My Two Recent Anti-War Books

Writing about and promoting peace to an American audience might be a thankless enterprise. But to be thankless, it would first have to be noticed.

Violence in the U.S. is so endemic, so commonplace, so intrinsic to the American Way, it would be less extreme to suggest to people that they stop breathing or eating than to propose that fewer guns might reduce the ongoing slaughter. Mass shootings, unless they are a full-frontal horror show involving copious bleeding and splattered entrails, innocent children, terrorists or grandmothers in wheelchairs, though a daily occurrence now, are so much a part of the fabric of life, they now rarely even make the news. Same ol’ same ol’. Better ratings reporting on new trends in smart phone dating apps or meltdowns of transgender athletes refused entry to girls locker rooms.

Scaling this mentality up from road rage and drive-by shootings to relations among nations, results in the same glassy-eyed stupor. To suggest that the country and world could do without war is yelling in a vacuum. American foreign policy comes down to a basic, unstated platitude: It’s our way or bombs away.

So where do I fit in to the savagery that is the new normal?

Am I deterred? Does such a fanatical embrace of human expendability discourage me? Does such indifference to the value of human life intimidate me?

Not quite. Two factors are in play: I was taught to dream the impossible dream. And ironically, there’s some Zen comfort in pointless futility. Dylan said it best: There’s no success like failure.

My two most recent books are about peace. Go ahead. Laugh. I’m happy to put a smile on your face.

THE U.S. AND PERPETUAL WAR came out in May 2023 . . .

As an eBook . . .

• Apple iBook
• Amazon (US) Kindle
• Barnes & Noble Nook Book
• Amazon (Canada) Kindle
• Amazon (Australia) Kindle
• Amazon (United Kingdom) Kindle
• Amazon (Japan) Kindle
• Smashwords (all ebook formats)
• Scribd
• Kobo

As a Deluxe Paperback . . .

• Amazon (US)
• Barnes & Noble
• Amazon (Canada)
• Amazon (Australia)
• Amazon (United Kingdom)
• Amazon (Japan)
• Deluxe paperback direct from printer

WAR IS MAKING US POOR! was published just last month . . .

• Apple
• Amazon (US)
• Amazon (Canada)
• Amazon (United Kingdom)
• Amazon (Germany)
• Amazon (Japan)
• Barnes & Noble
• Smashwords
• Evander
• Kobo (US)
• Direct from Printer

Both of these were intended for Americans to read. Unfortunately, rarely does anyone in the U.S. buy them. They sell almost exclusively in Canada, England, Europe, and Australia. Not sure why that is. Maybe it’s like I said at the beginning. “Writing about and promoting peace to an American audience might be a thankless enterprise. But to be thankless, it would first have to be noticed.”

Whatever.

Let me close by changing the subject.

Want to know what by far is my most popular book? It’s my novel about trafficking of Asian prostitutes, PETROCELLI, completed and published in 2015.

What about my most popular article over the past couple years? It’s a chapter from my book LIVE FROM JAPAN!, which appeared on my blog site August 4, 2020.

Life In Japan: TVs on TV

You probably guessed it. It’s about the popularity of transgenders on Japanese television.

There’s a lesson in all of this somewhere. Let me know in the comments below if you figure out what it is.

[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . https://jdrachel.com ]

My Two Recent Anti-War Books | John Rachel

Life In Japan: Bicycle Theft

 
This is your basic girls bike here in Japan.

Yes, they sell Schwinn, an "American" bicycle, manufactured of course in China.  But there is quite a selection based on this standard model.  They cost between $50 and $150.  The pictured one is pretty fancy.  Pink adds at least $50 to the sale price.

I'm going to talk about something which recently happened here, not that far from where I live, maybe within four hours driving.  I seriously doubt if the bike involved was anywhere near as high-end as the pink beauty pictured.  But it certainly looked something like this, being a basic boilerplate ride-to-school-and-back bike.  They're ubiquitous here.

It's EXTREMELY rare.  But a girl who lived in Shikoku had her bike stolen.

She reported it to the police.  Seriously . . . she did!  That's what you do in Japan.

