Ploafmaster General

There’s a lot of fuss over the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. You know the one:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The largest argument around this issue is the concept of gun control. Should civilians be allowed to carry guns? If so, what kind? And where shall the be allowed to carry them? Can they be concealed? Should there be a background check? A waiting list?

I’m going to settle this really fast, here. Haughty though that sounds after decades of debate, I still feel that most people here have clouded the issue because they don’t understand their own language. You see, the 2nd Amendment says nothing whatsoever about guns.

Seriously.

It talks about arms. And the dictionary tells us that first and foremost, “arms” are simply “weapons.” That means that the US Constitution is simply telling us that we have the right to carry weapons. It doesn’t say that we can carry any weapon we choose.

That being said, I think that 2nd Amendment debates too narrowly focus on a perceived central issue when guns are merely a peripheral issue. When viewed in that light, you can put as many civilian restrictions on arms as you want, and you’re not violating anybody’s constitutional rights.

Just don’t try to take my pocket knife away…

Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated that he believes we have lost the war in Iraq. This pissed off a lot of people, namely the pseudo-opposition party of Republicans.

Why? And that’s a two-part “why” by the way; First, why are the Republicans so upset with the mere notion the we’ve lost? Why, also, did it take so long for a major political leader to step forward and call a spade a spade?

I think the answer to both questions are intertwined because I believe that ultimately both of the US’ major parties have similar goals and definitions of “America’s best interests.”

The Republicans and Democrats alike avoid admitting defeat because of some fear that an American war loss will somehow cause the collapse of our country’s standing on the world stage. And some Republican leaders are grandstanding, with such a gem as this:

“I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,” said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

Since when did it mean that declaring a cause lost was the same as withdrawing support for troops? If we really have the best intentions for our soldiers, shouldn’t we be willing to acknowledge that continued war is equivalent to throwing them at the wall? Sure, many soldiers may be willing to fight, and may believe in the same cause, but there’s no logic in the statement that a desire to bring them home out of harms way is a lack of support.

Tech firm 37signals posted a software-development topic on their blog today which discussed “giving up” in an intriguing fashion – recognizing sunk costs, opportunity costs of continuing, and knowing when to stop because moving forward is simply a waste of resources best used elsewhere. As Mr. Hansson says:

That’s where the concept of sunk cost gives us a guide on what to do. It doesn’t [matter] what you’ve already spent. That time and money is gone. It only matters whether spending what’s left is worth it or not.

And perhaps that’s why Senator Reid is finally willing to recognize a loss. Maybe (probably) it’s politics, or maybe he understands that transforming Iraq into the USA’s picture of “democracy” isn’t worth the lives of our youth, the little goodwill we have left in international diplomacy, and the tax dollars of Americans.