The WMD Paradox

At the end of the Gulf war the press kept repeating that" Bush lied, there were no weapons of mass destruction!" If you repeat an untruth enough times, after a while no one argues any more.

Unfortunately, there is just one ugly truth these brilliant people are missing. It is common logic that you cannot prove a negative. You can say that no WMD's were found, (although there were remnants of a WMD program discovered) but you cannot say they were not there. Just that they were not found. Why would Hussein risk losing his entire country and his life rather than let inspectors look for something that wasn't there. Pure stupidity on his part... or was there something to hide we just never found.

Very shortly after Saddam fell, North Korea surprised the world with a nuclear test. No one in the intelligence community had any idea they were even close. Could it be that the technology was originality  in Iraq and purchased by N Korea before the invasion, with the semi truck loads of US currency that was found during the occupation? It would explain a lot.

But let's say for argument there were no WMD's in Iraq, ever. Once North Korea did test a nuclear weapon, who would have been the first person on their door step, with the box truck loads of green backs ready to buy? Saddam Hussein of course. To keep the US from ever attempting to invade.

So either way, the world would be a much scarier place if the US had not invaded Iraq and removed the dictator when we did. The argument of whether we should have or shouldn't have is irrelevant now. Ancient history.

(and yes I understand the Santa Claus and Unicorns defense, but my argument still holds)

Compromise

So let's say we need to go to the store. I want to go to K-mart that is north of where we are and you want to go to WalMart that is West of where we are. A compromise is would be to drive Northwest, but neither of us get to where we want and there is no store in that direction.

So instead, you say you want to go to Walgreens which is South of where we are. Seems reasonable but now the compromise is due West, and we end up at WalMart where you wanted to go anyway and I never get close to where I wanted to go and you get everything you wanted. Compromise kind of SUCKS!

Gun Control

Why is the left so intent on limiting the right of Americans to own firearms? And don't be fooled, that is exactly what they want. No guns for citizens... period! Cars kill more people and children than any other weapon, even with more and more regulations on vehicle safety.

The fallacy of a Liberal Utopia where there is no crime or violence, where everyone just gets along. "If we can save even one life... shouldn't we try?" Even if it steps all over the constitution and the legal rights of law abiding citizens.

But they know they cannot ask for an all out ban on guns, so they start chipping away at our rights with incremental "reasonable" restrictions on the Second Amendment that states there will be NO restriction on the rights of the individual to own guns. But no one needs an automatic weapon, so they are regulated. No one should have too many guns, so the number is limited, it is unreasonable to just let anyone own a gun, so background checks are required.

We tried an "assault weapon's" ban before and after 10 years, there was no perceived decrease in gun violence so it was repealed. Since the repeal, gun violence has been decreasing. But "No tragedy should go to waste!" and the liberals use the horror of a elementary school massacre to try and chip away some more.

So now it is unreasonable for a weapon to have more then 7 rounds in the clip. Really? Because a school is a "gun free zone" (for everyone except the criminals) the clip size would make no difference. The shooter went from room to room killing children. He had plenty of time to change clips or reload. So the regulation may make people fell better, but does nothing to fix the problem... (the job of a politician is NOT to fix problems, the job of a politician is to get reelected. But that is a topic for another blog.) If you wanted to fix the problem then every teacher would have a side arm. If just one life would be spared, shouldn't try? Private schools have armed guards, why not public? Budget? But it is for the children.

Or we could try the assault rifle ban again, Heaven knows that just because something didn't work that politicians wouldn't want to try it again. But what is an assault rifle? An assault is just a really cool looking rifle. It is not automatic like a machine gun, it is not use a large caliber bullet and it is not any more lethal than any other semi automatic weapon on the market. It is a military "style" and scarier looking than an old bolt action rifle, but it is no more deadly.

In fact the main difference between most rifles and an assault weapon is just a design improvement. The stock of the rifle is now directly in line with the barrel so that the recoil is strait back and decreases muzzle rise. This leaves the target in the sights for a second shot if needed. ( One reason that the AK47 is such a hard weapon to hit anything with in automatic mode.) That and new materials is the only difference between a pre-Vietnam rifle and a modern assault rifle.

So when are we going to say enough? Oh come on, can't you Republicans compromise?! Compromise our rights? HELL NO!