Although I'm a pretty liberal guy, I, like most other humans, am a bit of a study in contrasts. I believe we need secured borders but an easier pathway to citizenship. I believe that for the most part the government has no right to interfere in the private lives of others, but I also know that people are idiots which is why I feel that vaccines should be mandatory.
I think Democrats are naive cowards, Republicans are out-of-touch fools who are afraid of change, and Libertarians are just children who are angry they have a bed time, but still want Mommy and Daddy to fix their boo-boos and make dinner, so long as they can still feel like they're in control. I don't mind paying taxes, but want to know how my money is spent. I like SNAP, WIC, TANF, Social Security, Medicaid/ Medicare, the ACA, and a variety of other "social safety net" type programs, but sure as hell want them monitored for waste, fraud, and abuse. To be clear, I think requiring drug screening for benefit applicants is all three of those things; waste, fraud, and abuse, when we aren't even requiring our elected representatives to take a drug test.
And as the saying goes, I just want gay, married couples to be able to defend their marijuana plants with guns. So it comes with some surprise that, despite knowing I possess often hypocritical and conflicting ideals, I find myself a bit angry over an article I read regarding a candidate I don't know (Joni Ernst), running for a position I don't care about (the Iowa Senate position), in a state that only becomes important during election season. The article is here.
The article is a campaign attack ad masquerading as an Op-Ed piece written by Paul Begala, who CNN describes as:
..."a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, was a
political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992
and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. He is a consultant to
the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action."...
The basic premise of the article seems to be, "Joni Ernst wants to keep her guns so she can shoot cops and soldiers if she doesn't like the government. She's cray-cray, and I should know, I have a bunch'a guns too, but I don't want to hurt anyone, ever!" Now, Joni Ernst may be crazier than a shit-house rat (which, for some reason, we've deemed the craziest of all rodents), she may indeed want to shoot a cop because she doesn't like Obamacare, I don't know. But judging by what Paul Begala says, he doesn't know either.
The crux of Begala's claim that Ernst thinks the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to shoot government employees you disagree with comes from this statement made by Ernst in a speech to the NRA:
"I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to
defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether
it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no
longer important."
If you're wondering where in that statement Ernst mentioned that she would rather shoot an American service member than have to pay taxes for welfare, you're not alone. Begala seems to focus in on the last part of the statement; "... or whether
it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no
longer important." And implausibly takes that to mean Ernst thinks the 2nd Amendment makes it legal for her to kill anyone she disagrees with in government.
Begala goes on to elaborate just how crazy Ernst is by claiming the 2nd Amendment only applies to taking up arms FOR the government, not against, giving the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 as an example of what happens when you violently oppose Uncle Sam (hint: George Washington himself finds you, kills you, and breaks all your shit). Begala also cites the Civil Rights movement as an example of how even the egregious and violent segregation that the government imposed was solved more by Rev. King, Jr's speeches of peace than by the Black Panthers bombs. These things are true. Peace should always trump war and the non-violent solution to a problem is always preferable to the violent one. It is also true that it is illegal to commit an armed insurrection of the government, but Begala's points and demeanor indicate that he feels it is something that should/ could NEVER happen in this country.
Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Russia/ USSR, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and fuck it, most of Africa. What do those countries have in common? Governments, and a population that at one point or another thought, "Governments do bad things in other countries, but not here, right guys?" So, what part of Ernst's speech am I going to use to make my point? This part: "...should they decide that my rights are no
longer important." Which is the part of the speech wherein Ernst states that the right to defend her life and the life of her family from all those who wish to do them harm is not something to be encroached upon by even the federal government. It's the part that says when you attempt to take away my life I have a right to stop you. Whether its because you just kicked my door in to steal my TV and I startled you, or because you kicked my door in to drag me off into the night on the orders of the government.
Those of you who know me know that I openly mock conspiracy theorists. I think that conspiracy theories are a product of a first world life-style. In short, if your daily concerns involve being eaten by lions or shitting yourself to death from contaminated water, its unlikely you have the time for the mental masturbation needed to come up with the idea that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Illuminati Lizard People. And on the off chance that Big Tin Foil is right, and the Illuminati Lizard People are behind a vast network of global conspiracies, then I wholeheartedly apologize. And its hard not to look at someone who, in America at least, claims that they need guns to fend off the Government's Men-In-Black who are threatening to drag them off into the night for their blog post about Obama being the antichrist, and not see them as some sort of right-wing, nut-job, conspiracy theorist who is likely a danger to others.
But what if you changed the country of origin to Iran in 2014 (or Iraq in 1990, Germany in 1938, Japan in 1935, Russia/ USSR at fucking anytime, or Cambodia in the 1970's), and the name of the leader-in-question to Ruhollah Khomeini. Then suddenly the idea of the government dragging you off to your death for saying the wrong thing seems a lot more plausible, doesn't it? I wonder how many people in Iran spent New Years Eve of 1977 thinking it couldn't happen to them?
Do I think the US Government is going to turn on its people, in whole, or in part, in such a manner that requires armed resistance? No. I think that the very nature of the American people and government make us relatively resistant to that. And I certainly don't think anything in the last several hundred years would have warranted such an event (The Civil War doesn't count, since the Confederate States of America were no longer part of the United States). But I also don't know what the future holds, and not knowing what the future holds is part of what makes many of those amendments, such as the 1st,-4th, 9th, and 10th, so important.They safeguard our ability to rule ourselves, and serve as a reminder that it is the people who give the government its power. A hunting rifle, pistol, or even an AR-15 may not do much in the face of a large, organized, and well armed government. But a populace that can bite back, even with small and blunted teeth, when its back is against the wall, is one that can have its own agency in determining its future.
So while Begala can tell me all he wants that the ghost of George Washington wouldn't agree that it's ever OK to take up arms against the government, history tells me that Mr. Washington was just as much of a hypocrite as the rest of us. And while the voting booth is preferable to the sword, having one if the other fails can make all the difference.
So at the risk of sounding like a tea partying, overly jingoistic, conspiracy theorist I'll close with a passage from the Declaration of Independence,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train
of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a
design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it
is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to
alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present
King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,
all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny
over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid
world." (Link)
And while I hope that this nation will never turn to the darkness that has enveloped so many others, if it does, I hope that the Americans of that day are willing to fight to restore their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Wow... this ended up having way fewer dick jokes than I though...
