I am rather fond of the second amendment for reasons that have almost nothing to do with guns. Maybe this makes me a bad progressive, but there it is. And yes, I grew up in southern Nehw Hampshire, where liking guns is pretty much required for a young boy, but although New England did inform the decision, this isn't about guns. It's about people.
Growing up in New England, you are inundated with images and stories of the revolutionary war. Your house may predate the country; your town probably will. You will probably get a chance to fire or see fired weapons designed for that period. Do that and then stand on a revolutionary battlefield and the lesson of Breed’s hill becomes clear.
A well regulated militia of that period trained for a very different war than is waged today. Everyone knows the phrase, "Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes." Think for a moment what this means. Victory came not from individual heroism, but from the willingness of the militia to hold and receive fire until the range shortened, until their massed return fire would break the enemy.
A well trained militiaman was one that could stand up, shoulder to shoulder with his fellow citizens, and fire on command. A well trained militiaman was one that could be counted on to put country ahead of self.
I like the second amendment because it assumes that it is not our duty to do so, but our right. When our fellow citizens need us it is our right to step forward. Not an obligation, not a horrible burden, a right. The founding fathers paid us all a great compliment by phrasing it this way.
Listening to political discourse in the last decade makes me glad the founding fathers are safely dead and can't see the pack of mewling cowards who inherited the nation they built.
I'm not talking here about our armed forces. I think the army can be justifiably proud of those that volunteer to put their lives on the line. Other groups, primarily the demographic I myself inhabit, are less worthy.
I can (and later may) lead from this to several topics, but for now let's talk about taxes. For one reason or another we've put a lot of debt on the national credit cards. One way or another we're going to have to deal with that debt. The argument that our accumulated debt is a real danger to our nation is straightforward; our foolish policies risk not just our national economy but threaten the stability of world markets. Timing issues aside we must defend our economy, our nation's well being, against this financial threat.
There are two generally popular classes of solutions to this. Progressives tend to push for more taxation primarily on the upper one percent of the population, those who made out like bandits these last thirty years. The Norquist true believers want to solve the problem through spending cuts aimed at the poor and at low level government employees like teachers and policemen.
To see that both of these camps are idiotic posturing one need look no further than the behavior of the politicians on either side. Politicians need to find money to do two things: run the government and remain politicians. When it really matters - when their own job is on the line - no politician of either side relies only on the solutions they propose to pay for governing. Yes, they all get a lot of money from that top one percent, but all of us by now know that they're all also perfectly willing to reach much further down the economic spectrum in their own fundraising. Let a party organization know you make close to a six figure income and you'll never lack for mail.
Going back to the analogy, look at who we send to war. No one drafts fifty year old accountants or programmers for Afghanistan. We call in younger, fit, healthy men and women. But who are we calling on in our financial war? The progressive solution, taxing the very top income earners, is like saying we're going to conquer Iraq with the Green Berets and some fighter pilots. Necessary, but not sufficient. The Norquisters are even more foolish - they say that the armed forces have done enough, and it's time to draft toddlers and grandma.
It's time for a second amendment solution. It's time for the financially able-bodied to step forward. Yes, we need to tax the very top more, but any tax solution that doesn't at least minimally impact me and people like me is almost certainly too lily-livered to succeed.
Now I can hear the Randian cries of despair starting up, most loudly the refrain "If you want to pay more taxes, go ahead." I get that argument a lot in person, so let me answer it bluntly. Do you remember the enthusiastic idiot who booked passage to Pakistan with his sword, intending to take out Bin Laden? While I've been denigrating the two major positions on this, the 'pay if you want to' plan is just as stupid as fighting a war with one idiot. We don't need a few financial Rambo wannabes. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can't bail us all out. Winning a war, financial or military, takes the combined might of a nation.
Yes, this means that we all sacrifice, those of us who can. Reread the second amendment. We have the right to make that sacrifice. Because we are Americans.