BurlingtonPol.com

I was starting to get sick of the whole Politics VT shtick (on every frickin' blog), but then I just read all of your blog comments and posts together and laughed my ass off. Haik, so few people appreciate your comic genius.

(Please tell me it is comic genius or else I am going to have to get Bob a flak jacket to wear to work.)

 

(Please tell me it is comic genius or else I am going to have to get Bob a flak jacket to wear to work.)

Sure. I have a comic genius, but what you're reading in these post is mostly regular genius.

Oh- and I changed the post since your comment. I'm totally still on PolVt, but I understand I have to mix it up a little bit to keep it interesting. If PolVT isn't busted as a fraud, then I aim to focus as much skepticism on them as possible. If they are not frauds, they can prove me wrong anytime they want.

I can tell from the flak-jacket crack you've been blogging about the Essex school shooting. Very sad. I encourage anyone planning a murder-suicide to kill themselves first, then kill the other people.

There's nothing wrong with a little gun control here and there either.

 

"There's nothing wrong with a little gun control here and there either."

Yeah, except that it violates our constitutional rights.

I actually hadn't thought about the Essex thing, with relation to my comment. Geez, Haik, you make me sound insensitive. I was thinking more along the lines of disgruntled co-worker shootings, but I guess those aren't funny either.

I must go hang my head in shame over my insensitivity.

Back to the gun control thing. What kind of gun control law would still allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, yet stop dirtbags with a rap sheet filled with drug-dealing, car jacking, and other offenses from finding a gun? Let's see some of that genius put to use.

 

Oh Charity, I hope you don't think I was trying to make you look one way or another. I wasn't, I swear. You must realize I consider you one of my best friends in the blogosphere. I just noticed you had blogged about Essex so I figured you had guns on your mind. I wasn't trying to give you any 'flak.'

I think there are probably ways to enforce existing gun laws better. I think waiting periods, background checks and an end to selling at gun show would be a start.

I'm not exactly sure how to interpret the Second Amendment. Obviously private folks can't own nukes, so a line is drawn somewhere. Maybe we should draw the line at a more literal interpretation. All the Amendment says is the right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which may just mean the government isn't allowed to cut our arms off.

 

The Second Amendment does not say that every yahoo has the right to own any weapon he or she wants.

It says:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State ... "

Within the context of a well regulated Militia, there exists the right to bear arms. The NRA types want us to ignore this part of the constitution and for us to think that anyone should be able to carry an uzi into any school, church, hospital or mall -- no questions asked.

 

“Within the context of a well regulated Militia, there exists the right to bear arms.”

That is not what it says. It says, “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.”

Meaning, that since a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, we shall have the right to bear arms. Well regulated in this sense does not mean government regulated, as we have come to know it in the age of big government. By examining contemporaneous documents, it is clear that well regulated, means well trained and organized.

A Militia is not just an arm of the government. Sometimes the people who are threatening the security of the free State are the government. The Second Amendment is there to allow us the ability to always keep our freedom, even in the light of an oppressive government.

You have to remember, these guys just came from fighting an oppressive government for their freedom. They know that sometimes the people must rise up against the government and they wanted the right to bear arms protected.

The right shall not be infringed. Period. That is what it says. It does not say, “the right of the Militia men to keep and bear Arms.” It says “the people.” If, as you said, it was only in the context of the Militia, it would say so.

And, just so you know, I am not an “NRA type.” I hate guns. Just the same, I am not comfortable with the only people who own guns being the government and the criminals.

I do know that many of history’s dictators started their reign by banning guns, leaving the people helpless to stop them, and I sleep better knowing that there are gun owners in this country willing to die fighting for our freedom should it ever come to that.