Exploring Insanity in America, Part I

Two news stories broke this April, both concerning the September 11th terror attacks and also illustrating the sheer lunacy of those on the political right.


One was the insane notion that the heroes--the firefighters, police officers, construction workers and other crew members risked their lives on September 11th would be forced to cross-check their names on the Terror Watch List before receiving their workman's compensation for illnesses contracted from the disaster. The other piece of outright madness was that 247 people on the terror watch list had legally purchased firearms last year. 247 people who the government suspects has ties to Al-Qaeda. People who wish to do harm to you and me. People who want us dead. But hey, they're only suspects, right?


Predictably, the National Rifle Association opposes any effort on behalf of the government to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. The AP story quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam saying what pretty much every NRA spokesman has ever said about any effort to keep guns away from criminals: "We think it's wrong to arbitrarily deny a law-abiding person a Constitutional right."


Leaving aside the question as to why some suspected terrorists are allowed to purchase guns and others are locked up in Guantanamo without formal charges against them (but seriously, what gives!), we still have a clear picture of how upside down Congress has its priorities: Those who worked to keep America safe from terrorists must prove they are not terror suspects in order to receive health care for diseases contracted from Ground Zero, whereas those who actually have suspected ties to terrorism can legally purchase guns and explosives.


How could this happen? What society could produce a human being as disgusting as Cliff Stearns, let alone elect him to Congress? How could such wild and utterly contradictory illogic take route and get passed into law in a civilized society? Why be skeptical of someone who will risk his life to save yours, but permissive to somebody who might want to kill you? That's not falling on the right of the political spectrum--that's outright lunacy that requires intervention.


Many on the political left would throw up their hands and say that America is a conservative country. I disagree. We live in an era where a confluence of factors have brought us in a situation where bad ideas can flourish--sometimes against the will of the majority.


A huge part of the problem is rooted in a remarkably poor reading of the Second Amendment. We know what the NRA thinks, and some have criticized Thomas Jefferson using vague language as to what the Amendment actually protects. The trouble is, Jefferson was pretty clear on what kind of military he wanted the United States to have, and what the function of a well-regulated militia was supposed to be. From the man himself:

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence [sic] until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."

In other words, Jared Loughner does not have the right to shoot a Congresswoman and point-blank range. People who are not crazy should have guns, but only for the purpose of doing away with a large, standing army. Taking up arms to overthrow the government is called treason, and the Constitution rightly forbids it.

What's really crazy is that one can read all these quotes from Jefferson (and more) at an anti-gun control website! Seriously. Somebody read the argument for the Second Amendment and is still polishing his rifle just in case the Feds come knocking. In my next blog, I'll further examine the origins of this loopy logic and it's implications on our political discourse--and what can be done to stop it.

In the meantime, feel free to call Cliff Stearns Office at (202) 225-5744. Ask him why he would sooner arm a potential terrorist than provide health care to someone who would keep him safe from terrorism.