It's not as far-fetched as it sounds.  All bikes must have a registration tag.  A couple years back, I was riding my bike back from the grocery store and a young police officer on a motor scooter stopped me, looked at my tag, thanked me, and drove merrily away.

Anyway, a month later, the school girl got a call from a police department northeast of Osaka.  They had found her bike, and wanted to get it back to her.  The young lady was understandably very happy!  She told the police that she had an aunt who lived in Akashi.  If they could arrange to bring the bike there, she could pick it up.

The police welcomed the suggestion.  They were much closer to Akashi than the little town the girl lived in on Shikoku Island.

Next day, they personally delivered the bike to the girl's aunt in Akashi, a trip which took nearly two hours each way, a total of almost four hours of their valuable police time.

I want to put this in perspective, especially the distances involved.  Here's a map.




Mind you, while Shikoku is sparsely populated, the entire area around Osaka is quite congested.  Two hours is not excessive, considering traffic, having to locate the aunt's residence, etc.  And to return it to the girl's home town would have been close to four hours each way.

The most significant point is that the bike turned up 219 km (136 miles by car) from where it was stolen.  The police officers at this distant location tracked down the owner via the ID tag, and personally made sure the bike got back to her.

I don't know if this is blowing your mind or not.  I've lived here on and off for over ten years and this type of thing still leaves me slack-jawed.

Granted, in a small town like Elizaville, Indiana or Wanblee, South Dakota, I can imagine someone telling the sheriff about a stolen bike.  But for most Americans -- over 80% live in urban areas -- the thought of going to the police about a stolen bike seems absurd.

"You want to report a what?  Listen, buster.  While you've been standing here teary-eyed, telling me about your $50 bike, we've had two shootings, three car jackings, some bozo dressed like Michael Jackson jumped off a bridge singing 'Beat It', and there's a 152-car traffic pile-up on the freeway because some idiot at the Department of Transportation posted a warning on all the traffic advisory signs that there was a missile carrying a hydrogen bomb incoming from North Korea.  Get a job and buy a new bike, loser!"

It's obvious, priorities are different here in Japan.  We're not in a constant frenzy, in a constant state of paranoia, convinced there are terrorists lurking in every doorway and child molesters hanging out by the monkey bars at every city park, suspicious of every individual who isn't suspicious of everyone else because obviously this person is out of touch with reality and a clear danger to the community.  People here aren't armed to the teeth, such that everyone's worried about a mass shooting, or that a minor disagreement about a parking space will result in the barrel of an AR-15 being shoved down our throat.

But it goes even deeper than that.  There's an innocence here, and a sense of honor and courtesy, a respect for the possessions of others.  So much so that a bicycle theft is truly out-of-the-ordinary.  And thus it warrants extraordinary response by the authorities.

No country is perfect.  Japan has many issues as well.  There is still a difficult struggle with its past, its military aggression and savagery.  There is racism.  There is a bit of arrogance, a condescending attitude toward other Asian countries.  There is -- in my opinion -- a mindless, unnecessary obeisance to the U.S. in military and diplomatic matters, and a puzzling infatuation with Western culture, especially American pop culture.

No country is perfect.  But some are certainly far superior than others.

I take great comfort in knowing . . . I don't have to worry about my bike.




[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



Life In Japan: Bicycle Theft

Just Making A Buck

 

It seems that every time I look at a news media site, there's yet another announcement of a giant arms deal between the U.S. and some foreign country.

Maybe I should feel all aflutter that at least some things are still being manufactured in the U.S., instead of China or Bangladesh.

America is the main supplier of arms to the world.  I don't mean prosthetic arms.
Guns, bombs, bombers, fighter jets, ammunition, artillery, tanks, attack helicopters, attack and reconnaissance drones, rockets -- you name it -- just about every killing device and deadly combat technology, except nuclear weapons, is in the catalog.  Last year our foreign sales of military equipment reached a record high of $46.6 billion!

