So here's a random question, a passing thought: this principle that armed militia groups should be disarmed, because they're a threat to the legitimate government of their own country--does that only apply to Lebanon, or is John Bolton and the US willing to commit to this as a general principle? That is to say, is there a good reason for this distinction, or should we repeal the Second Amendment, or are they just being hypocritical?
I suppose Bush's desire to
get federal control over the National Guard would also be a step towards getting some of the US militia, as it were, under federal control. However, to cover the rest of it, we would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to curtail fundamental rights of the states and the people, the same sorts of rights that some conservative extremists in this country are incredibly paranoid about keeping.
So let's look at this argument that armed militia groups are a threat to their country's government. I'd say that's a true claim, and one that our Founding Fathers would have agreed with, and in fact advocated:
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" -- The Declaration of Independence
That is to say, an armed populace serves as a final check on a government gone bad. In our continued quest to spread freedom and democracy across the Middle East, should this fundamental principle be compromised? Lebanon has (or had) a stable Democracy already, so the comparison is more apt than it might be in other instances. Or is this just insecure pre-9/11 thinking, and the proper solution would really be to give up this right and submit to the will of King George, in the pre-1776 fashion? And what do real conservatives think about this disconnect?