The Right to Bear Nukes???

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.

Why do libertarians and conservatives claim to love the Constitution but yet read it so selectively? I’ll tell you why, in part, the Constitution is not exactly explicit on such matters. For instance, libertarians and conservatives neglect the whole part about “A well regulated Militia.” The term “regulated” implies some type of governmental control, i.e. regulations. “Militia” implies some type of organization, made up of individuals but not necessarily for the benefit of an individual. And the big one that is so easily missed is the word “Arms.” What exactly is an Arm? Is it a single shot musket that takes 30 seconds to load or did the founders intend for citizens to own Uzis or nuclear weapons. The answer is that they certainly meant for there to be a level of regulation and the people had to have been organized into regimented platoons, in order to enjoy all the benefits of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

The founders also must have meant for there to be another unspoken adviser guiding our interpretation; reason. When other countries throughout the world have high levels of gun ownership yet do not suffer from the unprecedented rates of gun violence suffered in the U.S. one must ask the question, why? In part, the answer is because we allow all manner of weapon used solely for rapid and repeated slaying of human beings and we generally make them available to nearly all. Many other countries use reason to regulate “Arms” to those who jump through tremendous hurdles to attain and furthermore are forbidden from purchasing the type of weapons typically used to mow people down.

If it comes down to it and the people of this country have to violently face our own military there’s going to be tremendous suffering, a lot of bloodshed and millions are going to die and be maimed. If the premise of the argument is that only through the “right to bear arms” can our other freedoms be maintained then I would argue that maybe they weren’t really all that important anyway. It is exactly that kind of steadfast acceptance of a cultural myth that ensures the continued cycle of violence and the inability of our society to have true freedom.

An argument that says that every citizen has the right to bear any type of arms because of a fear of its government neglects 2 realities. The first is that in a democracy the government IS the people. If the people have allowed their democracy to become infected by an oligarch for instance, well than they should live with the consequences of their indifference and inaction.

The 2nd is that if the founders believed that they had created a system that was truly capable of “checking” itself, then the argument that the 2nd amendment was necessary to protect our freedoms would have been an admission by the founders that they believed that the system they created wouldn’t work as expected and potentially held within it, the seeds of its own destruction. And why would a prudent people continue having credence in a system that was so fragile?

The Status Quo Rebellion

Some on the Left seem to be discouraged that their ideal candidate isn’t running for office and are lumping Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton together in their attacks. Some are even planning to lodge a protest vote by choosing to vote for another non 2 Party candidate. These people are essentially not voting, although they are going to go to the polls and pulling the trigger, their vote will be wasted on someone who doesn’t and unfortunately probably never will have any chance of winning. I admire these people’s ideals but certainly not their pragmatism.

I’m not saying that when given the choice between 2 candidates that resemble George W. Bush you should vote for one or the other. In a case like that I hope that people would vote for the 3rd Party candidate. But the differences in this election between John McCain and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are tremendous. On the one hand you have candidates that are supported by elitists and the criminally insane that back perpetual warfare and corporate welfare and on the other hand there is Barack Obama. The contrasts could not be more stark.

I’m supporting Obama not because I want to promote imperialism, the police state, corporate welfare, NAFTA or the monopolies of the 2 Party system but because I believe his candidacy might offer this country a glimpse of what it would mean to move away from the Uber-Right wing that has so dominated our politics in the past 50 years. His candidacy could mean a historical and sweeping leftward swing for the next 20 years or more. Don’t you think the agents of war and big business (Clinton, McCain, etc.) haven’t thought of that and are presently attempting to throw every disparaging nonsense they can at him in order to get something to stick?

Obama’s not going to be a savior but I believe with his brilliant ability to articulate solutions and his talent for empathizing with those with whom he disagrees, he just may be able to sway quite a few people away from the dark side. I’ll aid that cause in any way I can because after all, the overwhelming majority of people aren’t in the trenches fighting the good fight or out reading Chomsky or Zinn, they’re typically easily distracted by the simplicity and attractive baseness offered by the Right wing. If things are to change non-violently in this country they must happen through dialogue, patience and evolution, not revolution. If the present conditions persist and the purveyors of the status quo (McCain and Clinton) are successful in their quest for the Presidency it may mean dire consequences and spur thoughts of bloody revolution for the millions of people who come to believe that they are without representation, especially if they realize that the situational economics of their lives are not going to change, that they’ll always be fighting for the scraps, they’ll never going to get ahead and what they thought of as the “American Dream” is truly an oligarchic nightmare. Daniel Shays may just become the next “American Idol.”

Next Page »