The thought occurred to me when responding to a post on another
blog in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings. The comment was “your well regulated militia
just shot up another school”. After all,
isn’t getting rid of rights the logical argument in favor of preserving and
promulgating the general welfare? My
thought was that my off-hand sarcastic remark really needed more intellectual
scrutiny than time and space allowed at the time.
The First Amendment
Religion: Given the
large number of wars and other violent acts attributable to disagreements in
faith and creed. Wouldn’t we all be
better off if we were all good Protestants? Think about it, we could all go to church
together and sing hymns, pray, and commune together, which would be so much
easier when we all believe exactly the same things.
Speech: Why should
you be able to shoot your mouth off and foster dissent and dissatisfaction? What good does your freedom of speech do me? Or us? How are we better off for your right to
bad-mouth our president and undocumented immigrants? Think!
We could end congressional gridlock a heartbeat after they are all required to
embrace and utter the same words.
Assembly: Just think
about it… we won’t have another riot, no more looting, lynching, or malcontents
camping in our public spaces. No more union thugs beating up reporters.
Redress: The government will only and always act in the best interests of the people and their general welfare… what is there to redress?
The Second Amendment
Won’t the world be a much better place without guns? No more shootings, no gun crime. We don’t need personal arms or even a
militia. We have the government to
protect us with its Army, Navy, and Police SWAT teams. Isn’t it obvious? Isn’t it wonderful?
The Third Amendment
Quartering: Just
think about it for a second. What’s
safer than having a soldier billeted in your home? You won’t need guns when you have your very
own soldier. The 21 billion dollars
saved in military housing costs can be used to sponsor a government program to
fund birth control and abortions for your daughters.
See? No risk at all having troops billeted in your home.
The Fourth Amendment
Search and Seizure:
Face it; the only people who think searches are unreasonable are people
with something to hide. We’d all be a
lot safer if we were frisked now and then.
As far as seizure of property goes, isn’t it obvious? You didn’t make it or build it; you wouldn’t
have it if it weren’t for government.
How can the government seize what it already rightfully owns?
The Fifth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment
Trial by Jury:
Really? Don’t we all know that
James Holmes of Aurora is guilty? What is the
point of a trial? What reason lies behind
this charade where we call him the suspect and the accused? Do you think the cops go around
arresting innocent people? If you are
doing questionable things, shouldn't you be responsible for proving your
innocence? Why burden the rest of us
with the costs of defending you?
The Seventh Amendment
Civil Trial by Jury:
You seriously think 12 people chosen at random are qualified to
judge? Hell! We can’t agree on who
should win American Idol let alone the effect of the release of
Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyl’s into the environment. 12 chemists might be able to come to a
reasonable conclusion, but certainly not a jury of your peers. You’d all be better off if we simply
eliminated juries and let the judges decide.
The Eighth Amendment
Excessive Bail: Seriously, if you’re guilty until proven
innocent, why do you want these criminals wandering the streets before trial?
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Is there any punishment that is really too
cruel or too unusual for someone who guns down 20 six and seven year olds? Get real!
The Ninth Amendment
Non-enumerated
Rights: Bwah ha ha ha! You don’t have any. See commentary on the 10th below.
The Tenth Amendment
Powers reserved for the states or to the people: Well obviously, look around, that one must
have been repealed years ago. We just
missed it.
It Takes a Big Man to Admit He Made a Mistake
My first thought was that Obama ought to climb into Air Force One, fly to London, abjectly throw himself at the feet of Queen Elizabeth and grovel and beg for readmission into the Commonwealth of Nations, for obviously we made a serious mistake some two hundred years ago, with all this silly talk of rights and freedoms. What has it gotten us other than pain, suffering, and bloodshed?But then I thought, perhaps that wasn't going far enough, maybe we should just sign the entire nation over to the Chinese in exchange for 16 trillion dollars and dissolve the government. After all, perhaps the English are a bit too... shall we say, "liberal" for our tastes. The Chinese have, for all these years, demonstrated the effectiveness of a leftist government. There are alternatives, North Korea and Cuba pop to mind, but frankly, they just don't have the cash.
