Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 2

About that hornet's nest.....

This is a response to a comment posted by Steve concerning the supposedly sacred 2nd amendment.

Steve says that it’s a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That’s been subject to interpretation for quite some time. When it fills the need for justification, the 2nd is steadfastly defended. They can’t take away our guns! Scalia, remember him, says the Constitution isn’t etched in stone or rather some things that our founding fathers wrote just aren’t applicable today. Frivolous things like executive powers, states rights, silly amendments…you know, trivial things that should be open to reinterpretation by those who think they know what’s best for the few of their special interests.

Let’s look at the first ten on the list of out of touch Amendments our founding fathers thought inviolable.

Are any safe from argument? Well, we can dispense with Amendment 3…for now. But we’ll hold that one subject to whether McLame wins the presidency.

Amendment 8 has been diluted and abused (ironic, eh?) by the RIAA and MPAA. I would think that the greedy soulless bastards at those two organizations think that a fine of $1000 per pilfered song is acceptable because they suffer so. However, stealing billions from retirees gets you probation, a slap on the wrist and if you’re really bad, you might have to promise not to do it again. And let’s not forget the recent Ohio case of a man who cheated a retailer out of $14.00 in 1990 or so and was just arrested and the brilliant Man in Charge set bail at $1,000,000!!! And alleged murders often have reasonable bail.

Amendment 7 has been shown to be somewhat obsolete in that if the Bush administration loses a case (maybe a military one), they can simply re-try the individual because they felt the court was wrong. He was found innocent but Speedy Gonzales thought other-wise…try him again! Good enough for me!

Amendment 6 has been thrown under the bus since the conspiracy of 9/11. Some detainees are still waiting for a speedy trial after 6 years. Fair is fair. Georgie says in case they’re bad, we should be able to keep them.

Amendment 5 has a really intriguing part:

“…No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;…”

Does that mean that our Chimp in Charge who is in command of the forces has to answer any question? No. He’s not in the military…now. Of course I’m not sure it doesn’t pertain if he WAS in the service and should have been questioned and he gets out on a technicality; there’s a statute of limitations on stupid. It also has been circumvented by our good old military a number of times recently to protect majors and colonels and generals and statesmen (we ARE in a war, remember?) but not enlisted or other non-coms. Separate but unequal anyway. Scratch Number 5.

Amendment 4 is just so outdated. Imagine allowing the government to be held down by a frivolous law that might exonerate a few rather than be able to jail the many for little or nothing. You never can tell when “Jerry” might sneak in to some public mall to commit atrocities. Sneaking into foreign prisons to commit atrocities is acceptable, though. And if Georgie just THINKS someone is doing something wrong or doesn’t like the person, well, why shouldn’t he be able to get any information on them that may save millions of Los Angelinos from possible nukyular holocaust? Damn terrists! How anyone can defend this antiquated amendment is beyond me. We can continue but you all understand. And if you don’t, it shouldn’t matter to you anyway.

Amendments 9 and 10 haven’t gotten much play from the press, probably because they don’t see the relevance. Scalia referred to them in a round-about way with his positively brilliant rationalization that the founding fathers couldn’t foresee a woman getting McDonald’s hot coffee dumped in her lap and being allowed to sue. Something about only one or two Mikki D’s in the colonies at the time. I have a feeling that these two may be the most important constitutional discussion points once people realize how wonderful we all have it here.

Let’s see…that leaves us 2 of the original 10.

Amendment the First (think they might have made it number one because they thought it the most important?). Anyone remember the terribly potentially destructive peaceful protests during that ill fated war? Where protestors who wanted to express themselves were attacked in some cases by the American SS? Not the ones of the 60s…but the peaceful protest of 2004 when they were relegated to police lines blocks away from the Emperor so no one could tell him he had no clothes? There’s no reason to expand on what we’ve lost with this one. Again, if you think that it’s still in effect, you work for Bush, or assume his favorite position.

OK. Saved the best for last. Number 2 (Ironic number there, eh, hoser?). Which brings me to my comments to Steve and the NRA about my ability to keep low yield nukes and plasma rifles and Tasers and Chain guns and such in my 4th Amendment Protected Basement!

Growing up, I was a hunter. I also carried an NRA Card (never leave the woods or the Ghetto without it)! For some stupidly irrational reason, I never thought why I couldn’t own a fully auto M -16. You know, for target practice; plunking cans and bottles. Never once thought about keeping a Tommy, either. Then I got the opportunity (all expenses paid by Uncle Sam) to see the world, or at least the part he wanted me to see.

