Guns are anti-Freedom and Blasphemy is Fun!

So while there's all this discussion about Healthcare lately, I keep thinking about the man who brought his gun to the town hall meeting in New Hampshire where President Obama was speaking. (Story here.) Sure it was Mister Kookypants' right to carry an unconcealed weapon, but I'm not convinced he did so for any reason other than making a not-very-subtle threat. Like a staple Hollywood mobster, he was saying, "Sure would be a shame, you know, if someone got shot."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was his right. But that's not why he brought it. Does he take that gun, unconcealed, everywhere? To the supermarket? To funerals? To dance recitals and/or little league games for any kids in his life? To get his pedicure? For his dress fittings? I don't think so. Did he simply want attention? If so, why not wear a clown suit? That's your right, too.

No. It had to be a gun. It was an action of attempted intimidation and he serves as an excellent example, in the opposite direction of his intent. Instead of "I'm here to defend freedom," his message is, "If I can't get what I want via a fair election, I can still pop a cap in your ass."

This wanna-be gangsta illustrates the reality of gun-based freedom babble. Guns function not as protectors of democracy, the will of most people, but rather to empower a small minority to attempt intimidation and entertain fantasies of a violent coup when that minority is fairly out-voted.

In other words, and I know this is sacrilege in the USA, so I'm savoring the run-up to openly saying it: guns reveal themselves as tools to defeat freedom, not defend it.

Whoa! That felt good! I should blaspheme more.

Wait! Am I just being yet another blogger who says something outrageous and generalized (and therefore inaccurate) just to get attention? Wouldn't it depend on how the gun is wielded?

Like all things second amendment, in the abstract, that sounds right. In reality, when would you need a gun to defend freedom if you're in the majority in a country run on democracy? And if you're in the majority, how could a minority possibly gain power, except via guns? Other than an occasional individual shooting at an individual attacker, how have guns improved democracy and/or freedom?

Hint: They haven't.

UPDATE Tuesday August 18, 2009: Looks like the blatant hypocrisy of claiming to defend freedom by threatening the majority of the people's will is catching on. From the Associated Press: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest. (Link) Guys, threatening a man the majority of the people voted for isn't pro-freedom and it isn't democratic, it makes you at best a cog in the machinery of dictatorships, and at worst, a barbarian. In the vernacular, you're being assholes.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Glad to see democracy in Iran, is it authentic? American ambivalence. btw, What does it mean to lose moral authority?

So there's some trouble after the Iranian election. Silly democratic amateurs! They should learn from us Americans. We've been rocking democracy for 200-plus years, so we know how to do it right.

Psst! Bush v. Gore? Oops. Psst! The Franken-Coleman race? Double oops.

Okay! Okay! So maybe we Americans aren't that great at democracy, but at least we like to think we are, and it's the thought that counts, right? Damn, don't we get any credit just for believing?

We get so proud when we see democracy flourish in other countries, voters smiling for the cameras and showing their stained fingers! Hey wait a minute… why are they staining the middle finger? We love to see foreign democracies, until we realize the guy voted in hates us as much as the guy voted out.

Call me cynical, call me paranoid... and you'd be right, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong when I have a sinking feeling that I've already read the spoilers for made-for-TV Iran election drama.

It just strikes me as extremely convenient that a country the USA and most Western nations officially dislike, a nation they simply cannot stop from pursuing nuclear power (and nuclear weapons) is plunged into chaos during an election.

What reason do I have to doubt the official version? It's plausible enough. Maybe most Iranians are embarrassed that their face to the world, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is portraying them like ignorant, war-hungry morons. I'm sure there was someone like that as our president once.

Or maybe, just maybe, the current strife in Iran is just another example in a long line of clandestine US and CIA manipulation. (Reference Chile, Iran 1953, Cuba, Grenada, and on...)

A recent pundit cliché these days is, America has lost its moral authority. I don't know if they know what they mean by that, I suspect they've been infected by the meme, and it seems weighty and profound. I'll try to be more articulate. What it means when America loses its moral authority is that it's hard to believe that America inspires democracy instead of just inspiring its appearance, while actually subverting it.

The USA wanted regime change in Iran. Then after an election in Iran, the incumbent claims victory and opposition candidates cry foul. Wow! That sure was a lucky break for the USA!

Cynics everywhere are placing bets on which alternate ending we're going to watch: will the US pull a "Bay of Pigs" and not be there for the puppet? Or will they execute (pun?) a "Pinochet in Chile" and be there for the victor even if he proves to be a war criminal? Opposition candidates in Iran must know (or were told) they will be treated as heroes if they remove the thorn from the West's collective toe.

The CIA can't lose here. Installing a puppet isn't even essential. Chaos is a sufficient end. If you can whip up enough protest, whether founded (as when Bush "won" Florida by the Supreme Court ending a recount) or unfounded (Obama's non-existent birth certificate that actually does exist) you can attempt to deprive the official winner of legitimacy, and fill their term with late night monologue jokes, talk radio rants and extremely un-witty spam about how they didn't really win.

On the Iran situation, President Obama has even tried some philosophical flanking by stating that his response to the crisis is muted because he doesn't want anyone to think the USA is meddling. Now why would we think that?

So what's a concerned American to do? Twitter your ideas for subversion furiously or hope the anti-USA guy wins if that's what Iranians want? Wait a sec, if the Iranian leader is pro-America isn't that good for me since I'm an American? Should I care about genuine elections in Iran, or just care about what's good for me? Are we witnessing democracy in action? Or more stoking by the CIA?

Is it real? Is it fake? I don't know. I allow myself the luxury of no commitment to any belief. Ahhhh… very nice.

Here's what I'm sure of: the photos and news coming from Iran are very disturbing, what appears to be police attacking peaceful demonstrations. If they don't knock that off, I'm going to be putting aside my skepticism for some good down-home righteousness. I hope you find peace Iran, inside and with the Western governments.

I'd like for my country to get along with Iran, and I'd like their leader to be someone Iranians want elected. Lastly, I'd like a snack that has the great taste of a potato chip with the same nutritional value as broccoli.

5ewbud3t4m

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.