Wouldn't we all be better off safely ensconced in the loving arms of government, secure in the knowledge that we could live our lives without thought to consequences? No one would ever dare offend us or discriminate against us. We would get fed when we were hungry, medicine when we were sick, and when our time came... we would die patriotically without costing our friends and neighbors too much money.
Dripping With Sarcasm
This post is dedicated to those people that say things like "your militia just shot up another school", "the pro pollution crowd will be disappointed", "One failed attempt at a shoe bomb[ing], and we all take off our shoes at the airport".They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
SHEEP
You gave up the Fourth when some nut job tried to set his underwear on fire.You've called for giving up the First in the name of political correctness and hate speech.
You're willing to give up the Second now!
Why not just go whole hog and give it all up, I'm sure you'll sleep better at night.
The shearings will commence April 15th...get in the barn.
53 comments:
It is a vicious circle, my friend. We needed a government because we couldn't be trusted to govern ourselves. So, the Founders gave us a constitution that provided that we must goveern the government because they can't be trusted to govern us well.
We have devolved into a crisis-management nation. Crisis management is never a successful mode to be stuck in.
You're a loon. Glenn Beck much?
Of only ONE thing could we be absolutely, positively and irrevocably certain:
Every one who is not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant -- or slavishly devoted to the emulation thereof -- should be taken out and shot.
THEN and ONLY then we could have a decent world where the freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution conceived, crafted and executed by our White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Founders be permitted, because they would then free of the abuses heaped upon them by the fractious, divisive, hopelessly anomalous elements who have succeeded in destroying the very ideas of liberty and self-determination.
That IS what you really had in mind when writing this post, isn't it?
};-)>
My first thought was that Obama ought to climb into Air Force One, fly to London, abjectly throw himself at the feet of Queen Elizabeth and grovel and beg for readmission into the Commonwealth of Nations
------
No, but we could reflect that Britain does manage without a written constitution.
Every one who is not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant -- or slavishly devoted to the emulation thereof -- should be taken out and shot.
------
Ah, proving how cultured you are, FT?
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Finntann. This entire Bill of Rights experiment has gone awry, and we need to wash our hands of the stink it has created on our society.
I dunno, a lot of time has passed since we deposed good ol' King George III, do you think the Brits are still holding a grudge, and may not take us back?
Silver's right, guys. There are no limits on any rights. A lunatic can live in a house full of guns and there's nothing we can do about it. God bless our great nation of Somalia!
JMJ
Ducky: No, but we could reflect that Britain does manage without a written constitution.
Which is what led to the Revolution since there was nothing to prevent King George and Parliament from treating his colonists differently than the rest of his subjects.
Failing to abide and uphold the one we have now will inevitably lead to the next.
Canardo -- like every leftist I've ever run across -- proves himself once again to be burdened by an enormous deficiency when it comes to humor.
Doubtless, he would have taken Jonathan Swift's modest proposal that the poor relieve their dietary deficiencies by eating their young literally.
Morbid preoccupation with the expression of pseudo-righteous wrath and ersatz outrage as a means of gaining Power and Control are what leftists -- and zealots and fanatics of ALL stripes -- are about.
The fervent desire ever to seek and find something to DERIDE, DENOUNCE and DESTROY is characteristic of ALL zealots and would-be despots be they religious, ethnic or ideological.
Fanatical idealists and fire-breathing "reformers" are the most dangerous people in the world.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms” —“prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
Any guesses?
Freethinker, your satire is ineffective because you venture too close to the truth. You have expressed sympathy for the idea previously so it is not possible to say your post is a lampoon of the founding oligarchs.
I suggest you visit the blog of Hauptscharführer Fredd and read his enlightened post on "speds". If you don't learn to write satire we'll begin to assume you belong in that company.
@viburnum --- Which is what led to the Revolution since there was nothing to prevent King George and Parliament from treating his colonists differently than the rest of his subjects.
---
True enough if you don't consider the Revolution to also be a civil war.
