guarantee a free state. People have the right to bear arms. And so I would disagree with Mark on a couple of levels. Well, we regulated militia. I would know. It's comma, but also there's something else. There's something else. And that is regardless of whether you like the present court or you don't. The present court has said that it is an individual right, regardless of what we think about that court. And I don't... It's the court. What do I... You know, there's been political decisions made by the court all the time, but you have to obey them. Oh, not necessarily. No, you don't have to, but it's troublesome if you don't end up in jail about it. But I mean, I like to be pragmatic and ask the question. End up in court about it. What? End up in court about it. Right. Yeah. First step to jail. Yes. Second step. Right. You do have the right to have a jury trial, too. Go from jail to court. But, you know, I think we have to ask what are we going to use these guns for? You know, what was the original intent of the Second Amendment? It was sort of a collective self-defense, I suppose, and now... Well... It was also to rebel against the English Empire, which was the largest empire on earth. They had plenty of guns. So the American felt, and I think rightly so, that they also had the bare arms against the English Empire. But there are now more than... I think it's 285 million guns in private hands in the U.S. And so what do they get used for? What hunting? What's the purpose? So hunting is one we're definitely aware of in Vermont. Self-defense is one we're aware of. Individual and defending, protecting one's family, that's another one. There are several others. You know, there's joining a militia. I'm not too sure what those militias are meant to do. Well, the militia, I think legally the militias became... The militias that were formed in the American Revolution became the National Guard. Okay, yeah. And the National Guard used to be for the defense of the state and to help in disasters. Then it was federalized. It's now become part of the federal government. Right. And that's a shame, it seems to me. I mean, you know, there are other uses of guns, and one of them is committing crimes. Correct. Another one is suicide. That's, I think, a fairly common method of committing suicides, use of guns. So, you know, there are many aspects to this. Mass shootings actually is a small one, but, of course, it terrorizes the whole population or, you know, huge numbers of people whenever it happens. The numbers I saw recently were that assault weapons maybe correlated with the number of incidents of mass shootings and also the number of fatalities. That was difficult, of course, to argue cause and effect. But the increase, there's been a recent increase in the number of incidents and fatalities in mass shootings so that in the last decade since assault weapons became available again, the number of fatalities has been about 300. So, well, 30 a year. So it's actually a relatively small number of fatalities, though it has those, of course, random occurrences from the point of view of the victims and they have a huge effect on them. Okay, but I'll give you my position, which is not particularly pro-gun. But I would argue if you take away guns from citizens, then guess what? The government has all the guns. And the government uses those guns in a lot of ways that are also mass shootings. That's called war. So there's a simple solution in my opinion is that is to take away those kinds of weapons from everybody. And I think you could do that constitutionally. You could argue that the government simply shouldn't give contracts to places like Lockheed to produce them in the first place. But that would be constitutional, wouldn't it? Do you see anything wrong with that or anything that even smacks of the gun control of citizens? I was really interested the other day that Trump said something that I believe will eventually happen. Will. And he, I think, made a big mistake because he got in trouble with the NRA. But he said, let's take away people's guns without legal process. Right? Okay, so how would that end up? We say, oh, good, that's a great idea. Prior to due process. Prior to due process. Prior to due process. In other words, the government has the right to take away your guns, leaving them with all the guns. In particular situations. I'm not certain he even said that. No, they described, I think, five different situations. For instance, and it seemed typical to me when police are called to a home in which there's domestic violence and there's a weapon. Okay, so there's an incidence of domestic violence. When the police arrive, there's another principle in our constitution, right? Which is an incredibly important constitution, right? You arrive at a scene with domestic violence, you don't, that person has not been convicted of anything at that point. He has not been convicted. So he, I'm using that word carefully because in general it's the male that is committing the violence, but not always. Okay, so the police arrive and guess what they do-do. And that is constitutional. They cite that person into court where the evidence is overwhelming that he did it. They cite him into court and then he or she get convicted of a crime. At that point, if it's a felony, they can't have guns anyway. It leaves out the scenario where there's someone waving a gun. And guess what happens in those situations, Mark? Or a shovel has occurred in the new north end. What happens in those situations, or a spatula? What happens the cops shoot them? Period. So then what's the solution? The solution, it seems to me, if we're really worried about, particularly about assault weapons and the weapons of war, I agree that assault weapons are the weapons of war. They're not a weapon that you should have anywhere on earth, including in the hands of soldiers. Well, I certainly agree with that. The large, you know, my sense is, I saw this somewhere, it's cute, but it's also accurate. Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Yes, exactly. And the gun, by the way, it's just interesting that we talk about people with rifles. In 1791, when the amendment was written, people didn't have rifles. They had muskets. A musket is a gun where you load the powder and then you put the bullet in and you tamp it down and you do a flint and do that. And the science of guns made a big breakthrough during the Civil War. And guess what rifle was produced? The Springfield Rifle, my hometown. What a rifle is, is a long gun that has rifling in the barrel. For targeting accuracy. Right, and length. So, I mean, length of shot. So in the middle of the Civil War, around 1863, the entire tactics, military tactics, had to change because the north and through smuggling the south changed over from muskets to rifles. And they no longer could have this face-to-face contact and everything had to be done at a distance. All right, so that's nowhere near the... But that's like 1863 in 1791. It's what the guns that were being written about in the Second Amendment are distant relations in terms of... But it doesn't matter. It does matter. That matters to you. It does not matter in general to the American people. Well, I'm not the American people. I have an opinion. And I agree completely with you that if you step back from this, that it's the guns and the lasers and the nukes and the drones and you talk about 17 kids getting killed, but at the very moment that 17 kids are being killed, 1700 kids are being killed across the world by American weapons. By legal violence. So the call question I think needs to step back to the level at which you're seeing it, but I don't want to insert any... You read today stories about these and these killers and this series of mass killings and mass killings is more than four people and there's six out of seven days that have mass killings. To me, that leaves out the main thing, which is the dependence on violence in the culture and in the politics. And war. Well, war is our politics. We should watch again the Michael Maugh's movie called Bowling for Columbine, where he attempts to... Of course, this comes after the Columbine mass shooting and he's attempting to identify what it is about the United States that seems to attract mass shootings. And he dismisses the... Quite early on, as I remember... Yes, compares Canadian availability of guns. So Canada has availability? Part of that allows him to compare... Or to attempt to correlate availability of guns with their use, the fatalities resulting from their use. And he dismisses that quite early on. The availability of guns is not the thing that correlates with the incidents of gun violence. So there are other things. And he ends up with this argument of it's something about the culture. He can't exactly put his finger on it, though he blames the media for creating a culture of fear and violence. Except the media is blamed for everything. You know, it seems to me... Maybe it's to blame. It somewhat is to blame, I think, currently in stirring up this mass hysteria against Russia. That's, I think, correct. In my view, that's correct. And Russia, of course, is the main superpower that the United States has always been hostile to and has always... It was resurgent, apparently, after several years of... Since 1917, though, even when it wasn't... It was really not resurgent. It was, you know, the victim of great war and violence against Russia. The United States has taken a position that Russia has to have a different kind of government. Really, it's been true since 1917. And so I see most of the media contributing to this attitude that we should be at war with Vladimir Putin and with Russia. And that, I think, is a media... It seems to me, objective, even. Well, go ahead. To some extent, as old as that is, which is, you know, people are afraid the communists are going to come and take your toothbrush away. But Russia's not a communist anymore. I know, I know. But I mean, that's where it started, when it's going through. And you still see the words commies out there in the right and along the, you know... I've heard it myself. That Russia is the main, and Putin is the main Diablo is new. Because things had kind of calmed down. After 9-11, we had a new Diablo, which was terrorism and Muslims. And so since 9-11 and until the 2016 election and the environs, the Russians were not. In fact, they were our partners in some way. And Obama, which I don't have much good to say about, was working to work with Putin. And so the whole Putin-demon thing is new and is essentially, regardless of how we reacted to 1917, is essentially a creation of the megaphone of the mainstream media. Well, not only the mainstream media, but the Democrats. Unfortunately, who are trying to say that that's why Clinton lost. But anyway, Ian, you want to sort of change something? Well, I wanted to go from Russia to North Korea. I mean, one of the unknowns in this newly breaking story about the potential for discussion between Kim and Trump is where are the players lining up? We don't really know where Russia stands on this. We know maybe a little bit more about where China stands, being neighbors of North Korea, of Korea. And we know that it was South Korea that it wasn't the State Department. It wasn't Rex Tillerson. And it won't be, I don't think. It will not be. Yeah, apparently. So it was South Korea that coordinated this development. And of course, has been coordinated, maybe coordinating it for a few weeks since the run-up to the Olympics. Before