Friday, July 30, 2004

Some dare call it inconsistent....

This just occurred to me....

Republicans claim (emphasis on the word "claim") to champion the rights of gun owners, as those laws represent prior restraint, and that it doesn't matter that the person has a weapon, but only matters if he uses that weapon to harm others.

Applying this logic, though, how could the Republicans support the use of prior restraint against Saddam Hussein, a man who had not attacked the US, and had everything to lose by doing so?

Before the reader responds "but Saddam used WMD against his own people!" remember some important things:

  1. The US gave Hussein some pretty dastardly stuff in the 1980's.
  2. Other than the fact that Hussein attacked Israel during the first Gulf War, every bad thing we "know" that Hussein did was fed to us by the government. What did the government do to build your trust? Was it the reliability of the government's mail service?

Things to think about...

In this regard, it becomes quite easy to see that what Democrats are to domestic politics, Republicans are to foreign politics. Grab the guns at home and abroad! Make us (un)safe! Sheesh, at least the Iraqi citizens held private arms under Hussein's dreadful misrule. It doesn't take a Mensa member to figure out the logical result of the US military disarming the populace after the invasion.

It therefore is much clearer to me now how many have written for some time that neoconservatives are a left-wing artifact that calls themselves right-wing.


Post a Comment

<< Home