The Boom Stick and You
- or Court TV and Me
For Supreme Court geeks (like me) and monkey-asses (also me) who believe the boomstick is like a lot of good things in this life (fun, sometimes necessary and potentially deadly), today's arguments in front of our Nine Superfriends gets my blood pumping.
In bars, where I do my best thinking, I have told my good friend Shooty Mc Shoots Alot and others foolish enough to listen that those who want to read an individual right to bear arms into the 2nd amendment do so at the risk of local liberty.
What do I mean by this?
The mouthpiece supporting the DC ban will go before the Supremes and offer an interpretation of the 2nd Amedment that emphasizes the "well-regulated militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment. He may be right, he may be wrong but any dumbass knows that this is how the argument goes - - - the DC ban doesn't violate an individual right enshrined by Constitution (or its Bill of Rights, which seems to be all that's left of the Constitution these days) - - but according to those who support the DC ban...there was never an individual right to keep and bear arms to protect.
BEARS!
Incidentally, I think the liar...er, lawyer supporting the gun ban is named Dillinger (I haven't been following the story that closely, but I hope it is his fucking name)
If he has a sense of drama, Dillinger the lawyer would take a bar of soap, carve it into the shape of a gun and freak out everybody in the Chamber of the Damned screaming "Bet ya want to uphold a gun ban now douchebags!!!!"
Oh, I had a semi-serious point.
Now those who would argue that the DC gun ban inhibits personal freedom, especially the Cato Society-type conservatives/libertarians (they share certain positions re: govt as nuisance) - these folks want to claim the Founders for their side.
They want to focus on the portion of the 2nd Amenrment that mentions the "right of the people to bear arms"
BEARS!
Those against the DC gun law opine that the Founders knew the people made up militias and hence it was the people who needed to be armed. Those opposing the DC gun laws will further argue that the Founders knew tyrants in the past tried to disarm the people directly, hence ensuring their tyranny since the people would not be able to rise up against them.
Pretty straight forward here, you don't need to be Bobby Fischer to see where the game is headed.
While both sides get it wrong to a certain extent, I know one thing that the Founders could not have possibly meant - -
- - - and this should irk the individual right/personal freedom crowd to no end...
sorry by the way -
But there is no way the Founders would imagine this scenario where the Supreme Court would be overturning a local governing body and doing so on the basis of an individual right - - INFERRED FROM SOME FUCKING LAWYER'S INTERPRETATION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!
The abuse of any liberties which may or may not be enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, pale in comparison with those run over when lawyers run to nine people , elected by no one, sitting in little boxes for life, to try and overturn or uphold decisions put forth by a local governing body representing the people directly.
Furtherfuckingmore, those who care to do so, follow the arguments coming out of these proceedings, both sides are trying to figure out the Framers' intent by talking about machine guns, armor-piercing bullets, trigger lock rules etc....shit that DID NOT COME UP DURING THE DEBATES OVER DRAFTING THE 2ND FUCKING AMENDMENT!
To those making arguments fer er agin the DC gun ban - I know you're all a bunch of lawyers but can't we just be honest and say we don't give a shit about what the Founders wanted, they're just window dressing for whoever has the more powerful argument?
Oh yeah, these guys are lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court.
They make up shit like this every day.
Why should I give a shit? As long as no one argues that I don't have the Constitutional right to shoot the fuck out of a fucking tv whenever I've had a coupla beers in me...I'll be fine.
The previous sentence was so convoluted it is hard for me to determine whether or not I used a double negative. But that's ok. I'm pretty sure I have a Constitutional right to bad grammar.
Yay! The system works.
For Supreme Court geeks (like me) and monkey-asses (also me) who believe the boomstick is like a lot of good things in this life (fun, sometimes necessary and potentially deadly), today's arguments in front of our Nine Superfriends gets my blood pumping.
In bars, where I do my best thinking, I have told my good friend Shooty Mc Shoots Alot and others foolish enough to listen that those who want to read an individual right to bear arms into the 2nd amendment do so at the risk of local liberty.
What do I mean by this?
The mouthpiece supporting the DC ban will go before the Supremes and offer an interpretation of the 2nd Amedment that emphasizes the "well-regulated militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment. He may be right, he may be wrong but any dumbass knows that this is how the argument goes - - - the DC ban doesn't violate an individual right enshrined by Constitution (or its Bill of Rights, which seems to be all that's left of the Constitution these days) - - but according to those who support the DC ban...there was never an individual right to keep and bear arms to protect.
