Friday, November 05, 2004

Dude, Where's My Assault Rifle?

I was just thinking... Would you like to know the best part about having liberals as a political opponent? Armed revolution is out of the question.

Honestly, if I were them, I'd be rethinking my position on the right to bear arms. Speaking of which...

Can we please ban the word "hunting" from the entire public discourse about the Second Amendment? The reason for that amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Its sole purpose is stated quite clearly in its opening: "A well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of the free state." (emphasis mine)

I take "militia" to mean regular ol' joe citizens, not US soldiers, and Title 10 of the US Code, Section 311 agrees. One viewpoint underpins the Second Amendment, and it is this: for a people to be secure in their civil liberties, they must remain a viable threat to the government. Yes, "threat." The only way a free state can be secured is if the people have the tools needed to rise up and forcibly overthrow a government, just as our founders did.

This has nothing to do with hunting. Our human rights to liberty are bestowed by God our Creator, but we can only secure them from the infringement of others by the threat of violence. If this weren't true, cities wouldn't have police forces.

It is possible that many (or few) years from now, our government will devolve into a tyrannical overlordship. Suppose the judiciary dilutes the First Amendment to the point that it loses all meaning, or that the executive branch itself merely overruled an impotent judiciary. Suppose campaign laws were "reformed" to the point that the opposition could no longer publicly voice its rebuke. In that situation, when it becomes impossible to avail ourselves of the intended Constitutional procedures and protections, reform can only come through armed revolution.

That is the reason the Constitutional framers sought to insist that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now can we PLEASE stop talking about hunting? Please?

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

You Must Always Choose the Lesser of Two Weevils

I don't know if you've seen "Master and Commander" starring Russell Crowe. Watch it if you need to be reminded of the need for heroism in our lives.

I don't like the fact that every four years we choose the candidate that we want to protect us from the candidate whom we feel will destroy our country if allowed to win. In my case, I'm voting for Bush, because Kerry is just about the worst candidate ever to run for President.

My problems with Kerry: His policy decisions are the worst of all senators. He has zero vision. He keeps telling us he has a specific plan for Iraq and the economy without mentioning a single specific, and he always chooses to do the popular thing without regard for whether or not it's the right thing. He seems to think the two are one and the same.

Yet I'm not totally fond of Bush: Why is it so hard to find a Republican President (or Congressman, for that matter) who will actually CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Our national debt is outrageous, and he does this horrible, horrible thing by creating a new prescription drug benefit. He spoke that he would balance the budget, unless necessitated by war.

But then, of course, 9/11 happened and the world changed. But this War on Terror isn't going to end because Islamist fascism is not a state, but an ideology within which martyrdom to achieve the domination of others is considered noble. As long as some people believe it, we will be fighting this war against people who are not bound by agreements like the Geneva Conventions.

So be it.

But we must recognize that the world has changed, and that we will need to protect our citizens from attack in a way that's within our budget! Sorry, folks, but it's time to tighten the belts because we need to shift money from domestic services to things like intelligence and supporting our allies who are also struggling with Islamist fascists.

Bush doesn't seem to recognize this need, and I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate who does. (Bush's only advantage over Kerry is that he actually realizes that this is indeed a war that must be fought and won.)

Our voting system has one glaring problem (among others) that I'd like to see fixed: a plurality (50% minimum) of the vote is not required to win a state. Because of this problem, a voter cannot vote for a third party candidate without making it easier on the guy who he believes would be the worst of all worlds.

We're essentially going to electronic ballots everywhere soon, so we should easily be able to rank our top five picks or so. Then the machines would start eliminating candidates one-by-one (and the votes for those candidates) until a winner emerged. The problem is that (sad, but true) a lot of people in this country are just not that bright to figure this out. However, electronic voting machines could help keep them from screwing it up.

Would such a system really be that difficult and expensive to put into place? We're long past due for this.