Interpreting the 2nd Amendment

Responsible adults should have the right to own and keep firearms; just as they should have the right to operate an automobile and consume alchohol: within certain limits and regulations which are designed to protect the individual and the community.

Interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an unequivocal and unrestricted right -- even obligation, as some would have us believe --of every person, to own any and as many firearms as they choose, is a stretch at best. Doing so may be good for the gun industry, but it is not good for the security of the State. More children die in this country from gunshot wounds than any other cause with the exception of automobile accidents and cancer.

What right is given by the 2nd amendment is clearly and specifically given for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia in order to preserve the security of the State. It does not reference or address the personal interests of any individual, including any perceived need for personal protection. As such, the owning of fire arms for personal reasons is not and should not be proscribed but to argue that any attempt to regulate the sale and owner ship of firearms violates the 2nd Amendment is silly and demogogery.

• If anything, the 2nd amendment specifically introduces the concept of regulation ("A well regulated Militia...") to the pretext for keeping and bearing arms.
• To attempt to argue that the the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is unrelated to the establishment and maintenance of a well regulated Militia is nonsense. The two are not separable. They form a single sentence and express a single idea. To argue otherwise would be to argue that the statement, "A good sex life being necessary to the health of a successful marriage, spouses shall not be prohibited from having sex." advocates unrestricted sexual license for any married person.

Newt Gingrich Pines for a Return to
the Good Old Days of '69...

When commenting on the recent events at Virginia Tech, former GOP House Speaker, Newt Gingrich seemed to suggest that the tragedy could have been avoided if more students and faculty had been armed.

Certainly student protests were more interesting and attention grabbing when the students were armed.

He Who Smelt It Delt It

When I was a kid, to fart in public was social suicide. Even if you smelled someone else's fart you had to pretend not to notice, because some kid in the group would inevitably start shouting, "He who smelt it delt it!" at the top of his lungs and point gleefully and vindictively at you. You could also be sure of two things: that the kid who shouted "He who smelt it delt it" the loudest was probably the one who farted in the first place, and that the kid would most likely grow up to be a Right-Wing Republican.

It appears that some adults have never lost the juvenile sense of self-satisfaction -- of reveling in their own farts -- while shouting at the top of their lungs, "He who smelt it delt it!"

If any person objects to the politization of an issue, such as the dismissal of Federal Prosecutors for political reasons, you can be sure that Right-Wing Republicans will accuse that person of attempting to politicize the issue.

If any person questions whether the current war policy is both in the national interest and adequately supports our troops abroad with the strength, equipment, mission and leadership that they need, that person will be accused by Right-Wing Republicans of not supporting our troops.

If any person objects to the fact that the economic policies of the current administration are unfairly biased in favor of the wealthy and are leading to a growing gap between rich and poor in this country, that person will be acccused of attempting to wage class warfare.

If any person objects that certain administration polices undermine basic civil rights that are clearly protected by the Constitution of the United States and represent principles on which this country was founded, that person will be accused of being unpatriotic.

If any person objects to a certain policy (torture) based on the belief that it is amoral, that person will be accused of having no moral values.

In fact, you can be pretty sure these days that anything a Right-Wing Republican might accuse you of doing, is something they are already doing themselves. Like those kids we grew up with, they who delt it will likely accuse someone else and if they can successfully force the blame elsewhere, they will consider it a virtue and an acheivement to be proud of.

If the tired argument "Guns don't kill people, people do" is to be accepted, then there can be no objection to making contraceptives easily accessible. "Condoms don't have sex, people do."