Recognizing that making money and bolstering the economy are main drivers for most of our foreign policy decisions, I still can't help but wonder why two obvious questions never get asked:

1. As an allegedly Judeo-Christian nation, is this really the best way to honor those values we claim are the core of our beliefs?  "Do unto others ..." and "Thou shalt not kill ..." are a couple phrases that immediately come to mind.
2. Is flooding the world with weapons which may, given the apparent volatility of political loyalties, be ultimately pointed right back at us, really a very smart thing to do?

 

I realize that these are secondary and tertiary considerations -- if they ever come up at all -- in the boardrooms of military companies and their mirrored think tanks, and the decision making forums of our government, where profit and raw power are more important than people's lives, reducing and eliminating human suffering, or even embracing basic human decency.

But how can we claim to be advocates for a peaceful world if any Tom, Dick, or Abdul can arm their countries to the teeth by simply buying the ingenuity and efficacy of American killing machines, instruments of war, technological marvels that erase human life?  Or do we even bother worrying about such inconsistencies anymore?  Frankly, it doesn't seem that in the raucous din of saber-rattling and incessant beating of war drums we now must endure 24/7/365, peace ever gets even passing mention by our congressional leaders or White House spokespersons.

It's quite obvious to anyone not under the ideological spell of neocon lunacy . . .

The aggressive promotion of our war industries and pursuit of profit through arms deals is mind-bogglingly self-sabotaging, whatever the pecuniary rewards.  It's like pulling up with a truck full of assault weapons in downtown Cambden, NJ and selling them to anyone who forks over the bucks, hoping that all these folks will use good judgment and not cause any undue harm.  It is an understatement to say this approach is patently stupid and suicidal!

President Obama himself, a man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based purely on the rhetoric of his presidential campaign and speeches made in the first few months of his presidency, most notably his A New Beginning address to Muslim nations June 4, 2009 in Cairo, has outpaced George W. Bush with accelerated approvals of lethal weapons sales to foreign buyers, and has significantly relaxed or done away with altogether the regulatory framework intended to safeguard against those weapons getting into the wrong hands.

 

To put this in perspective, President Obama has sold more armaments than any president since World War II, and thus we are daily treated to scenes in the media of all sides of a conflict blasting away at one another with high-end U.S. manufactured equipment.  Much of it initially goes to legitimate, approved buyers but then gets stolen, captured, even intentionally passed along, so that terrorists groups who represent our worst nightmares, who are anti-American to the core and willing to do anything to destroy the "Great Satan" and supreme infidels we are judged by them to be, then are in a position to mount astonishingly successful military campaigns, conquer and control huge swaths of territory, forcing millions of refugees to flee to Europe and other areas of the globe, creating the worst such crisis in seven decades.

Many political analysts on the left -- ones I happen to agree with -- say this is all actually entirely preplanned and deliberate, that the U.S. has mutated into the Empire of Chaos, one maintaining its supremacy as the world's only remaining superpower by seeding and feeding disarray and destruction.  This is entirely consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine, a landmark policy embedded in Defense Planning Guidance recommendations issued in 1992.  This paradigm-shifting proposal in short order established the tone and substance for America's application of power over the subsequent two-and-a-half decades:

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.  This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

So America is to reign supreme and anyone who appears to threaten that arrangement will have to be dealt with accordingly.  Even the slightest challenge can trigger overwhelming opposition by the U.S.  The list of countries bombed into submission, functionally erased as nations, or whose leadership has been replaced by regime change if formidable and still growing. 

Except for its confrontation with the Soviet Union during the five decades of the Cold War, the U.S. has typically limited itself to smaller, more easily bullied countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Libya.  Despite its abysmal record of both military and diplomatic failure in almost all of its interventions, America's recklessness and hubris continues to escalate, as this cycle's presidential candidates, divorced from the realities on the ground, competed in bluster and bombast, promising bigger and badder explosions and wars.  No country, large or small, is to be given a pass. For example, Russia and China just recently were identified as major national security threats.  They are now prime targets for either military action or chaos and crippling by whatever means the U.S. chooses to enlist.  Of course, neither has attacked nor shown any intention of attacking America.  BUT they are both growing more powerful and have proven unwilling to play a submissive vassal state role, determined to meet their own needs and national priorities.  And even more horrifying in the view of the hegemonic America-first neocons, Russia and China are now cooperating on many fronts and appear to be entering into a full-on military and economic alliance, inviting countries from the rest of the world who are fed up with Washington's imperialism and truculence.   