But the Constitution doesn't prevent us from acting like Britain.
You only have to look at Haiti after the Revolutionary war. Without the ability to plunder Haiti's wealth (and the country was extremely wealthy) the French would not have been able to finance winning the American revolution.
So when Haiti gains its independence (without much outside aid, mind you) what did we do? We joined the French in shaking down that benighted country once again.
The oligarchs got their piece of the action and you got the right to strap on a Glock 10mm. to do your Christmas shopping.
Liberalman: What a well thought out, articulate, well composed, intelligent comment! How did you come up with such sophisticated language? I actually think it represents the true depth of your character and ability.
Steve: "...haters and bigots like you, to die off."
Let me see, now. If I read you correctly. You do not consider that to be a hate filled, bigotted remark. Am I right?
Finntann: That was a well writen piece of satire and sarcasm.
Well done.
Grung_e_Gene,
Was that a quote from Scalia?
We don't need to throw out the Constitution. No one is proposing to ban people from owning firearms. What we need are restrictions on who can own them and what kind.
We cannot tell a joke aloud in the airport or on an airplane about bombs, can we. Nor can we call someone and threaten to kill him or her, or post a threat to the life of the president, can we? We don't have unlimited free speech.
People who believe, as part of their religion, that they should be able to marry more than one woman or man cannot do so. Nor can religious people beat a child into submission as part of their religion, nor withhold medical intervention [at least in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and some other states] as part of their religious beliefs.
Those are all restrictions on religious freedoms.
The 2nd Amendment will survive with restrictions, just as religion and freedom of speech have.
@Gene
That's Antoinine Scalia and I don't think you'll find anyone here to disagree with it.
As usual liberals prove me right in my observations every single time.
"The 2nd Amendment will survive with restrictions, just as religion and freedom of speech have."
A dubious assertion since Christianity and Freedom of Expression for the past hundred years have been -- and remain -- under vigorous assault by leftists who most regrettably appear to be succeeding in their efforts to marginalize, undermine and hopefully someday emasculate then eradicate both.
"Freedom" works only ONE WAY for the left. Given the complete despotic control they ardently seek with fire-breathing intensity, there would be no room for any thought or cultural manifestation that did not bow, scrape and subjugate itself to Marxist-Leninist-Socialist-Atheist-Universalist Orthodoxy.
I believe Nietzsche once said something to the effect that nobility will perish from the world, because it's very nature makes it easily fall prey to insolent aggression.
[Maybe FJ would be kind enough to find the correct quote on nobility for us? He knows a great deal more about Nietzsche than I.]
At any rate, that bit about perishing nobility sure do seem to be a happenin' thing, don't it?
Our Constitution was written BY Civilized Men FOR Civilized Men. If it could be proved they had savages, barbarians, lunatics and born troublemakers in mind, I'd be astounded.
And now I'm NOT kidding.
~ FT
Meagan McArdle, a libertarian, discusses this issue at length:
There's little we can do to prevent another massacre
She concludes, and I agree, that only disarming the nation and hermetically sealing it off from guns will prevent further gun massacres. But first you've got to amend the constitution. Then, society must brace itself for an increase in poison gas, automobile, explosives, and knife attacks.
Another question, since Ducky likes posing questions for the class: Why did gun deaths not increase in those states that liberalized carry laws?
Sorry AOW I accidentally deleted the content of your last comment.
I would agree that toddlers and obviously disturbed individuals with manifest anti-social tendencies should not be left alone in a room with a loaded gun.
Aside from that I have always been -- and remain -- a devoted fan of Bernard Goetz.
I would LOVE to live in a world where anyone who accosts anyone -- on the street, in a public conveyance, in a bus or train station, in an airport, in a theater, a concert hall, an opera house, a store or a park with obvious malice, mischief or ill intent in mind could simply be BLOWN AWAY never to rise again. No questions asked. PERIOD! Just carry out the dead bodies and throw 'em on a bonfire.
And, as I said before, anyone who enters my house or tries to get into my car without my permission is a DEAD man.