But before I could enjoy the travels, he wanted to make sure that I was ready… in case some crazy person (not necessarily American) decided to go a little nuts and maybe try to shoot me. Goodness knows I had to be able to protect myself in case! You never can tell when you happen to be out for a stroll in a small town or village or a leisurely walk in the woods, or jungle, when a group of ne’er-do-wells pounces upon my person, trying to take away my freedoms they hate so much! What’s a fellow to do?

So. My Uncle made sure I could take care of myself…just in case that happened...on the free tour he arranged. Considerate, eh?

Well this one guy I met showed me my first “friend.” He told me I should always be with this friend, for this friend could protect me from those roving bands of brigands – in case. He also told me that my friend had only one purpose and that was to kill. I understood this from the many times hunting that I was dangerously close to and vulnerable to attack from woodland critters. You never can tell about those nutty squirrels!

So I learned all about my friend and even some other friends. There were so many and they all wanted to keep me safe in case I was ever attacked because I happened to be somewhere I shouldn’t have been but my Uncle wanted me to go.

After I had the good fortune of returning to America and finding that I wasn’t thanked for what I had done for my Uncle (and even not thanked BY my Uncle, but that’s another and not-to-be told story), I had second thoughts about all the friends available to me here.

Now, I have no problems with hunting. I never used a pump. Always a single shot or sometimes a double barrel for small game and only a bolt for others. I tried to understand the sport in being able to fire 5 double Os in about two seconds at those pesky squirrels. Didn’t really seem like sport or even fair to me. But I guess I don’t really know the danger those creatures in the woods effect. But there is a group of people who thinks they know how dangerous Bambi is so they want to make sure that anyone who goes into the woods is properly protected.

Here’s where it gets confusing. Those same people also think I should be able to own and actually take along with me my low yield nukes and bazookas and chain guns when I go to the mall. They say there’s a chance people like the ones on my trip MIGHT try to hurt me so I should have the ability to protect myself. Makes sense. But what if I’m in a bad mood or not right in the head and decide that the Chuck-E-Cheese guy is trying to take my Cheetos? Can I protect myself from his possible intentions? And if I’m really, really certain, can I take pre-emptive action because I just know he’s going to do me harm? Makes even more sense!

Some people say we shouldn’t be able to have this self protection because it could be abused. Sure it could. But look at some facts. If we all carried around elephant guns, we’d be able to protect ourselves from rogue elephants (never know when one of them baby’s could charge you). Or how about tigers or lions or bears? We need those case.

In the event some of you out there didn’t recognize sarcasm, check with an NRA member.

My point in this whole diatribe is that people have the wrong priorities on many things in life. The guns of the 2nd amendment is definitely one. “They’ll have to pry my gun from my cold dead hand” to take it away. OK. Doesn’t bother me. If you think your feeble arsenal is a match for the jack-boots that will come after you if Georgie-boy wants to, you belong in Waco or is that You’re wacko?

I have NO qualms with hunting (other than a sporting aspect of it and not overkill) and especially with standard hunting rifles. You can try all you want to justify semi and full automatic weapons – just for sport shooting, of course. So how about this. You want to use an automatic weapon? Why not keep it stored under lock and key at a range rather than your house? You can keep your rifle beside the bed in case one of those people I talked about earlier has a bone to pick with you. But wouldn’t that infringe on YOUR right to keep and bear arms? Well, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about you being allowed to keep them in your house or on your person! (That nasty re-interpretation thingy again). That may be inferred but not delineated. And since the a-holes on the Supreme Pizza Court and White House can re-interpret that damn piece of paper because our founding fathers never envisioned automatic weapons or thermo nukyular devices, why can’t the people re-interpret the 2nd amendment to, say, keep automatic weapons at special places?

But the real piece of fecal matter in the argument by those for the 2nd amendment is this; where were they when the other amendments were being trashed? Not once did I hear Wayne the Dick complain Habeas Corpus was being rutted or free speech trashed or excessive fines imposed. He along with the other single issue powder brained geniuses don’t give a damn about any other loss of freedom! Just… “You can’t take my guns away! It says so in the Constitution! You can’t violate the Constitution! Mom, make them obey that one Amendment!

It’s ok to violate all the others but not that one! Because it will keep us free.” Free from attack from white people and brown people and black and yellow and red. I’m not so sure it’ll do anything against little green men from Mars but I could be wrong. (Damn! I keep forgetting those elephants!)

But the most tragic belief of all is that it will keep the government from taking away their guns. By the time the only amendment left to defend is the 2nd; we’re done as a nation, as a people, as a society.

But hey, you can still kill your neighbor if he plays his stereo too loudly. Is this a great country or what?

No comments: