6/30/12

“I support the Second Amendment because without it, there would be no First Amendment.”—various people

I have this friend, a visible one for a change, with whom I argue. He and I rarely see eye to eye. And like my invisible friend, with whom I argue, he sometimes espouses positions on important subjects that run ever so slightly contrary to mine, positions that we both feel are worthy of discussion.

My friend had stumbled across the above statement, and doubting it, as he cannot help doubting so many things, he challenged his opposition, on the net, to prove that the above statement was anything but total nonsense. How could any group of citizens, he wondered, no matter how numerous or well armed, stand against the most powerful military in the history of the planet, if it came down to that final fight between government oppression and us free folks?

Well heck, I had to chew on this one for a while.

You can find things like this quote on the internet all the time, on facebook and blog raving and such. It is a heartfelt statement, an act of faith, and subject to criticism and acrimony from people who fervently fear and dislike firearms, as well fear and dislike the people who keep them. I have read this statement before and pretty much support the notion, in an abstract kinda way. Abstract because I have no proof to use to support the statement. It simply hasn’t been tested…yet. So I really don’t know for sure if it’s true.

I can claim that it also hasn’t been disproved, despite the supreme confidence expressed by critics of this notion. (See how polite I can be?) For in the history of the world there has never before, or since, been a nation formed by folks who have written these two mandates, side by side, into the How-To-Run-The-Government cookbook.

The notion that the men who wrote the Constitution felt a need for the people to be armed to keep the government in check feels right to me. It feels logical to me. There are many preserved documents in which these men state this belief, and I can find no compelling argument from that time against it. Those first ten amendments to our Constitution were written by the founding fathers in the hope that they would protect our citizens from abuse by their own government. For as Jefferson suggested, governments always become more oppressive over time, and only the people can bring them back into line.

Lots of arguments against this notion are bandied about these days, thrown down by folks who make their own heartfelt statements that I think are nonsense simply because they run directly contrary to my thinking. So I suppose I could stand toe to toe with those I disagree with and scream and whine and splash spittle upon their glasses, and hope that I can wear them down with the volume if not the weight of my beliefs….or not.

Screaming doesn’t often convince people to change their opinion, any more than it makes an illegal immigrant learn English faster. So how’s about I just mention some of the many things I believe support the notion that the Second Amendment actually helps to preserve our freedom. And then I’ll shut up.

I’ll start with my friend’s suggestion that a bunch of common folk, no matter how well armed, cannot stand up against the strongest military know to humans. This does seem a bit much. But consider Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts way back in 1775. The English king possessed the most powerful military on earth back then, and he used that military to not only keep his own subjects in line, but those of our precious thirteen tiny colonies as well. On that memorable night of Paul Revere and Minutemen fame, the British army set out to confiscate the weapons of the citizens of Lexington and Concord. Presumably to keep them folks in line. That’s what oppressive governments do when you let them. What followed was a few years and many battles, and those armed citizens defeated the most powerful military force on earth and this country was born.

Sure, this was muskets, horses, and wooden sailing ships, and today we have tanks and rockets, and advanced nastiness that would have to be taken into consideration, but regardless, this is the beginning to my argument.

Then there is that ole disarming of the citizens thing. Pretty much every nasty government on earth, throughout all of history and continuing today, disarmed its citizens to keep the government in power. They did this so they can tax indiscriminately, order folks around, and when they feel frisky, to slaughter hundred or thousands or millions of their own citizens. I could give examples, but this is the story of all of recorded history. All of it. If you don’t believe me, look it up. It’s not hard to find, for it is universally consistent.

Apparently, these governments felt that armed citizens choosing freedom represented a threat to total government control. Maybe I should let them make my argument for me.

It’s also been said that a government that fears the people has citizens. A people who fear their government are subjects. Can you argue with this?

I will concede that the odds don’t favor a disorganized rabble armed with 22 caliber target rifles when faced with a military such as our government could field. But I think I can predict how an unarmed group of dissidents armed only with the First Amendment might do in that same situation. So maybe this boils down to dying while fighting for freedom, or standing patiently in line for your turn in the ovens. Seriously, when it gets this bad, which do you chose?