We've been mollycoddling these sons-of-bitches in the names of Racism, Civil Rights, Oppressed Minorities, Substance Abuse, Child Abuse, Poverty, Inadequate Funding, ADD, ADHD, AUTISM, Mental Retardation, and Inadequate Parenting for so long we've lost the ability to demand "rights" for OURSELVES.
What we need is a congress full of WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMANS, GEORGE PATTONS and JOE ARPAIO'S and a president like WINSTON CHURCHILL.
~ FreeThinke
Of course the ULTIMATE good we might do is get together and agree to phase ourselves out of existence. Everyone should be forced to undergo mandatory sterilization. Disobedience would of course, be a capital offense.
All pregnancies would be aborted at the expense of the state.
And then all wed have to do is WAIT until our benighted species died off, and GAIA could at last be pure once again and free to live happily ever after.
We MUST face the truth: The Human Race is an Evolutionary Error -- a monstrous MISTAKE -- something that should never have been.
Surely voluntary sterilization would be preferable to death by Nuclear Holocaust -- or slow starvation and dehydration in the desert after we've destroyed all arable land, poisoned every source of water, and denuded the planet of all possible sources of energy?
FreeThinke, all restrictions on rights are dubious. That's the whole point. We live with tenuous, unfolding, and folding of the fine details of our rights every day.
In other words, we live in the society of human beings.
We should always keep a keen eye on restrictions of our rights, but we should never simplify arguments over rights. Rights are serious issues. They all have limitations, because none of them should be limitless, but they also have obvious merit to us all.
JMJ
Our inalienable, God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of joy and fulfillment are properly abridged by only ONE consideration, Jersey:
If our idea of pursuing "happiness" includes making others miserable or limiting their constitutional rights, then our wings have to be clipped for the good of society -- but only enough to stop whatever abuse we may be performing.
We have no right to harass, bully, deprive or persecute one another. In my view sadists, vandals, thieves, rapists, murderers and would-be tyrants deserve no protection whatsoever under the Bill of Rights.
If it were up to me they would be subject to summary execution if caught in the act.
~ FT
Great post.
Yes, let's actually rush headlong into libtardness. Do it now. None of this chipping away bit by bit crap so the dumbass libturds don't notice. Let's give them what they want Tomorrow! Then maybe we can make some progress.
Did you see where the unarmed UK has a crime rate for rape, burglary, robbery and home invasion that is off the scale?
Gee could it be the vermin know everyone is unarmed? Naw.. couldn't be.
Why did gun deaths not increase in those states that liberalized carry laws?
--------
Did they decrease?
Any good neutral source suggestion?
@Glenn Beck much?
How's never strike you?
Ducky: Go look at the FBI stats. In some cases crime did go down, but it's a mixed bag.
The important thing is that crime did not go up, as the screamers on the left predicted, you remember, all the talk of bloodbaths in the streets, wild west, etc...
@a house full of guns
Funny, that house didn't look that small. Latest count I heard was 6, and of those 6, two where collector items, a Springfield and an Enfield. One was a shotgun, two pistols, and the .223 Bushmaster.
And that's like saying a house full of screwdrivers: A Phillips, a flat-head, a torx, an allen, and two old wooden handled ones my grandfather left me.
Exaggerate much?
@Any guesses?
Viburnum is correct, Scalia.
And if I missed his deification ceremony, please let me know.
FT, as far as I know, there should not be such a thing as inalienability. It's like the old Catholic indulgences, buying your way up the stairway...
JMJ
Let me ask a couple of questions of our liberal friends here.
1. What do you think an assault rifle is?
2. What do you think the difference in lethality between say, the .223 Bushmaster used in the Connecticut shootings and say, any standard semi-automatic removable box magazine hunting rifle in the same caliber is? e.g Ruger Ranch Rifle.
Cause frankly, everyone running around with their hair on fire screaming assault rifle ban looks like an idiot. You may as well be screaming "ban scary looking weapons". Because functionally, there is little difference between them.
A .223 semiauto is a .223 semiauto, there may be minor variations of rate of fire from mfg to mfg (measured in the milliseconds), but no appreciable difference.
