Two articles from the Atlantic today do a little tickling of the funny bone and only somewhat unintentionally. The first is about the “paradox of second amendment hardliners” and is summed up in the sub header from the piece:
Conservatives say armed citizens are an essential guard against government tyranny. They also support massive military spending. How is that supposed to work?
This is a humorous paradox for gun rights advocates. I suppose the answer to the gun control debate is to disarm the military so everyone is safer domestically. When that happens, I’m sure there will be plenty of compromise and warmth between the two sides when it comes to banning military style weapons for civilian sale.
But then again, we do have North Korea to worry about. Which brings us to the second article of the day. It appears the fearsome prowess of their military was on display, literally, as their maps show they are going to shoot missiles at American cities. Just one problem. Their projections on the map imply the planet they live on is flat. Someone might want to inform Mr. Kim of his planners’ mistake (assuming, of course, he didn’t draw the lines himself or have his good friend Dennis Rodman do it). Heads will roll!
Christiane Amanpour’s recent video report on the violence in Mexico because of the drug war includes a calm and rational interview with Mexican Ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan. At the 5:25 mark in the video, Sarukhan makes a reasoned assessment of the controversial 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and its intention by stating:
Every time there’s a gunfight at the state and local level, we have to call in our 7th Calvary, the armed forces, because they are being simply overpowered by the firepower that these thugs are wielding. What I am convinced of is that the Founding Fathers did not draft the 2nd Amendment to: A) allow international organized crime to illicitly buy weapons in the United States, B) to cross them over international borders, and C) to allow individuals who should not be buying weapons in the first place to acquire those weapons.
The fact there is little compromise in the debate on this issue is really an impressive feat by the gun lobby. They have been so successful at their propaganda campaign that even the slightest restriction on firearms is seen as an extreme act. Case in point, a fact from one of the articles linked above:
U.S. gun store owners in southwestern border states sued to overturn an Obama administration requirement that they report to the ATF when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles within a five-day period. A federal court upheld the requirement.
Why is this unreasonable? Remember, this isn’t stopping the purchase of the military weapon. It’s just trying to alert officials to potential gun smugglers yet policies like these are portrayed as if the government is bringing about the apocalypse.
Our nearly non-existent gun laws have been a significant factor in creating a war zone in Mexico and their government officials are appalled by the fact over 50,000 of their people have died in six years because of it. The sad part is the people contributing to the sale of these military weapons are too busy making money to care.