that, was the election of that President Moon? Well, right, the new president of South Korea. He was elected on the possibility of making peace with North Korea. That was why people voted for him, I believe. Yeah, and created a change in the approach. It was also why people voted for Trump, making peace with Russia. Yes, I know. I know it. Well, Trump doesn't stir up difficulties with Russia so much. Well, Jesse does now. Well, Jesse, I mean, it seems to me that he kind of has to. They turned him around. Yeah, no. Right. Or they took control of him, one or the other. Well, that's the way to turn someone around. And actually, if we're talking about Korea, the Korea comes into the news in the last week or so because it's one of those countries which will be affected by the tariffs that have been proposed. So tariffs, well, is already affected by the, I think the washing machines came, were coming primarily from South Korea. And, but now the steel and aluminum and steel. Korea of South Korea is apparently a fairly major source of steel that we import. And although China was always portrayed as the source of this cheap steel that was flooding our market and therefore deserved some tariffs, it's actually, I think, somewhere like fourth in line. The numbers I saw showed Canada and the EU, the European Union. That's why they're squawking so much, right? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, they're the ones that are primarily affected. I haven't seen the numbers for aluminum, but I imagine Canada is a major source of aluminum because it takes a lot of electricity to refine aluminum. So probably it comes from Canada. So, but Korea was hit with tariffs on wash, on domestic appliances, and now again with steel. So they've been hit twice with economic sanctions, if you want to call it that. And yet at the same time, they're back in the news relating to talks with North Korea. The thing that I think is really interesting about the Koreas is that it confirms something that I really believe in, that peace will only come from ordinary grassroots people. I mean, it's clear to me that the United States doesn't really want peace with Korea. Maybe Trump, maybe he even does, but it doesn't seem to me that the State Department wants peace with the Koreas or Tillerson or any of the kind of establishment states. They simply want to maintain this military posture. But the South Koreans really spoke in the election of President Moon. They want some kind of deal with North Korea. Why wouldn't they? I mean, if there's a war with North Korea, guess who's going to be hit first? I mean, who would be hit first, if the United States bombs North Korea, then North Korea is going to bombs South Korea where all our troops are, correct? So the South Koreans have a big interest in peace. They were the ones who pushed the Olympic Games and having a joint team. So it really confirms the idea that sometimes actors don't occur from the top down. Sometimes actions really occur more on a grassroots level. I think it did in recently in Burlington around the F-35s, frankly. And so I think this is terrific news. And the other thing that seems to indicate to me is that the Koreans want to be together. They don't want this division. It was never in a division that they agreed to. They want to have Korea be for the Koreans, both sides, right? And so more immediately, what does North Korea want? I think North Korea wants the same, but I don't think North Korea... First of all, we have to... North Korea wants not to be attacked by the U.S. They want security and they want the sanctions. And they want to be part of the community of nations, I would guess. They want to have some deals that they're not going to be starved about. I mean, these whole economic sanctions is really a war measure, isn't it? I mean, they want to be normal as much as possible. And I would guess that they also want to be reunited with their brothers and sisters. Why not? And they probably, as I know you've told me, Sandy, they're probably looking at what happened in Iraq and what happened in Libya. Both countries were on the way to having nuclear weapons. Probably never really achieved any capability. And what will happen to Iran? Well, potentially, yeah. Right, they are there in the crosshairs, aren't they? Because of their nuclear program, which has been abandoned. Now, or severely restricted, the nuclear program in Iraq was shut down. Did they have a nuclear program? Yeah. And subject to UN inspections, same goes for Libya. Right. And the leaders from that time in both Libya and in Iraq came to a very unpleasant end. Unpleasant end, right. Particularly Qaddafi. And their countries were thrown into chaos, factional fighting. So North Korea doesn't want that to happen now. But they've agreed to put it on the table, which I find right. Did you hear that? That he's agreed to denuclearize. Well, I think you have to read that carefully, because denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would mean getting the U.S. nuclear threat out. Right. And they haven't agreed. He's agreed to meet. And that that would be on the table, but nothing's been agreed to. And Trump today, I think, said, or somebody said in the administration that there will be no negotiations during this trip that's just going to be talk. Yeah, but so what? I mean, that's huge. No, I agree that it's huge. How long have we been at war with Korea? 