Magazine capacity limitations might make a tiny dent, but I can swap magazines and charge a weapon in under 2 seconds, and it's not a hard skill to master, especially if I don't care where the empty magazine goes.
The previous assualt weapon ban was:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following features:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
On the last assault weapon ban, this is what was determined in studies.
CDC: "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
National Research Council: "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."
Dept of Justice: effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes."
University of PA: no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders.
If you want to make a difference, be careful what you ask for.
I return to my original position that any gun control laws passed in an attempt to address this particular type of issue ought address storage, not sales requirements.
Cheers!
@there should not be such a thing as inalienability.
Jersey, once your rights become negotiable... they are no longer rights.
@1. What do you think an assault rifle is?
The country's loudest dog whistle.
To illustrate Finntann's point for those of you unfamiliar with firearms, the difference between these two weapons, except for capacity, are almost entirely cosmetic.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
As for capacity, banning large capacity magazines will gain you nothing other than the undying gratitude of machinists and sheet metal workers everywhere.
I can't help but giggle when I read the comments from the liberals, it's hard to reason with logic.
I absolutely agree with what you wrote and quite tempted to "snag it" and paste it on my Wall on Facebook.
I wonder how many times, liberalman has called us, "loons?" Hee....
Actually, there are two models of the Ranch Rifle with the same capacity as the M-14, which is 20.
Point is, the mechanicals between any two semi-automatic rifles are functionally equivalent.
Me, I'm a bolt-action man.
Believe it or not, the world record for bolt-action fire in the "Mad Minute" is held by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall who placed 38 shots on a 12 inch target at 300 yards in one minute using a Lee-Enfield with a ten round magazine. The expection for good rifleman was 30, you needed 15 to qualify.
Here is a video clip of a Scandinavian competition called the Stangskyting which has a 25 second time limit. The gun uses is a Sauer 200 STR with a 5 round magazine and is at the equivalent rate of fire as Sgt Snoxall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jsYpMzuArbc
Cheers!
I'm a bolt action girl....if anybody comes after me, I'm going to BOLT and hope someone else takes ACTION :0)
Z, I like my 30-30 Lever Action
And a One
And a Two
I've always found a lever action to be more disturbing to firing position than operating a bolt, but then again, I've never routinely or consistently shot a lever action.
Out here in the great wide open west, it's bolt hands down, although I'm sure if I was hunting pigs in heavy brush in the south I'd probably prefer a lever.
Cheers!
Finntann, I like that I can load the 30-30 while shooting. I also have an Enfield 303 bolt action that's been sporterized. I appreciate aspects of the bolt action too. Feet to fire, I like being able to load while shooting between the two.
Course, one could also go the AK "many round clip" route. I've just always liked the Winchester. And as they say, if you need more than 6 high power rifle bullets, you should probably move out of Kandahar.
Specifics unconnected to principles are like fingers unconnected to hands.
A bullet from ANY kind of gun can kill you.
"if you need more than 6 high power rifle bullets, you should probably move out of Kandahar."
Having been to Kandahar, I find that particularly funny...
Viburnum,
Sorry AOW I accidentally deleted the content of your last comment.
No worries.
Viburnum,
Please see my blog post yesterday for what I have to say about Adam Lanza.
FT,
Didn't Bernard Goetz get his ass sued off because one that he shot didn't die?
To be clear about my last comment....
I don't think that Goetz should have been sued at all!
I don't know really know a bolt from a hot rock...I thought my comment was kind of funny!? oops! :-)
Nothing oops about it Z, it was funny!
Bit by bit you're losing those rights one by one. Sadly some of you are even asking for them to be taken away. Too stupid and cowardly to realize the precious gift they are squandering and crapping on.
"No one would ever dare offend us or discriminate against us. We would get fed when we were hungry, medicine when we were sick, and when our time came... we would die patriotically without costing our friends and neighbors too much money."
That's how leftards really think, even if one of the above does happen, they never hear about it, so they don't care, happy in their obstinate stupidity and ignorance.
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
~ Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Post a Comment