On Guns and Governments

I was wondering the other day about guns and government.

The 2004 Democratic National Platform for America's strategy for keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists goes like this:

• lock away existing nuclear weapons and material
• stop the creation of new nuclear material for nuclear weapons
• lead international efforts to shut down nuclear efforts in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere

I could be wrong, but the principle underlying these steps seems to be something like "make it difficult to access things that have massive destructive power".

What I, at face value, interpret to be the principle of the matter also seems to me like it could be the basic motivation behind some of the gun control policies that DNC members advocate.

And to me, details about gun policy aside, the principle seems basic and intuitive enough.

I personally intend to keep any firearms present in my house at any given time secure. It just seems foolish to leave things that have massive destructive power lying around, easy to access, and easy to operate.

I began wondering the other day whether, in addition to nuclear weapons and personal firearms, there are other things this principle might apply to.

What's even more destructive than guns or tanks, and gosh, what could be more destructive than nuclear weapons?

The old adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" came to mind. But instead of reflecting on it and drawing the conclusion that guns are therefore harmless and shouldn't be controlled, I reflected on the fact that people are the ones who have manufactured guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons, and it is only by human beings that those things are used to destruct. Humans are responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the other historical nuclear detonations and accidents. Humans are responsible for every armed robbery, every homicide, and even every accidental injury resulting from a firearm. Guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons are all pretty destructive, but human beings are the most powerful things on this planet, and are therefore the most capable of destruction.

"Yes, the DNC is right about nuclear weapons" I thought. But I went on to reflect on just how much more destructive large powerful human organizations can be.

So what would it look like to apply this principle to organizations of people?

I'm not talking about organizations that are currently oppressive, just like the DNC isn't talking about nuclear weapons that have already been fired. I'm talking about preventing organizations from being big, powerful, and easy to operate just like the DNC is talking about preventing nuclear weapons from being common, powerful, and easy to operate. And just like the DNC wants to lock away nuclear material and prevent more weapons from being made, should we too want to prevent larger organizations from being constructed?

So which organizations are the biggest and most powerful? Which, even though they might be docile now, are the most capable of destruction? How can we mitigate against their growth in size, and most importantly, power? How can we keep them from becoming easier to operate, and swifter to act?

Do you have any ideas? What do you think?

7 Reasons Why It's Ok That Obama Won

Why did Obama win?

You could look at it this way:

Candidate John McCain seemed to have it all.

Few in America did not know about his decades of service, his breath-taking heroism as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, his foreign policy expertise and his ability to reach across the Congressional aisle.

Mr McCain's opponent was largely untested, inexperienced and, initially at least, unknown; his race only added to his challenge.

If there is such a thing as a perfect political storm though, John McCain found himself caught in the middle of it. In a leaky boat. With limited fuel...

From the start, his biggest problem was finding the money to compete with Barack Obama's $650m (£403m) campaign juggernaut. By accepting federal funding (which Mr Obama declined) he capped his general election campaign spending at $85m (£53m)...

In the end, he projected an image as a man from America's past, who had been through much and served his country well.

But in a disgruntled nation, deeply disenchanted with Republicanism, he couldn't match the appeal of his younger opponent and his message of change.

Richard Lister - BBC News, Washington

Or you could look at it this way:

the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Matthew 7:13-14

Should we be so surprised that there are more free-loaders in America than hard-workers?

In all seriousness though, I am not upset that Obama won.

First of all, he won fairly and democratically. The people have spoken. Awesome.

Second of all, I never found any good reasons to adopt any of the more extreme arguments against Obama, so I am not bracing myself for the apocalypse or anything (at least not any more so than I would be anyway).

Third of all, while I am disinclined to opt for rendering unto the government monies generally, and much less so with respect to things at which I believe the government will do an extremely poor job... it's only money. Honestly, it is only money. Plus, Obama's primary motivation for taking my money is to do things like balance the budget, and help the hungry, poor, orphaned, widowed, and the little children of our society. There could be worse things to take my money for. Personally I think I could do a better finding ways to disperse those funds, and I think other organizations than the government, that are forced to compete to earn my charitable donations, could do a better job of utilizing those funds. But still, Obama is not Hitler (despite the smears). It will be ok. It will be alright.

And honestly, maybe it won't be. Maybe Obama will turn out to be the freakin' Antichrist. But there is no reason to think so as of yet, so why worry? Bush could have turned out to be the AC, too. Besides, I won't be here. Not that we shouldn't oppose those who come in the spirit of the AC; it's just that I might as well not harbor paranoia towards everyone I have a few political disagreements with if there is no other reason to suspect him of being The Antichrist, ya know?

Fourth, while some may think of taxation categorically as theft, I just don't find myself convinced. I have thought about it, and while I understand the arguments, I just don't see it. So I am not super upset that Obama plans to tax the hell out of me. Like I said, it is only money.

Fifth, the President doesn't actually have that much power (though the power of Executive branch has regrettably swollen, and pretty significantly, thanks to the second Bush administration and its corresponding Congress).

Sixth, though the Democatic party has control of Congress, it won't for long. People like to blame the President, and soon enough Obama will field his fair share of blame. Then Congress will turn over and we'll be able to strong-arm anything too terribly extreme Obama might just try to pull (or repeal anything he might have gotten through already).

Seventh, the rest of the world likes us again. So that's cool.

...I could easily go on.

I know FOCA is a big issue, and I don't want to undermine that. But all is not lost. There is a lot we can still do. We can work to change the hearts and minds of individuals at the grass-roots level. We can work toward state legislation that strong-arms any federal law that makes it through (like Idaho is doing with our wolf issue). We can write to the President elect and his party and try to change their minds about abortion. We can applaud maverick pro-life Democrats like my wife. We can support policies or organizations that will work to mitigate the number of abortions by one means or another. We can stand up for whole-life ideals. Et cetera.

Barack Obama is our President (elect) now, and we should pray for him.

PS
I liked McCain's concession speech, and I think it is not enough to react to it with thoughts like "what a good sport", but we should actually heed his words.

I also liked Amy's post.

And I will probably like the post my wife is writing right now.

God bless America.

See you in 4, baby.

Peace out.

What the Brits Have to Say: Gun Control

I am interested in what any of you have to say on the matter, but can't help but pitch in these two cents: the fact of the matter is that there are very few who would earnestly advocate a complete lack of regulation with respect to all types of arms. Ask yourself whether you truly believe that there ought to be zero laws addressing matters related to arms within the ilk of ICBM's. So if you at least admit that much, you already believe in drawing a controlling line with respect to arms.

Similarly, it would be absurd to place a federal, bar-none ban on all arms. If this is your position you are in the negligible minority, but I am yet interested in your argument.

Anyway now that most of us are all on the same page (namely, in favor of "Gun Control" generally), we can argue about where to draw that line. But please, don't beat me over the head with something as overly simplistic, vague, and unhelpful as "gun control is unconstitutional" (whatever that means).

As a side note, I found this second amendment commentary pretty interesting - both informational and insightful.