Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
My own attitude about gun rights is pretty much echoed, word-for-word, here:
To maintain that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right, one has to assume that the Founders, in writing a Bill of Rights meant to safeguard individuals from government power, used “the people” in the Second Amendment to mean government power — state militias — and exclude individuals, yet they meant “the people” to mean individuals in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments — as well as the Tenth, which specifically distinguishes between “the states” and “the people.”
The editorial continues with another great point…
True also, the awkward wording of the Second Amendment has confused a great many: “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.” Some read the opening clause as restricting the scope of the rest of the sentence. But consider a similar sentence: “Because a well-fed army is necessary, the right of the people to grow and eat crops shall not be infringed.” It would be silly to read that sentence as meaning only the army can grow and eat crops, or that all crops must be turned over to the army for consumption.
I would add, further, that this has always seemed obvious to me. I never did turn into an argumentative little butthole about it until sometime…can’t remember when, between the sixth and ninth grades. Up until then I had agreed with that “opening clause” fiasco; it does seem to introduce ambiguity. But at that point I had come to realize this five-word juxtaposition “the right of the people” resolves any such ambiguity. Completely. It’s preposterous to try to argue any such ambiguity remains. Not only that, but those five words, to me, seem to be designed to resolve that ambiguity.
“Hey you guys, in a couple hundred years they might think ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ has something to do with the right of …I dunno, some state government, maybe the feds. We’d better get specific and say the right of the people so nobody gets confused about it, whaddya say?”
“Hey Tom, that’s a great idea. Wish I’d thought of it.” “Gosh I dunno…can’t some things be assumed?” “Well, you never can be too careful, let’s go ahead and put it in. If it’s needed later, great, if not, no big loss.” “I guess you’re right.”
So fast-forward to today…and whether some folks like it or not, it says “right of the people.” That is what it says.
I’ll stop now, since I’m reduced to just editorializing about whether or not something says what it plainly says, which is silly. But don’t worry. Crazy as it demonstrably is, someone is still going to find a way to disagree.
Might as well argue with the sun coming up.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.