Do As I Say, Not As I Do

If the United States adhered to the same rule of law it enforces, the world would be quite a different place.

In all 50 states, if one has been convicted of a felony, whether or not it is gun-related, that person is prohibited from legally possessing a gun. The reasoning is logical. If someone is prone to felonious behavior it is in the best interest of society to ensure that the person’s ability to continue and perhaps escalate the behavior is limited as much as possible.

While there are arguments against these laws (“Most drug possession charges are felonies; most hot check charges are felonies; most tax offenses are felonies; most frauds are felonies”*: therefore, there are huge groups of felons that are nonviolent offenders), I want to focus on the offenders who have committed violent crimes in the past. For the sake of argument, let’s assume the laws only prohibit “violent offenders” from owning guns – which I think we can all agree is rational and sane – no matter what side of any 2^nd Amendment debate you may be on. Guns, among with a few other uses, can be used to commit murder.

Scenario 1: Joseph X uses his lawfully acquired shotgun to kill an innocent convenient store clerk in order to obtain access to a drawer full of cash.

Solution 1: If Mr. X ever gets out of prison, which is unlikely within 25 years or so, he will never be allowed to own a gun again. This is a rational answer. This is a sane solution.

Scenario 2: The United States used two nuclear powered bombs to kill an estimated 240,000 (mostly civilian) Japanese citizens in order to end a war and possibly, according to their calculations (which are unverifiable) save more lives than were taken.

Solution 2: The United States will never be allowed access to, or control of, nuclear powered weapons again. This is a rational answer. This is a sane solution.

The United States is the only civilization in the world to aggressively use nuclear powered weapons against another civilization. Am I the only one who laughs when the United States sets out to prevent other countries from obtaining nuclear capabilities? Iran’s acquisition of “the bomb” doesn’t frighten me in the slightest. What frightens me is the United States’ reaction.

The problem lies in the power. Joseph X has no control beyond the handcuffs of the local police department, which answers to the local government, which abides by state laws, wherein exists the law which prevents him from ever owning another gun. On the other hand, the only entity that the United States (theoretically) answers to is the United Nations. However, by yielding such an unprecedented power as the only nation on earth crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon (twice!), the United States realistically answers to no one.

The United States is a violent, felonious offender. As was established earlier, if an entity is prone to felonious behavior it is in the best interest of society to ensure that this entity’s ability to continue and perhaps escalate the behavior is limited as much as possible. Does this not apply to the case when nuclear weapons are involved? Is it not even more relevant to the situation? Aren’t more lives at stake? Perhaps even the entire human race?

*Quote from Kathryn A., Graham’s “Felons and Guns Revisited,” published in The Sierra Times