Tough Answers
Now, I didn't start this blog to preach. But as my post on the shootings was my most highly discussed, I thought this one mhttp://www.livejournal.com/update.bml
Update Journalight be OK; and new information has come to my attention:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070508/NEWS0201/705080371/1010/NEWS02
For those of you who don't want to click on a link, here's a quote:
"I really feel if any of those students or professors had handguns on them, they could have stopped a lot of people from dying," said Scarborough, a former grounds manager at a condominium complex.
I have been thinking about the Second Amendment lately. Let's take a look:
"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."
I have heard it said that this only entitles people to bear arms for the purposes of keeping the British out, which is no longer terribly relevant. This, unfortunately, is baloney. While it does give a rationalization, the beginning of the amendment is more or less irrelevant. The relevant bit starts with "The right of the people". As I read it, the rationale doesn't really matter. It could read "So that all the states will agree to ratify the constitution, the right of the people..." and it would mean the same thing. And so, here you go, NRA: In my opinion, yes, you are right, the United States Constitution does indeed guarantee you the right to own guns and carry them.
But wait a minute. It doesn't say guns. The guys who wrote this thing were smart; they knew we might come up with new kinds of arms to bear. And, especially in the last century, boy have we ever; fortunately, the language of the amendments guarantees our right to these as well. And thus, I have come to a decision.
I have decided to buy a nuclear weapon, as per my constitutional rights.
I will show those dang hippies who think guns are enough to protect you. Sure, handguns help when you're being assaulted, but I have seen enough TV to know that they don't really kill anyone. At least, not for good. But if I point my nuclear warhead at someone, man, you better not mess with me.
OK, so I'm not really trying to buy a nuke; I just want to point out that I have the right to, if I want. Which, maybe, suggests that at least SOME part of the Second Amendment... needs to change. I hope I don't need to point out that this has been the case with other parts of the Constitution in the past. Which is why we have (IRONY ALERT) amendments.
On an unrelated note, another thing has been bothering me. Please respond to this and tell me how you know your answer, because I've gotten different ones from different people. Which of the following sentences are grammatically correct?
Jack and Emily are equally tall.
Jack and Emily are equally as tall.
Jack is tall and Emily is equally tall.
Jack is tall and Emily is equally as tall.
Thanks. My next post should be about, you know, Greece. Or Turkey. Sorry for the diatribe.
Update Journalight be OK; and new information has come to my attention:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070508/NEWS0201/705080371/1010/NEWS02
For those of you who don't want to click on a link, here's a quote:
"I really feel if any of those students or professors had handguns on them, they could have stopped a lot of people from dying," said Scarborough, a former grounds manager at a condominium complex.
I have been thinking about the Second Amendment lately. Let's take a look:
"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."
I have heard it said that this only entitles people to bear arms for the purposes of keeping the British out, which is no longer terribly relevant. This, unfortunately, is baloney. While it does give a rationalization, the beginning of the amendment is more or less irrelevant. The relevant bit starts with "The right of the people". As I read it, the rationale doesn't really matter. It could read "So that all the states will agree to ratify the constitution, the right of the people..." and it would mean the same thing. And so, here you go, NRA: In my opinion, yes, you are right, the United States Constitution does indeed guarantee you the right to own guns and carry them.
But wait a minute. It doesn't say guns. The guys who wrote this thing were smart; they knew we might come up with new kinds of arms to bear. And, especially in the last century, boy have we ever; fortunately, the language of the amendments guarantees our right to these as well. And thus, I have come to a decision.
I have decided to buy a nuclear weapon, as per my constitutional rights.
I will show those dang hippies who think guns are enough to protect you. Sure, handguns help when you're being assaulted, but I have seen enough TV to know that they don't really kill anyone. At least, not for good. But if I point my nuclear warhead at someone, man, you better not mess with me.
OK, so I'm not really trying to buy a nuke; I just want to point out that I have the right to, if I want. Which, maybe, suggests that at least SOME part of the Second Amendment... needs to change. I hope I don't need to point out that this has been the case with other parts of the Constitution in the past. Which is why we have (IRONY ALERT) amendments.
On an unrelated note, another thing has been bothering me. Please respond to this and tell me how you know your answer, because I've gotten different ones from different people. Which of the following sentences are grammatically correct?
Jack and Emily are equally tall.
Jack and Emily are equally as tall.
Jack is tall and Emily is equally tall.
Jack is tall and Emily is equally as tall.
Thanks. My next post should be about, you know, Greece. Or Turkey. Sorry for the diatribe.