Not only Russia and China are in the cross hairs.  It seems on a more perspicuous analysis that the Wolfowitz Doctrine applies not just to hostile powers, but any power, as the U.S. manipulates and bullies even its allies to exclusively serve American interests.  Recently, we've seen aggressive interference by the U.S. to prevent any pursuit of independence by EU/NATO countries.  Japan, of course, has been under America's thumb for seventy years, and despite some grumbling from Japanese citizenry, has remained a good lapdog for the Empire.  With Obama's "pivot to Asia", which is built on intensified deployment of military assets in the region, while stirring up longstanding rivalries among the Asian countries, divide-and-conquer is alive and well.  Though the Chinese have a longstanding history of non-aggression and have made it clear they would rather work out any disputes at a conference table rather than on the battlefield, it is now the primary boogeyman.


For our "friends" often much of this meddling and manipulation comes down to money.  It's such a win-win situation -- unless, of course, you happen to be an American citizen.  The U.S. guarantees the security of other nations against both real and imagined threats, and foots the bill for much of the military equipment and deployment of U.S. troops.  The countries are effectively subsidized for being an American protectorate, quite generously so.  Pax Americana gets to be king of the mountain.  You and I foot the bill.  The defense industries pocket the profits.

All I can say is this:  What a colossal waste!

What a waste of our tax money.  What a waste of our leadership role in the world.  What a waste of our generosity.  What a waste of our resources.  What a waste of the energy that once went into building a great nation and maintaining a functioning society.

Environmentalist Bill McKibben, activist Naomi Klein, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, and countless others have proposed that America immediately take the lead in creating a green energy world.  We can still make a buck — billions and billions of them, far more than we make on weapons of war — manufacturing and selling the necessary equipment and technology, and providing training and infrastructure for a global green energy revolution. 

Is it so far-fetched to imagine a world covered with wind turbines and solar panels, instead of missile launchers and tanks?  Is it so extreme or quixotic to want to transform the surface of the planet into a vast sustainable community instead of a killing field?

Where would you have America invest its vast economic resources and wealth?  Creating a harmonious future and habitable planet, or promoting chaos, death, destruction, and the inevitable collapse of civilization?





[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Just Making A Buck

United?

"The United States of America!" 

Doesn't saying it just make your heart leap for joy?

I start hearing the national anthem play in my head, see the rockets red glare
bursting in air, the American flag waving majestically over the capital
skyline.

But I started wondering the other day:  What exactly does the 'united' stand
for?  What exactly during these contentious, deeply divisive, tragically
troubled times does it mean?

'United' would seem to imply Unity. Agreement. Fellowship. Consensus. Harmony.

Does that sound like contemporary America to you?

Here are some big questions . . .

Are we united by a sense of national purpose?

Are we united by a belief in our destiny and place in history? 

Are we united by confidence in our superiority?

Are we united in our belief in American exceptionalism?

Are we united in our desire for empire?

Are we united by a love for our fellow Americans?

Are we united by our patriotism and sense of duty?

Or . . . are we united by our indifference?

Are we united by our faith in the American Dream?

Or . . . are we united by our pessimism?

Our cynicism?

How about some systemic issues . . .

Are we united in our faith in capitalism?

Are we united in the trust of our government?

Are we united in our belief in American democracy?

Are we united by a trust in God?

A system of shared values?

An ethos?

Are we united by our sense of self-determination?

Or . . . are we united by our sense of helplessness?

Our vulnerability and fatalism?

Our surrender?

How about some very specific issues . . .

Are we united in our love of guns?

Are we united by our freedom of speech?

Are we united by our disdain for socialism?

Are we united by the War on Terror?

Are we united by our hatred of Muslims?

Then there's the psychological component . . .

Are we united by love?

Or . . . are we united by hate?