Cause I figure a fair number out there would actually chose the ovens. And that just leaves me muttering.

Look around at those of our politicians who commit their entire careers to gun confiscation, and you will find they always favor placing government in control of everything, coincidentally with them in charge with the rest of us, in order for us to serve them. Do you really think they have our best interests in mind? Certainly we can find politicians of every stench who are capable of turning our government against us, but even when these are the ones who originally oppose gun confiscation, once they turn nasty the first place they go is into the gun confiscation camp.

Realistically, we are not facing the ovens in this country in the near future. But we still have a government capable, and clearly on the path of growing far more oppressive than it already is. When my government is tolerable, I ignore it. When it becomes annoying, I’d like a First Amendment to preserve my right to shout my objections on the street corner, and when my government goes totally evil, I’d like something more than pitchforks to carry into the streets. So yeah, I do think that there is merit in that opening quote.

Right now, in California we have a few politicians who have spent their adult lives trying to end the Second Amendment, and low and behold, they favor more and more and more government control of our lives. Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi. Nationally, think Schumer. Think Clinton and Clinton. Think Obama. Think Holder. All enemies, demented enemies of the Second Amendment, and low and behold, avid advocates of government control of our lives and their permanent place at the top of the heap, with the subjects at the bottom. The First Amendment says I can rant against them. Someday, perhaps only the Second will give me the chance to stop them.

6/22/12

My phone plays a truly horrid tune when I set the thing on alarm and it goes off as directed. Nauseating horrid tune. It does achieve the desired result in that it will awaken me. Five thirty in the AM. Slide open the curtain.

Overcast. Breeze through the window smells of the sea. Cool breeze. Very fresh cool breeze.

A very few joggers and dog walkers already out. The homeless guy is still there, sacked out on the cement, using the railroad tie as a pillow. Just beyond him is quiet water. The sun is up somewhere, and I can see just fine. The overcast flattens the light and confuses the distances. Some minor clanks waft up from the back door of the deli below. The hum of an air conditioner fan somewhere.  A rare car drives past. But the sense is of quiet. 

The square sails of the moored museum ship hang limp. A seagull makes small circular waves that soon fade to nothing. A scatter of lights across the bay. The jump of a fish. 

I don’t generally do cities. Cities are too big and they leave too small spaces into which I can retreat. Too many people, buildings, cars…..and the fears rise in my throat and it’s time to leave. Now, please.

But somebody put this city in a nice place. On this bay next to that ocean. And as long as I can cling to only this thin slice of the city and kinda pretend that the rest of the city lurking behind me isn’t really there, I can do this for a bit, and even enjoy it. I’m enjoying the early morning when this city is here for me, and the others can have it later.

San Diego. Been here four times before over the years. Once was pretty much terrible, save for the zoo visit. Dropped the girl off for her first year of college another time, and that was bitter and sweet. Did two conferences here, and they were tolerable. And discovered the Bay and the joy of hanging off the balcony and just looking at the thing, and I could do this again. So here we are. 

Another conference, and this has been a good one. The time spent on the balcony has been the highlight. Lunch break from the lectures, and back in the room. Sun out now and the light defies belief. This cannot be possible. The water sparkles. Every detail sharp and clear. The fresh cool breeze. Boats crisscross the bay. The walkway along the water is packed with walkers. The smell from the seafood restaurant. Navy ASW helicopter roars past on turbine driven rotors. And then I saw it.

I’ve seen pictures of this. I know they do it every time they come home. I just wasn’t expecting to ever actually see it.

The USS Makin Island, LHD-8 sailed into the bay, made the slow starboard turn around the point of land occupied by the naval air station, and then passed by heading south toward its berth.  I don’t get to see an amphibious assault ship every day. This was my first, actually. The navy has eight of this class. They look every bit an aircraft carrier, only truncated at 840 feet long and 40,000 tons. The flattop can launch helicopters and Harriers. And then down below the various hovercraft and amphibious vehicles wait for the marines the ship carries, and heaven help those folks trembling ashore.

