The Right to Bear Arms?

I've never been too sympathetic for the right to bear arms, but the more I've been reading the libertarian blogs, I must admit I've moved a little bit towards the fence. Here is a lengthy, lengthy post about the universal right to bear arms and how it can provide a good way to protect against genocides - which we've seen happen as a result of a minority (or majority) of citizens unable to protect themselves, while the international community stands by and twiddles our thumbs, hoping it won't cost us too much money or make anyone dislike us.

I've become so cynical and distrustful of the left with respect to foreign policy, I can barely listen to their critique of the Iraq war. Amnesty international is willing to compare Guantanomo Bay to a "gulag" while not saying or doing anything in response to Mugabe's clear policy of starving his political opponents or the mass rape and killing of African's in the Sudan.

The premise of the left is this: America is the problem or capitalism is the problem. They start with this premise and factor it out to explain every world development. People are starving in Zimbabwe? It is because we don't give enough aid. There is now clear evidence to the contrary, that Mugabe, as a result of both stupid and malicious policy, created a condition in his country where he uses food as a weapon and is starving his political opponents.

Guantanomo Bay has 540 prisoners who are technically prisoners of war. I'm not sure how I feel about them not being charged with crimes. Perhaps history will view this similar to the Japanese internment. But we ought to acknowledge the differences, they are not American citizens, for one. For two, many of them took up arms against the United States and are clearly prisoners of war. Three, Al Queda purposefully hides amongst the civilian population, making it nearly impossible to avoid detaining potentially innocent people. I mean, draw up a game plan about how to defeat Al Queda and you'll come to several conclusions. Either 1) they are impossible to defeat (which many of the left like to say) or 2) We can beat them, but it will require detaining some innocent folks, doing some shady interrogation techniques, and so forth. I know where I come out.

And with respect to a gulag - one important difference: 40 million people have not been killed. In fact, as far as I know, no one has been summarily executed. The worst thing that has happened is a Koran was flushed down a toilet. Opps, actually that didn't happen. The worst thing that happened was a Koran might have been pissed on. Get the fuck over yourself, a gulag.

And lastly, Iraq. I feel guilty sometimes supporting the war because I think I may be blinding myself to a big time tragedy while I try to support the troops AND the mission (which I do). But what did I expect? Democracy is a process, not an event. We all knew it would be tough and a big time gamble. My feeling is that it HAS to work. If it doesn't work, we are in a big pile of shit. If our attitude is that failed states and terror are impossible to solve, or mistakenly think they can be solved by scolding people at the UN, then I'm pretty sure that civilization will be less decent and erode over time. What happened to the Greeks and Romans that led to medevil times? Maybe I ought to read and study this...

But I distrust the left so much that I am cynical about the reporting and subtle happiness I sense when things are going bad over there. Like they are somehow pleased that "an insurgency" has developed. BTW, insurgency is a loaded term...a term that implies legitimacy, whereas the "insurgents" in Iraq are a combination of terrorists and gangsters, disinterested in any type of peace or fair government - they are interested in chaos or terror states where they can rule. These are not insurgents...but I digress.

A long pointless, blog entry.