Are we united by courage?

Bravado?

Self-respect?

Or . . . are we united by fear?

Are we united by our optimism?

Or . . . are we united by our despair?

Our desperation?

Our doubt?

Here I believe is a really important question: Where does the rugged
individualism which we see as the hallmark of a true American fit in?

How can we be united if we each have our own priorities and agenda?

Maybe we're not united at all.

Maybe it's all an illusion.

Maybe the United States of America is more like United Airlines, or United 
Van Lines. Catchy name but it doesn't really allude to any real or even
imagined unity.

And speaking of huge corporations, maybe we are united as customers,
shareholders and employees of the vast corporations which seem to run
everything these days. We are the biologic modules of a sprawling
corporate Gaia, united in our service to interlocking clusters of
entrepreneurial entities.

Less abstract and more the stuff of day-to-day living . . .

Are we united by the automobile?

Are we united by television?

Are we united by smart phones?

Are we united by the internet?

Holiday sales?

Shopping?

Football?

Which makes me wonder . . .

Maybe we're just a bunch of lonely people who need to feel like we belong to something.

Or maybe not.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

What if . . . ?

 

I love reading stories to kids.

How about you?

Here's one of my favorites.

A modern classic.

Ha ha ha. I love that story!

It's so thought-provoking.

Can you imagine a world like that?

Sadly I can't find any kids that want to sit down and listen to a story any more.

Hmm.

[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Do The Math

 

As we mourn yet more victims of violence and seek both comfort and some kind of explanation, maybe it's time to ask a couple basic questions.

If America truly abhors gun violence, why is it by a long stretch the highest in the world for per capita gun ownership? 316 million people and 298 million guns! Handguns, rifles, assault weapons, shotguns.

If America truly wants peace in the world, why is it by a substantial margin the biggest exporter of armaments to practically any country or rebel army with a check book? Weapons of every shape and size, from hand guns to missiles! (One nice thing, though. We keep the white phosphorus, depleted uranium, and cluster bombs for our own use on the battle field.)

I weep for all __ both the victims and the survivors __ because we are all victims.

We are victims of a national madness that has become the new normal. We eat, sleep, dream, breathe violence. Look at TV. Look at movies, books, games. Look at our police.

I wish it were otherwise . . . but there will be no end to the carnage.

Unless we as a people __ individually and collectively __ change.

We can say 'NO' to all this violence. You and I.

But we have to say it . . . and mean it!


[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Dead kids sure are a bummer but….

 

I know the title is rude. It appears to be insensitive. Maybe even shocking.

But I honestly don't think I'm the one being insensitive and shocking here.

I've been sitting here in Japan since the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, trying to imagine how a typical gun owner would complete that sentence.

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but you know what's a real bummer? Not being able to go to a gun show and buy anything I want by slapping some cash on the counter."

 

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but I'd really be bummed out if I couldn't own 57 handguns, shotguns, assault weapons and use hollow-point bullets."

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but can you imagine what a bummer it would be to have to put a new magazine in my AR-15 after getting off only 20 rounds?"

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but there's no way I'm going to take classes in gun safety or have some punk bureaucrat come around every year to check up on me."

What is a typical gun owner willing to give up so that any one of the the victims of the Newtown massacre whose photos appear in this article would be alive? And what is so important to a gun owner that the lives of these people, and the other thousands who are killed by gunfire every year, can be so easily dismissed?

 

Truth is, I have no idea why I'm even writing about this. Because trying to get significant changes in our attitudes about guns really isn't about laws and regulations. It's about becoming sane again. And I don't see that happening.

Here's how the gun-loving members of the American public responded to Sandy Hook: "Shock figures show buyers are racing for firearms in Sandy Hook school massacre state" and "Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons".

I love this:  "Gun backers want to arm schoolteachers"

My wife came up with this one:  BulletBlocker, 'Bullet Resistant Products'

Bulletproof backpacks for children?  Is it just me or does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

 

I understand the powerful appeal of guns. Maybe not as intensely as the gun nuts out there but I do understand. I even understand the need for the latest and greatest of everything. We've been conditioned to want to own the biggest, the baddest, the best. We just can't fall behind, you know.  

