Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
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 an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Frequent commenter here, recently upgraded to fellow-blogger, Cylarz takes to the Calguns.net site to ask an important question, what with this perfect storm going on: The Sandy Hook tragedy recently passed, pressure on to keep things pleasant for the holidays, and anti-gun kooks all over the place using their favorite straw man fallacy. How does one deal with:
“Oh, okay. So does that mean the Second Amendment guarantees my right to a bazooka then? Can I mount artillery on my pickup? Do you really think we have an unfettered right to tanks, jet fighters, and battleships as private citizens?”
I’ve already settled somewhat into my “favorite” ways of dealing with this. One, I absolutely agree with the government’s right to interfere with such things if the artillery, tanks, jet fighters or battleships are stolen. Otherwise, as is the case with all other things, with no laws being broken they can jolly well go back to learning how to live within a budget like the rest of us. Two, in my case I’ve worked closely with the government to implement such restrictions, in the form of security controls on a large network…implementation is important, especially where safety is concerned. No, we don’t want our safety, or that of our kids, to be dependent on such a thing. Devil’s in the details. Three, hard cases make bad law. And four — what other rights can we give up, should we try and find some, to make ourselves more safer? If I can find some statistics that say crime comes disproportionately from single-parent households, maybe we can have the government force single mothers to give up their kids for adoption, or get married within a year?
Four is a good number, but I don’t consider myself well-equipped for such a boxing-in, which does seem to be commonplace right about now. Also, while I am most partial to #4, it has perhaps the lowest potential out of all of them for keeping things civil, since it (deliberately) places a burden on a participant who is in all likelihood unprepared for it.
We can always use more tools.
The simplest is usually the best. “Hmmmmm…artillery on the pickup, a privately owned battleship…when and where did that happen, exactly?”
I particularly liked this one, comment #5.
I typically respond with “If that’s the case the 1st Amendment only applies to quill and ink, printing presses, and town criers.”
The commenter in #12 points to the Supreme Court cases of Heller and McDonald. “When the law is on your side, pound the law,” as the saying goes. Following the McDonald vs. City of Chicago case brings us to one of thirty-three Amici Curiae, submitted by Sens. Hutchinson and Tester and others, which makes several points, including…
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. Section 5 of that same Amendment provides that “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” This Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s basic guarantee in Section 1 to prevent the individual States from infringing many of the guarantees of liberty found in the Bill of Rights. It is clear from the nature of the right to keep and bear arms and the history of the Fourteenth Amendment that this right likewise applies against the States.
Devil’s Advocate, though: What about the situation in the title of this post? You can go ahead and buy a nuke? Doesn’t government have a role to step in and stop this?
Well, apart from the observation that such a vision is invalid because it relies on untruth, it can lead to lawlessness itself. I was thinking about that fan-made Superman movie from about a year ago, and one thing that impressed me about it — aside from Clark Kent’s new girlfriend being unbelievably annoying — was that I ended up rooting for little “Alex” Luthor. Pay attention to the plot, now…he wants Superman to tell him where the land deeds are, that his father willed to him. Superman refuses because he knows that once this younger Luthor has access to the land that is lawfully his, in every way, the punk kid’s gonna, gasp, build some nuclear power plants there. So we have this evil Superman conspiring to ruin the world by depriving us of the energy we need to go about living our lives, thereby driving up the cost of oil and gas. Boo, hiss. Go Alex Luthor!
The point to be made here is, the vision has been lost somewhat between following the Constitution, and arriving at a good outcome. We imagine a conflict to exist where it doesn’t, necessarily…of course, perhaps it’s just shorter and quicker to connect this “stop him from buying a nuke” reasoning to the invasion of Iraq. Interesting, I think, how some on the left become enthused fans of local sovereignty all of a sudden, when we stop talking about U.S. citizens’ rights, and start talking about foreign nations. Presto change-o, we’re paralyzed from doing anything about Saddam Hussein acquiring a nuke, until such time as it is absolutely proven he was trying to buy Uranium from Africa. And, in response to the obvious question of “can we proceed with the discussion based on the premise that he was, and examine part relevant to our discussion, which is the government’s prerogative to control and restrict the private acquisition of such materials?” — of course that’s an emphatic negative. Prove Saddam was trying to get this stuff or we have nothing to talk about there.
I’m not sure how & why it works differently for our country’s citizens. But, at this point, I have to admit my interest in forming the perfect counter-argument, diminishes somewhat. If the above counterpoints remain unaddressed and the opponent still wants to kick up dust and play the “Can I buy a Howitzer?” game, at this point I’m more inclined to turn Cheesecake Nazi myself. Conversation’s running out of steam. Probably never had any.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.