Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs flyFrom Bob Dylan’s web site at http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/blowin-wind
Before they’re forever banned?
Yes, ’n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
Unfortunately, the answer is not blowing in the wind from the mouths of politicians around the world. They blow out phrases like “defense”, “saving jobs”, and “gun rights”.
We should ask “defense of what”? Defense of the right to tell other people how to live? Defense from dictators? Strange, we are allies with lots of dictators, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Oh, but they are “our” dictators, not “their” dictators. Defense from Communism? Communism as a label is all but dead. “Communism” in China is just a label for another dictatorship that is withering away. “Communism” in North Korea is a name for a paranoid dictatorship. Our “defense” against North Korea only serves to feed the paranoia.
Another paranoid quasi-dictatorship is Russia. But consider the historical reason for its paranoia. The Mongols invaded, the French invaded, the Germans invaded twice, and now the alliance that was built as defense against the Soviet Union keeps expanding, feeding the paranoia of not only Vladimir Putin, but many ordinary Russians. Of course, it doesn’t help the alliance that Putin’s given name contains the Russian words for lord and world.
If we are so interested in “saving jobs”, we should never have instituted Prohibition. Think of how many bartenders, servers, distillers, and brewers lost their jobs. Prohibition did help the gun industry, guns for both the bootleggers and for the police.
Do we want to “save jobs” at the cost of lives far, far away? How many wedding guests should die because somebody up in the sky decided the guests were “terrorists”? How many hospitals must be destroyed because enemy combatants were believed to be hiding there? Interesting, the “enemy combatants” live in the country; the bombers are from a country far, far away.
I didn’t know guns had “rights”. As far as protection in case of a terrorist attack, would more people die because some of the target group had weapons? John pulls out a gun to shoot the terrorists. Mary sees John with a gun in his hand and thinking he is a terrorist, shoots him. Even the police have a hard time shooting the terrorists. And the police get wounded and killed. Major Hassan at Fort Hood wounded and downed a police officer who had excellent scores in marksmanship. Her partner managed to wound Hassan enough to get him to stop shooting.
Maybe the better idea is to keep military-style weapons in armories and not make them easily available to the general public. Many seem to have forgotten that we had armories to keep the more deadly weapons away from the general public but available to the militia in case of insurrection.
Another better idea is to use propaganda instead of bombs.
Instead of attacking Israel, Palestinian protesters should fly children’s balloons over Israel. Each balloon would carry a slip of paper with the words of Hillel in Hebrew: “Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.”
Instead of burying Daesh terrorists in bomb debris, bury them in pamphlets: “...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)
And of course, the “bomb them back to the Stone Age” bloviators who claim to be “Christian” should receive letters from their constituents: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” – Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7:12
I am surprised that Iran didn’t use this latter quotation with those negotiating to stop Iran’s nuclear capacity. All the nuclear-armed negotiators except the Chinese purport to be Christians. If the negotiating countries didn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, shouldn’t Iran have proposed some schedule for these “nuclear powers” to eliminate their nuclear weapons?
Maybe the only answer is for a peace coalition to be formed in the United Nations. It could start with countries without militaries, like Iceland and Costa Rica. This coalition could offer a time table for the elimination of nuclear weapons, then of massive navies, then of bombs, then of armies.
Impossible? Improbable? Maybe! Consider that Europe had a very vicious war, with many, many civilian deaths on both sides, seventy years ago. The Cold War ended twenty-four years ago. And a country divided by that war is now a major player on the world stage.
The answer my friend is blowing in your votes!