This ship has been out there for seven months, doing the sort of things for which we all should be thankful. Those of us who wish to see this country survive should be thankful, anyway. The rest who maybe don’t know how thankful they should be, well I hope you never find out what could happen if you got your way.

Anyway, when an aircraft carrier comes home, the sailors in dress white line every edge of the flight deck, all the way around the ship, and they stand there as the ship sails into port. They did this for us today. I’ll tell ya…if that sight doesn’t put the lump in your throat, you been gone far too long. We have pictures. But even without, we won’t ever forget.

Guys and gals aboard…..Thanks for your service.

Looking back with the luxury of time

One of the few advantages to growing old is the opportunity this presents to realize that the events we watch unfolding in real time will someday be a history that folks will evaluate, argue over, and likely rewrite time and again to suit their new realities. I remember my own internal debate when the start of the second Gulf War rolled around, and I thought the timing was all wrong. I figured we’d need to fight that war at some point, for Saddam would eventually do something to us that even the worst of America’s critics couldn’t excuse. Only then would going to war have been the “right” thing to do.

But nobody ever gets credit for a preemptive strike, because if successful, the ever-vocal critics will always claim it was unnecessary. I knew that anyone who could recite, “It’s Bush’s Fault” would never agree with his decision to start that war, even though they would be the first in line to condemn the man when Saddam did finally attack us. Their criticism was the only completely predictable element at the time.

I remember most of these same arguments during my generation’s war, Viet Nam. We thought we had it all figured out, back then. We got our information from some pretty reliable sources, and all of that information told us the war was wrong, that our country was wrong, and certainly that the men sent there to fight were really, really wrong. So I had it all worked out. America was unequivocally wrong to fight that war.

Some time passed before I realized that the information I had used to form my opinion on that war was a bit slanted, because the pretty reliable sources I relied upon were reliable only to the degree that they always criticized this country. They were not reliably correct, but merely consistent in their opinion.

In the four decades subsequent to that war, I’ve noted other opinion, and viewed previously unavailable information, and I’ve also had time to think. For myself.

For example, that photo of the crying Vietnamese girl burned by napalm, walking naked down the dirt lane, black smoke plume behind, that Pulitzer Prize photo taken in 1972, has resurfaced for its 40^th anniversary. We all remember that photo for it was the personification of all that America did during that war that was wrong. That photo of that little girl proved that America was the bad guys and everything America did was bad. And the pretty reliable sources all proclaimed this, and we took their clue and criticized our country.

The story that follows that photo evolved over the decades. Now we know that Phan Thi Kim Phuc, the nine year old girl injured in that attack was treated for about a year in a South Vietnamese hospital before returning to her home village. After the communist takeover, she wanted to go to school to become a doctor, but the government wanted her for propaganda purposes so they forced her to quit school and recite their monologues for the cameras.

Later, she traveled to Cuba to continue her education. She now relates talking with the photographer who took that photo while she was in Cuba, and she describes how careful she needed to be because the government was always listening, and she feared punishment.

She married, and while flying from Moscow back to Cuba, she fled the plane during a refueling stop in Canada and asked for asylum. She later became a Canadian citizen.

So the poster child for the enemies of America finally was able to flee communism and sought freedom in the West. And those nasty Americans, who fought that war to try to stop the spread of communism around the world, to help people like Phan Thi Kim Phuc find freedom, still face the criticism of those would like to see more people living under communism. All of this makes perfect sense, looking back on the history.

I have stated that we shall not have a true picture of the value or harm of the second Gulf War until decades have passed. Those who have led the criticism of Bush’s conduct of the war, the liberal professors, mass media, and deceitful politicians who would sell out anyone to keep themselves in office, are the same pretty reliable sources of information they were back during Nam. If we are listening to them now, we won’t much like what our nation does in that region. But what will we learn in the next 40 years about this latest attempt to preserve our freedom? Might be, this country could turn out to be “right” after all.