53. Yeah. And it wasn't a declared war in the first place. Right. It was just, what was it? A police action. Military action. A police action. Yeah, right. But the division of the Koreas was never anything that the Koreans wanted. The division happened as a result, I believe, of World War II, right? And as a result of, and that occurred in Vietnam, too, the division. I mean, the Koreans are one people, right? Having been occupied by Japan, the Second World War brought an end to the Japanese occupation and required some kind of, you know, replacement of that government. That occupation. I'm taking a class right now on World War II and it seems to me that the minute World War II ended, which is a controversial, like when did it end for, for instance, for Vietnam? When did it end for Korea? It hasn't ended for Korea. Or Germany. Or Germany, right? But it seems to me that many, and I wish that we could talk more length about this at some point, right away that the Cold War began. Right away. And that was events, really, in Korea. And in Vietnam as well. Well, no, it was evinced in the bombing, in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Right, exactly. That was a signal to the Russians. Yeah, right. That's exactly true. So, but you did want to mention tariffs. I mean, I'm not, is it such, is this really a bad idea, tariffs? Well, what's the deal? Tariffs are an economic measure and economics really isn't a science. You can't predict what's going to happen because there are so many factors relating to human behavior. But I think in general, tariffs relating to international trade can potentially benefit the developing countries more than the developed. And I know, I read a book by originally Korean academic now in Cambridge, England, called Chang, who wrote a book about kicking away the ladder and then another book about the bad Samaritan claiming that tariffs benefited South Korea hugely in the sort of post war reconstruction that they did restrict trade in a way that was beneficial to South Korea. In the U.S., I mean, our whole development depended on tariffs. Of the early United States, yeah. So why then, why is everybody screaming that this is such a bad idea? I don't know enough about it really to say, but... The attitude with which this is being done is punitive rather than protective. At whom? Whoever we wanted. It's war without war. But it seems to me directed against, as you mentioned, Canada. I thought we were friends with Canada, aren't we? Well, and was that intentional? I mean, the rhetoric, the election rhetoric was against these awful Chinese flooding our markets with cheaper steel. And we're going to excuse Canada and Mexico. So is it really to get after China then? Well, that was the rhetoric, but the action doesn't correspond with that rhetoric. So is it just totally an insane idea or what? That's my question. It doesn't look very smart to me. Or the commentators that I'm reading. Well, anyway, I guess we'll see, right? It seems that the two places, the working class areas that Trump carried in Michigan and Wisconsin seem to be happy with this. That's what was reported today. I suppose we don't have very much time left and we can't leave this program without mentioning what happened in the local elections, which I thought were incredibly interesting on two levels. One, that our present mayor, who's been responsible for so much of the development in this town that's been so controversial, really did not win 51% of the vote. That he was outvoted by 51% of the electorate of Burlington. And that vote was divided between two people. Nevertheless, it was 51% of the vote. And the other thing that was really interesting to me was that the proposal to have the F-35s based here was reputed by the electorate also. And that to me is gun control. Controlling the F-35s is a way to control planes, guns, and in effect, long-term war, right? Except that that wasn't the way it was presented. I know that, but it doesn't... Yeah, I know. And in a certain way, not presenting it that way or keeping that under was part of a strategy that seemed to have worked but wasn't finally very true. It wasn't clear. Well, yeah. Well, the ballot item put in an introductory passage to support for the National Guard. Right. And so... But the idea of avoiding the military consequences, you know, was really down-pedaled. No, I know. I know how it was. Relative to noise. I mean, noise was... No, it wasn't. Other kinds of safety and real estate values... Health. Health and, you know, people... That's all true. But I remember... It was not an anti-war proposal. However, the reason I voted for it was because I would... I view it as an anti-war measure because it was seeking to control the war machine or seeking to control the military-industrial complex. And the politicians, by the way, who cooperate with that, right? It was a real... You don't think it was a rebuke to our politicians, even? Yes, yeah, definitely. But in as much as it was not an anti-war proposal, it was not an anti-war vote. It was a health vote. We don't really know that, do we? It was a community control vote. It was, you know, an anti-Miro and Lehi vote. And Sanders? Yeah, and Sanders. Yeah, those guys. Those guys, yeah. What do you think can be done about it, though? I think our mayor just said that nothing is going to be done. Well, but we'll see. I mean, and the nice thing for me is that the pressure will be put on the terrible five. Which I, oh, Scott too. Right? I forgot about him. What they're going to do that remains identifiable as democracy. And if they completely blow this off, then there'll be consequences. What have they said? Has anybody even heard from them? Yeah, well, Miro has already said he doesn't. And a lot of people along the way have said, look, this is advisory. We'll see what the city council does too. I think we have to look to see what citizens will do. Yeah, definitely. That's where the possibility is. I think we're out of time. Yes. Well, anyway, thank you very much for joining us. We'll be back in another month or so. And meanwhile, I guess, have a nice month.