A Tournament, A Tournament, A Tournament of Lies
The second amendment of the United States Bill of Rights says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Their current administration seems to be a Texas-style endorsement of that line of thinkin'; if everyone has a gun, no one will get their panites in a bunch and start shootin'.
Ok, so extrapolate that to the world stage and now "people" become "nations" and "arms" becomes "nuclear weapons"...or "nuculer", depending. North Korea somehow develops the brainpower from its starving denizens (Kim Jong Il must be ordering out for a group of scientists he keeps on a leash) to make a nuke and give it a test run (against the obviously hollow warnings of the U.S. and U.N.).
Out come the condemnations and sanctions from the United Nations. Bush's threat of early in his presidency that he "would not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea" has been called and the pot has gone to the DPRK. Bush would normally look like a loser because of this slap in the diplomatic face, but he has been such a monumental asshole the last five years that this just makes him look, to quote the great Lewis Black, "like a rectum."
So why can't the DPRK have nukes? There are eight countries with nuclear weapons now and three more with either suspected nukes or suspected clandestine nuclear programs, so why is there such a bug up people's (read: Bush's) ass about North Korea? Doesn't their "if everyone has 'em, we're all safer" argument hold? No, because Kim Jong Il is insane. He kidnapped a movie director, for fuck's sake (and as if those Bridgette Nielson circa. 1989 sunglasses weren't enough of an indication). You don't let crazy people have weapons that can kill a bunch of other people. The hypocrisy of this commandment...sorry, amendment, is very apparent within the U.S. and equally in their foreign policy.
Crazy people shouldn't have weapons. That's a good rule. The obvious problem comes with defining, "crazy." Personally, a leader who's population starves while he lives in a palace making shitty movies about himself qualifies. Conversely, a leader who's population died in the streets of a major city for a week and a half after a national disaster qualifies as well.
Why is it that, "no weapons" is a bad arguement? Yes, I realize that everyone will get all indignant and say stuff like, "Who are you to not allow me to have an anti-aircraft gun in my trailer park?" As Bill Hicks said, "I'm me, it's true, shut the fuck up."
Hunters use guns, police, security personnel, sport shooters, and quick-tempered celebrities use guns. I'm not naive enough to think guns will go away anytime soon, it would just be nice to have a set of guidelines that make sense and aren't hypocritical. Either it's ok for everyone to be armed (nationally or globally), or it isn't.
Again, as the great Bill Hicks said, "There, my hat is now in the political ring."