Who Loves Ya, Baby?
Prostrate Thyself
Before Ye Ancient One
WWCE?
- Who Would Cthulhu Eat?
- The Calculus of Cthulhu Worship
- Feed Cthulhu for Money
- IT'S A LIE
- Looking for WMD's?
Toadies of Nyarlathotep
- Gen. JC Christian (Patriot)
- The Poor Man
- One Good Move
- Rising Hegemon
- Hairy Fish Nuts
- Ghaith's Articles
Mad Flautists of Azathoth
- The All Spin Zone
- The American Street
- Back to Iraq 3.0
- Current Events Monitor
- Daily Kos
- Discourse.net
- Drunken Monkey Style
- Empire Notes
- Eschaton
- Fafblog!
- The Freeway Blogger
- G. D. Frogsdong
- Heraldblog
- *Informed Comment*
- Iraq Dispatches
- Liberal Hyperbole
- Liberal Media Conspiracy
- Obsidian Wings
- Opinions You Should Have
- Patridiot Watch
- Republicans Anonymous
- Talking Points Memo
- Today in Iraq
- Trithermius
- Warblogging
- Washington Monthly
Brides of Yog-Sothoth
- Get Your War On
- Bushisms
- Download the Entire Internet
- A chat with Kim Jong-Il
- Too Stupid to be President
- Strongbad Email
- Dave Barry's Blog
- Dead Parrot Society
Spawn of Shub-Niggurath
- F R O N T L I N E
- Information Clearing House
- The Memory Hole
- Daily Show video archives
- Air America Radio
- Soldiers for the Truth
- Electoral Count
- 1000 Reasons to Dump Shrub
- Fact Checker
- Move On
- Google News
- Tech Support Comedy
- Urban Legends
The Cost of Conquest
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Archives
- 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
- 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
- 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
Gir roxors
Cthulhu: You are ZIM!!!
"Invader blood runs through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" Which Invader Zim character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
You are a GRAMMAR GOD!
Cthulhu, if your mission in life is not already to preserve the English tongue, it should be. Congratulations and thank you!
How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn ("In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."). --HP Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
The stars hath turned in the heavens once more: Mighty Cthulhu stirs. His dreams reacheth forth, communing with those with ears to hear. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! His thoughts trample down along the pathways of thy mind; thou knowest His footprints, each of which is a wound...
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
What Do You Mean by "Free"?, Part II
Welcome back to our informal review of the Bill of Rights. This is just a quick synopsis of the some of the historical background behind, and relevent interpretations of, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, collectively titled The Bill of Rights.
So let's get this ant-hill well and thoroughly kicked over:
Amendment II:
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.
Ah, the infamous "Right to Bear Arms". Well, the two sides of the argument on this Right are simple enough:
- Either the Founding Fathers were talking about the ability of States to create and maintain a militia, or
- The Founding Fathers wanted all Americans to be able to bear arms so that they might, among other things, contribute to the common defense.
I'll save myself some effort, and you some headaches, by referring you to a good, thorough analysis of the Second Amendment. But, in brief, here is a list of things to remember when discussing this controversy:
- Under the Articles of Confederation, the States were really little countries that printed their own money, made their own laws, collected their own taxes, and ran their own little armies (the state milita).
- The States were collectively leery of any large Federal army, having just witnessed first-hand the abuse possible under the boots of such an army (ie, The British Army).
- The fact that so many Americans posessed firearms meant that any State could whip up a militia to protect its borders in a jiffy.
- The Founding Fathers were a bunch of revolutionaries with anti-government feelings, and they weren't inclined to let a central government be so strong as to oppress The People: Letting The People have guns was a good reminder to any would-be dictator that The People had means other than the ballot and the protest to make known their political discontent.
So, does the Second Amendment exist to create a militia for defense of a state? Or does it exist to ensure that people can have guns, and that formation of a militia was just one possible reason for having those guns?
Annoyingly enough, the answer seems to be both. The Supreme Court has handed down some crucial interpretations:
- The existence of the National Guard in every state, commonwealth, and territory in the United States fulfills the definition of a "militia", such that any given state may forbid the existence of additional, private militias if they so choose.
- The Right to Bear Arms is an intrinsic part of our collective heritage, and the Founding Fathers' idea of "gun control" was mostly along the lines of "Hey! Watch where you point that thing!".
- That being said, the Supreme Court has left it up to the states to decide just how much they will or won't control access and posession to firearms.
Did you catch that last part? Because this is where the fun really begins.
An important thing to remember about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that they don't exist to tell you what you can do, but to tell the government what it can't do. To whit, the Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment exists to tell the Federal Government that it can't take away the right of an individual to own a firearm.
It doesn't say a lick about what the states can or can't do.
You: "So there's no way to enact a Federal ban on assault weapons?"
Great Cthulhu: "Don't be silly. You make the ban contingent upon voluntary compliance by the state governments. Then you tell the states that failure to adopt the ban will result in a cutting of Federal highway funds, but that voluntary adoption will result in bonus funds for the hiring of more local cops."
You: "I think that's unlikely."
Great Cthulhu: "How do you think Reagan got all 50 states to adopt a drinking age of 21?"
And now for the very best part: Since the Supreme Court has already dictated the means by which any form of gun control can take place, it's very unlikely that they'll even hear an appeal against such a law, let alone decide to reverse it. So a state may enact legislation banning the posession of any firearm (like CNMI), or they may enact a generous "open carry" law (like Arizona), and the entirety of any dispute must be won in the local state legislature. On the Federal end, any bill that "encouraged" states to "voluntarily" adopt a position must be decided in Congress, winner take all.
And that, Dear Readers, is why the fight for/against gun-control is so shrill.
(Next time: The Third Amendment. I promise that one will be short and sweet. How much time can you spend on the banning of forcibly quartering soldiers in private homes?)