"Damn! My next door neighbor just got an AR-59 MICW. What if we get into an argument over how high to trim the hedge? I'll be outgunned!"

Okay. I know I'm rambling. I'm not being coherent or rational.

 

But the truth is, none of the discussions about guns and gun control are remotely coherent or rational. 

We can nitpick over the details of gun regulation but frankly the whole discussion is so far out off the edge, it's like a conversation in an insane asylum between Napoleon and Jesus about what they should do with Elvis over there in the corner to keep him from singing "All Shook Up" during arts and crafts.

Yes, it's that bad.

It's pure insanity.

It's pure insanity because when people flock to gun shows to buy more guns after a tragedy like this, it's akin to a lung cancer patient spending his life savings on cigarettes and giving them to all his friends and relatives.

 

It's pure insanity because not even the simplest, most sensible, least intrusive limitations can get through Congress.

It's pure insanity that we can't even ban weapons which have no other purpose than killing and killing fast, ones like the semi-automatic rifles used in so many recent gun massacres.

I got a Tweet from Yoko Ono a few days ago. It said ... "Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the USA since John Lennon was shot and killed on 8 Dec 1980."

Which brings me to the way I would complete the sentence.

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but we've gone completely insane, so even if we shed a few tears, we really don't care deep down inside where it counts." 

[ Insert prayers here for the America which is being lost, for the children who are being abandoned, for the death of the American Dream. ]
  
[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

 

If Jesus Had Been Packing

 

If Jesus had had a gun, they never would have been able to nail Him to the cross.

Then again . . . would He have refused to use it to defend Himself?

This is a gray area and things get a little confusing. Let's face it, He became a real rock star as a result of the "turn the other cheek" sound bite. On the other hand, Jesus threw quite a temper tantrum and tossed the moneylenders out of the Temple __ physically tossed them out, from what I gather. It was His Steven Seagal moment.

Certainly we can conclude from this, the Guy was no wuss. At the same time, we have no record of Him punching anyone in the face or dropping kicking anyone's family jewels, much less offing them by whatever instruments of slaughter were available at the time.

Yet seeing some big hairy brutes coming at you with massive hammers and nails the size  of a jack handle is definitely going to push some buttons. If He had anything resembling a fight-or-flight reflex, it's not unreasonable to assume that had a handgun been available, He would have emptied a few rounds into his beefy assailants and made for the hills.

What kind of weapons would Our Savior have been packing, assuming all options were    on the table? Hard to say with any certainty. But He wasn't much for mincing words. So it seems reasonable to assume He would not have made some lame choice when it came to arming Himself. I'm no expert so I'm just guessing here. But I surmise He would have had the nice and punchy Sig Sauer P228 within easy reach __ strapped to His thigh under His robes __ and had a kick-ass semi-automatic assault weapon slung over His shoulder. This would've given Him both the solace of being able to mount a quick response and the necessary firepower in case He needed to spray some serious lead around.

What kind of assault weapon would have been the Savior of Mankind's first choice. The popularity of the Bushmaster AR-15 certainly makes it the obvious frontrunner. But I personally think he would have gone with the Israeli IMI Tavor TAR-21. After all, Jesus was a Jew and there's got to be some basic loyalty at work. But practically speaking, the IMI Tavor TAR-21 is one sweet killing machine. It's compact, relatively light and great at close and medium range. Those Romans getting ready to nail the Big Guy to the cross wouldn't have stood a chance. Blam! Blam! Blam! Bye-bye, motherfuckers!

How about munitions?

Being generally disposed in His preaching to encourage His devoted flock to always show compassion, I think He would have chosen standard issue bullets and only considered using hollow-points as a last resort.

The most important thing to appreciate when thinking about Jesus Christ packing any kind of weaponry is the powerful message it sends. After all, who could possibly take seriously the word of a man who isn't willing to stand up for what he believes in? Who won't stand strong in the face of opposition. Who lets himself be bullied and threatened. Who isn't man enough to look some smart aleck punk Roman soldier in the eye and say, "Make my day!"