BEARS!
Incidentally, I think the liar...er, lawyer supporting the gun ban is named Dillinger (I haven't been following the story that closely, but I hope it is his fucking name)
If he has a sense of drama, Dillinger the lawyer would take a bar of soap, carve it into the shape of a gun and freak out everybody in the Chamber of the Damned screaming "Bet ya want to uphold a gun ban now douchebags!!!!"
Oh, I had a semi-serious point.
Now those who would argue that the DC gun ban inhibits personal freedom, especially the Cato Society-type conservatives/libertarians (they share certain positions re: govt as nuisance) - these folks want to claim the Founders for their side.
They want to focus on the portion of the 2nd Amenrment that mentions the "right of the people to bear arms"
BEARS!
Those against the DC gun law opine that the Founders knew the people made up militias and hence it was the people who needed to be armed. Those opposing the DC gun laws will further argue that the Founders knew tyrants in the past tried to disarm the people directly, hence ensuring their tyranny since the people would not be able to rise up against them.
Pretty straight forward here, you don't need to be Bobby Fischer to see where the game is headed.
While both sides get it wrong to a certain extent, I know one thing that the Founders could not have possibly meant - -
- - - and this should irk the individual right/personal freedom crowd to no end...
sorry by the way -
But there is no way the Founders would imagine this scenario where the Supreme Court would be overturning a local governing body and doing so on the basis of an individual right - - INFERRED FROM SOME FUCKING LAWYER'S INTERPRETATION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!
The abuse of any liberties which may or may not be enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, pale in comparison with those run over when lawyers run to nine people , elected by no one, sitting in little boxes for life, to try and overturn or uphold decisions put forth by a local governing body representing the people directly.
Furtherfuckingmore, those who care to do so, follow the arguments coming out of these proceedings, both sides are trying to figure out the Framers' intent by talking about machine guns, armor-piercing bullets, trigger lock rules etc....shit that DID NOT COME UP DURING THE DEBATES OVER DRAFTING THE 2ND FUCKING AMENDMENT!
To those making arguments fer er agin the DC gun ban - I know you're all a bunch of lawyers but can't we just be honest and say we don't give a shit about what the Founders wanted, they're just window dressing for whoever has the more powerful argument?
Oh yeah, these guys are lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court.
They make up shit like this every day.
Why should I give a shit? As long as no one argues that I don't have the Constitutional right to shoot the fuck out of a fucking tv whenever I've had a coupla beers in me...I'll be fine.
The previous sentence was so convoluted it is hard for me to determine whether or not I used a double negative. But that's ok. I'm pretty sure I have a Constitutional right to bad grammar.
Yay! The system works.
posted by edP | 8:36 PM
9 Comments:
The whole "tyrant-prevention" argument is somewhat ludicrous to me. Anyone who thinks that a hunting rifle protects you against government intervention doesn't watch enough late-night discovery channel documentaries (or read the news). In fact, bearing arms against the government would qualify you as a terrorist (especially bearing arms that would give you a fighting chance). What we're really arguing for is the right to bear arms against each other, which I don't think is what the 2nd Amendment is trying to guarantee. Certainly, some of the founders bore arms against each other, but that was because someone was nailing someone else's wife.
Yeah, someone ought to ask the corpse of Hamilton his thoughts on gun bans...or at least dueling pistol bans?!?!?
I think the guy's name is Walter Dillinger....but I am too lazy to see how he spells it
I'm in DC for the third time in months and wish i had a gun!
Ed-I challenge you to a duel!
Crap! Well Santi, I've always said you were an Aaron Burr in my side
Dude! Are you linking me to Aaron Burr-side?
Hey, at leat we are not French and take it seriously (the duel thang)
Or, are you French? Do I need to call you "Freedom Ed"?
Yeah, no matter how the ruling falls, criminals will still have guns. I'm more for staying out of areas where I know I'm likely to get robbed than trying to shoot back. But that's just me.
The Liar accused me of trying to make his head explode with all the Obama and gun control talk on my little corner of the blog-o-verse, but I think there should be less guns overall. Cars, too.
I hope you didn't shoot too many televisions over this.
I'm a'gonna keep shootin' televisions till there's justice...or until WPWR offers its customers decent reception.
That is my pledge
Post a Comment
<< Home