In part one of this series, I wrote about my personal journey with guns. Part two involved the US stock market and bond market and Cumberland’s investment policy and how it relates to the three public companies that constitute the gun makers whose shares trade on the US exchanges and are thus part of a stock index. Part three follows and is an attempt to discuss policy issues calmly.
In post-Parkland America it is hard to discuss guns calmly. With sequential school shootings galvanizing political conversation on all sides, such rational discourse may be impossible to achieve. Some of my colleagues are advising me not to touch this subject. We see many institutions and individuals electing silence. My personal view is that silence is a convenient escape. How can anyone ignore this subject, given the flow of news and the continuing revelations about Parkland, the sheriff’s department, the perpetrator, the FBI, the warnings? Every day new information is the top of the news, and the proposals mouthed by many seem outrageous to others.
There is a forum for a national policy discussion and debate. But it, too, is charged with emotion; and it, too, is caught up in the political fight of the NRA versus the anti-gun constituents. And the many caught in the middle, including me, find themselves battered by each side.
A Republican friend was appalled when Florida Governor Rick Scott uttered his comments about the FBI. Scott is in a political fight for the Florida US Senate seat. The incumbent Democrat, Senator Nelson, took a hard stand against guns as a response to Parkland. His detractors ask why he didn’t do it sooner and harder. Florida is a gun-friendly state. There are rules about how to carry a gun and where to place it in your car and what you can and cannot do with it. In Sarasota, I know many folks who own a variety of guns. Some of those guns are for hunting and sporting clay usage. And I have also watched the firing of high-capacity weapons on shooting ranges at Florida private clubs. In the earlier days of my personal journey, I was a member of a gun club and stored a gun in a locker there.
So can we find a way to have a debate? Is there a mechanism by which a national consensus is reachable? What are the outcomes if we don’t reach one?
The extremes of the debate are clear. Anti-gun activists say NO to weapons. No guns allowed. That is a minority view, but it is intense.
Pro-gun individuals say there is a US Constitution, and a Second Amendment that extends to Americans the absolute right to own guns. Well that, too, becomes a mini-debate over what the full Second Amendment really says and what it really means, whether it is currently applicable or outdated, and whether there is any construction to change it or specify which kinds of guns private citizens can own.
Here’s the full text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:
“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.”
One way to change this amendment is to have a constitutional convention. That path is very unlikely, as the process is cumbersome and requires a massive wave of political support of a bipartisan type. It would open a Pandora’s box of legal questions so daunting as to discourage the effort. The other way is via congressional action and state ratification. But changing or amending the Constitution can take a very long time, as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment shows. It was initially submitted to the states along with the original ten amendments (Bill of Rights) on September 25, 1789. The first ten were ratified effective December 15, 1791. The Twenty Seventh Amendment wasn’t ratified until May 7, 1992, by the vote of Michigan. Source: Cato Institute. My guess is we don’t want the anti-gun versus pro-gun debate to last another 200 years. Or do we? Just think about the gun-toting drones and who can fly them and where they may travel.
Another classic American way to deal with a political divide is to turn the issue over to the states. The repeal of Prohibition was accomplished that way. Many argue now that the method of removing marijuana laws from the national debate will follow the path of Prohibition repeal.
But can that work for guns? It appears not to be the case. There are very tough anti-gun laws in some cities and jurisdictions, and those cities and jurisdictions also have high gun crime rates. So, passing a local law may help somewhat, but it certainly doesn’t clear up the problem of crimes involving the use of guns. And there is also a substantial weapons export business. American-made guns are sold worldwide. Do we have a national consensus to reduce this economic sector?
So can we do something else? Can we raise the age threshold for gun ownership and usage? Can we establish gun safety testing? Can we achieve national registration? Can we use a taxation policy or an annual licensing policy of a national mandatory transfer of title policy as a way to establish some form of preventive restraint that would avert another Parkland? Can we uphold the original intent of the Second Amendment and still prohibit certain types of guns? The Second Amendment didn’t discuss semi-automatic or automatic weapons, because they didn’t exist at the time. The second Amendment didn’t talk about hunters versus sports shooters versus murderers.
American history does not offer promising precedents here. High passion tends to erupt with gun-related events, and then it subsides, and we become inured again until the next event. And we seem less and less shocked. The regional and local nature of gun violence events also adds to an “it can’t happen here” attitude. Of course, it does happen here, or there, and then the shock intensifies.
My conclusion is that there is no conclusion.
As a nation we are too divided to reach a consensus that eliminates guns. There are so many guns in America that such an attempt would appear to be futile unless it were monstrously imposed by the US military. And then it would be a nightmare. Many would ask if banning private ownership would be wise and might point to Venezuela as an example of an unarmed citizenry that now lives in a failed state without freedom, having once had some of it in the form of a legitimate legislature and courts and general upholding of the rule of law.
And we are also too divided to allow full and unrestrained gun usage and ownership? Do we want a society where everyone is armed, and citizens have to shoot it out for survival? Some say that is better than what we have now. They want to arm the teacher to be able to shoot back quickly.
So no national consensus, and no way to achieve it, means that we will be debating the details and not the broader elements. We will change some rules, and we will dilute others. We will enhance a national registration system. We will try to train more sheriffs on what to do when a mass shooter opens fire. We will add to the costs and demands for more security forces in schools and in other places of assembly.
We will discuss the issue of shooting back, with all of its fiercely articulated viewpoints. And we may even allow guns in schools in some jurisdictions and prohibit them in others.
All in all, the outlook grows more serious, and the likelihood of a peaceful and generally accepted resolution of this pro-gun versus anti-gun debate seems intractable. I fear there is no happy ending in sight. What a horrible way to have to end a commentary.
The first part in this series, "Guns: Part 1, A Personal Journey," can be read online here: www.cumber.com/guns-part-1-a-personal-journey/
The second part in this series, "Guns: Part 2, The Investment Journey," can be read online here: www.cumber.com/guns-part-2-the-investment-journey/
The third part in this series, today's piece titled, "Guns: Part 3, The Policy Journey," can be read online here: www.cumber.com/guns-part-3-the-policy-journey/
David R. Kotok
Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Email | Bio
Links to other websites or electronic media controlled or offered by Third-Parties (non-affiliates of Cumberland Advisors) are provided only as a reference and courtesy to our users. Cumberland Advisors has no control over such websites, does not recommend or endorse any opinions, ideas, products, information, or content of such sites, and makes no warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of their content. Cumberland Advisors hereby disclaims liability for any information, materials, products or services posted or offered at any of the Third-Party websites. The Third-Party may have a privacy and/or security policy different from that of Cumberland Advisors. Therefore, please refer to the specific privacy and security policies of the Third-Party when accessing their websites.
Sign up for our FREE Cumberland Market Commentaries
Cumberland Advisors Market Commentaries offer insights and analysis on upcoming, important economic issues that potentially impact global financial markets. Our team shares their thinking on global economic developments, market news and other factors that often influence investment opportunities and strategies.
