One of the reasons that I highlight an essay every week is that you learn very little by reading news stories, short blog posts, and the other typically short pieces that we read on a daily basis. I think that this is true even if all those short pieces cumulatively contain the same information that we might find in a long piece. A coherent whole just has a bigger impact than disparate pieces scattered throughout time.

I bring this up because I think most people who keep up with the news have a vague awareness of most of the facts in this week’s essay. But I think that those facts get lost in all the stories about China’s growing commercial clout. Thus, I think that Guy Sorman’s indictment of China is well worth reading because it forces you to confront what would otherwise get lost in the shuffle.

I should note that for some reason they stuck a sidebar on Hong Kong right in the middle of the essay. I find that highly annoying. Just scroll right past it and the essay will resume.

I want to make it clear that I am not one of those who think that an armed populace is a guarantee of freedom. Moreover, I believe that an unarmed people can be free. But I do not believe that America can be made free of guns with out giving up any pretense of being a free country. A gun control advocate makes that point better then I ever could…

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

The “gun lobby” would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.

You can read the rest here. The man is a member of the editorial boards of the The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (h/t Pierre Legrand)

Let us see how long this lasts. But at least the family is back together for now….

ERLANGEN, Germany, April 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – German homeschooler Melissa Busekros finally returned home early this morning on her 16th birthday after having been forcibly separated from her family by the government 3 months ago.

Back in February, Melissa was seized from her family home in a dramatic police raid for the crime of home schooling – illegal since 1937 by edict of Nazi Chancellor Adolf Hitler – and placed with a foster home in a location unknown to her family.

Read this article for the rest of the story. You will also find links that describe the back story. (h/t The Brussels Journal)

This week’s rant is long enough to be an essay, but we are classifying it as a rant anyway. For one thing, it seems more motivated by disgust then careful analysis. For another, the accusations thrown about and the importance of the issue seem a little overdone to us. Still, we think that Spengler has a point in this rant.

Why should America be encouraging the secession of Kosovo from Serbia and yet forbid that part of Kosovo whose population that is majority Serb from rejoining Serbia? Where does self-determination end and who gets to draw the line?

That last question can be answered by saying that those with the guns can make the rules. But making a decision on that basis seems to be laying the ground work for future bloodshed.