I'm certainly not saying Jesus would have gone around and indiscriminately brandished His weapons of choice every time He got in a fix. Being the Prince of Peace, He would have been the last to lock and load. But that's the beauty of guns. You don't have to use them to make your point or at least to let others know you're not going down without a fight.

All I'm saying is that if Jesus had been packing that day they crucified Him, those Roman thugs would have had second thoughts about nailing Him up like a raggedy ann door prize at the county fair. He wouldn't have died for our sins and . . .

Uh-oh.

We'd all go to Hell.

Hmm . . .

That would be bad.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Aw shucks, Jethro . . . it’s just a damn gun!

 

As you know, I live in Japan. Here's something to think about.

INTENTIONAL HOMICIDES LAST YEAR:

USA . . . 12,996

Japan . . . 506

Gun ownership is strictly regulated in here.

It takes several years even to obtain a hunting license. Meeting someone with any type of gun, even a hunting rifle, is an extreme rarity in Japan.

Do you think the statistics are just a coincidence?


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

The Right To Bear Nuclear Arms

My lovely Japanese wife frequently asks me about gun ownership in America. In Japan, it's difficult, if not impossible, to buy a gun. So when there are incidents of gun violence in America __ and there have been many recently __ she understandably questions the prudence of having so many guns around.

I explain that written in the U.S. Constitution __ specifically the Second Amendment __ is a clause which protects the right of U.S. citizens to possess and use all sorts of guns for a variety of commonly accepted purposes, hunting and self-defense chief among them.

She has several times asked me, "Is it really that easy to buy a gun there?"

I came across this article:  "Amazon ships assault rifle instead of television".

Apparently it's not only easy, it's actually difficult to not buy a gun. This guy just wanted a nicer screen to watch TV and movies and ended up with a full-blown assault weapon.

I got to thinking about the whole thing and came to a surprising conclusion. The rationale for having so many weapons at our itchy fingertips springs from the powerhouse argument contained in this pithy gem of philosophical analysis . . .

Guns don't kill people. People kill people!

Since this is irrefutable logic, I began to wonder why it has been applied so narrowly. The truth is, guns are just one form of lethal entertainment. Thanks to the amazing advances in science and technology, there is a cornucopia of devices which fit the legal definition of "arms" as referred to in our Constitution. It seems to me, the legal framework and the rationale would apply equally to nuclear weapons.

Now, narrow interpreters of the Bill of Rights might say:  "There's nothing in there about the right to bear nuclear arms."

I say:  "So what? There's nothing in there excluding them!"
Conservatives argue that government should be about increasing the options of its citizenry, or at least staying out of the way so that all of the options are on the table. Normally, I'm not one to agree with people on the right end of the political spectrum. Grudgingly I admit the wisdom of their arguments here is just too overwhelming.

So let's go for it! After all . . .

Hand grenades don't kill people. People kill people!

Stinger missiles don't kill people.  People kill people!

Cluster bombs don't kill people. People kill people!

Predator drones don't kill people. People kill people!

Nerve gas doesn't kill people. People kill people!

Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people!

Just think about how much fun we can have if we're not restricted to only using sawed-off shotguns and assault weapons! It'll be awesome! And finally, hunters will regain the upper hand from those pesky critters out there who have been outwitting them and managed to keep from being slaughtered into extinction. We'll show 'em who's boss around here!

Understandably there have to be a few controls in place. You can't just have anybody and everybody driving around with WMDs in the trunk of their SUV or family station wagon. But with some reasonable waiting period and background check, I don't see why this couldn't work. Permits could be issued as they now are with handguns . . .

The bearer of this permit, offering appropriate corroborative identification, is entitled to possess and use within applicable limits and restrictions, explosive nuclear devices up to 50 kiloton explosive equivalency, as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It's time to claim our rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and realize the profound wisdom of the founding fathers.

It's time that we be able to put in that munitions cache which has become the hallmark of a safe and happy American home, all of weaponry available today, including nuclear bombs.

It's time to assert our constitutionally protected right!

The right to bear nuclear arms.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]