Friday, June 27, 2008

This and That-

It is hot, hazy and humid here today. I love this weather. I wouldn't want it all year, but a few months is fine with me.

I'm going to say just one thing about the Supreme Court decision regarding guns. It was correct. Like guns or not, the Constitution says we can have them. I don't have any, and think that most homes would be better off without them. But the Constitution says we can have them.

"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"

Now I am not a lawyer, but I do come from a long line of English Majors, and the main clause in this is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I have heard arguments that this is only within the context of a well-regulated militia, but that's not the case. Look closely- the sentence takes it as a given that a well-regulated militia is necessary- it does not say "if a well-regulated militia is necessary", or "when a well-regulated militia is necessary", it says THAT "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Agree or disagree with that, that is what it says. So then, who does it say can bear arms? The militia? No. It says "the people" can bear arms. Nothing about only members of the militia bearing arms. "The people". That is you and me. We can have and bear arms.

Now you and I can agree or disagree as to whether this is a good or bad thing for today's society. I certainly don't think that everyone walking down the street with a sidearm would be a good thing, but what I think is not the point. The Constitution says we can. You can't pick and chose with the Constitution- support things we like such as the right to free speech, and then not support things we don't like, like the right to walk down the street with a gun on your hip. Both rights are in there. Don't like it? Well, we can always amend the Constitution.

Maybe we should. We can talk about that. It was written a long time ago, and maybe it's time to make another amendment. But the discussion about the current 2nd Amendment should not include any talk about the effect one reading or anther has on today's society- that is exactly the sort of equivocating that has the government breaking into your home or tapping your phone if they think you are a terrorist. If you think the Bushies are bashing the Constitution, as I do, then you may want to take another look at the 2nd amenedment and your opinion of it, not i terms of what you would like it to say, and not in terms of what we think would be best for our society, but in terms of what it actually says.

- -

Fox News wants both Osama and Obama dead. Don't believe me? Let's roll the videotape...

- -

Our friend Mike's blog, Tongue in Check, has a birthday today. Go on over and wish TiC a happy birthday!

- -

on this hot early Summer night I'm going to let Arlo have the last word-


Catalyst said...

Great Arlo Guthrie song! Thanks!

Mike said...

I think we need to make the distinction between responsible gun-owners and those who commit a crime with an illegal gun. There is a difference. It's like we are all being punished becomes some people can't be responsible.

It's like debating whether or not to take all of our cars away because some people drink and drive.

Mike said...

Oh, and my blog thanks you for the kind wishes.

Joey Polanski said...

Yeah. We dont need to amend th Constitution. We jus need to update th language a little.

Heres my version o th Seckon Amendment:

"Since ya nevr know when weere a-gonna hafta kick some ass, best if th fokes all have their own gats awready."

Malach the Merciless said...

Now if only someone would take their handgun and shoot Dubya

Diva said...

I'm a wuss about guns, but that doesn't mean they should be banned by any means. It just means I don't have a gun.

Oh yah, Mike's b-day post was a hoot. Gotta love a post dedicated to various strippers.