Well you say potato and I say potatoh. There may be some
similarities between the militias and the national guard, but I think the
difference between a volunteer and a paid employee is a huge difference. Not
that any of this matters because neither of us believes the second amendment has
anything to do with taking away your big iron. But then our whole relationship,
well most of it, is based on arguing isn’t it? So along those lines you would
think the founding fathers would just have said we should make no law forbidding
fire arms, if that’s what they meant to say, and left out that phrase about
militias preceding it. You would have thought that they, in their wisdom, would
have known this phrase would be sort of a loophole a couple hundred years down
the pike for anti gun nuts, and left it out. So then the intent of the second
amendment is dependent on the definition of militias then and now, and if you
ask me they are like the difference between a cat and a dog, both eat and crap,
but they are distinctly different animals.
Actually I own my condo, but I don’t know if Thomas Jefferson would
consider me a yeoman. I think back then if you were a landowner you owned your
house and the land around it so that you could grow stuff to support yourself.
I guess those who lived in cities would own just a house, but not many lived in
cities back then, but the idea of a freehold twenty one stories in the air would
not be something Thomas Jefferson would have in mind.
Well so you say, maybe the second doesn’t help you case but the
ninth does, and if not that then the fifth, and I think you just want to own
your gun, and you are searching through the constitution to find something to
justify it. I think that is a little like those guys who have some belief and
go through the bible and find verses to back it up. Or course their opponents
can do the same and come up with verses to prove the opposite, and the next
thing you know they are arguing about whether Jeremiah or Isaac is the bigger
asshole.
How about this thought experiment? How about us anti gun nuts all
get together and slip something in all your gun nuts’ beer and while you guys
are asleep, we pass an amendment to outlaw all firearms. And when you guys wake
up there it is in the constitution with all the other amendments. Do you guys
all line up and turn in your firearms because you are all such true believers in
the constitution? Somehow I don’t think you would.
I didn’t mean to challenge you about how gun ownership makes it a
better world. We have agreed on rare occasions, and we have disagreed calmly
sometimes, and sometimes with a bit of anger, but never has it become so heated
as when we discussed guns. That’s the way I remember it.
But I knew I was treading on dangerous territory when I brought up
the second amendment. I don’t remember anymore but I think I brought it up in
context of do we live by the rule of law or of man, which had something to do
with theory vs practice, about which I believe I meant to make a point, which I
still may, if I ever remember what it was.
I have no problem with you and Old Betsy. A happy Beaglesonia is a
beacon to the nation of how this great nation embraces freeholders in the swamp
and in the sky.
The only thing, the only little thing is that I think maybe some
weapons are so powerful that they should not be allowed, and maybe we shouldn’t
let every Tom, Dick, and Harry own as many as they like. When I say this I
think I am making a reasonable proposal, but what I think you think is that I am
reaching to tear Old Betsy out of your loving arms.
No comments:
Post a Comment