Drunk Blogging the Second Amendment

UH. OH. Alger’s got into the Jim Beam on a Friday night. Let’s see if he can pull this off without embarrassing hisself. And whether he can tell if he’s gonna. Embarrass hisself, that is.

Caleb had a thing. I lost the link ’cause I opened my own blog link in the window. But you know Caleb. He’s the hope of tomorrow — the member of the younger generation what’s gott his shit together. Knows his stuff. Understands American ideals and morality. And knows his Battlestar Galactica, too, I might add. So you know who I mean, and you can find his blog at Gun Nuts dot whatsis on your own without my help, ’cause I’m too sloppy to fumble-finger a copy-link., Thing.

What Caleb mentioned was that some idiot in Indy has hired some police official from Back East aways. (Well, THERE’s your problem!) And the guy is sayin’ “The thing is, there’s too many guns on the street.” Yeah, right. I see guns all over the place. Riding Razors down the sidewalk in rush hour. Skateboarding across Fountain Square — grinding along the benches on Fifth Street. WAY too many guns on the street.

Farglin’ idiot. Not me, the guy who talked that smack about too many guns.

Anyway.

Meanwhile, back at the oasis, New Jovian Fumblebolt has this article ’bout what’s a reasonable gun law. Same problem linkin’ to him as Caleb. But you guys all know NJT, so don’t give me grief if you can’t find this.

Here’smy thing: there’s no such thing as a reasonable gun law. A “compelling public interest” that limits an individual right is… no that’s not right … OUGHTTA be an anath… anesthet… ::urp:: anathema to a free people. That’s people collective, not people… er… whatever the else is. I mean wha’ tha’ fock! How can there be a compelling public innerest? What is that, annyway? Ya dig? All it is is … is … a frigging excuse for those statist bastards to infringe on your rights! (Man.)

The Second Amendment to the Constipation says, “the right of the people and so-on and so-forth SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” It doesn’t say, “except when the government thinks it’s not reasonable to let this stand unmolested.” I mean: FUCK! That doesn’t sound reasonable to me at ALL! It’s about as UNreasonable as you can get. An’ … since laws can’t contradick the COnsitooshun, there’s not such thing as a reasonable (that’s sarcasm, for those of you who flunked poetics in English class) limit on the law.

An’, yes, Dolly, before you say it, that includes the concept of “prohibited” persons. JESUS aitch Kee-RISTE on a friggin Ritz cracker. THe first think the futterin’ government does is go and infringe a right. And all of you go along with it! “Totally reasonable,” you say.

Why?

A felon is either in-custody, or he is not. If it he’s in, he’s not allowed any rights, and thus the problem of weapons is theereticully moot. But once he’s out, he’s (in theery), paid his debt to society. He is no longer a felon. And, under our prespos… er… pre-supposition… er, presUMPtion of innocents, can’t be one until he’s convicted of another =crime. Saying he MIGHT commit a crime because he already has amounts t’ prior restraint. Or weak sentencing guidlines, one… I mean, if a guy’s sentence doesn’t cure him, you haven’t sentencd him to long enough and maybe next time you should learn your frigging lesson. But that doesn’t mean you get to build this whole edifice directed at ‘fringin’ MY rights to keep him from exercisin’ HIS, when whatever.

Now, if rights are totally unreasonable, what about when they come into conflict with one another. Like: my right to keep and bear arms conflicts with your… Wait! YOur what?

How about the right to free speech versus the right of free association?

No conflict. You don’t associate with me, you don’t have to listen to my speech.

So what’s reasonable about infringing on people’s rights? It isn’t, I say. Who’s with me?

::faceplant on bar:: ::snore::

Dolly update: As y’c’n see, Alger did manage to embarrass himself. So, while he sleeps that off, let me try to clean up after him just a bit. Caleb’s item about the new whosis of whatsis in Indy is here. New Jovian Thunderbolt’s article (as Tam says) dissecting — scorn quotes — “reasonable” gun laws is here. I apologize on Alger’s behalf for his calling NJT Newe Jovian Fumblebolt. In his inebriation, I’m sure he thought it was a clever pun, and meant no disrespect. If that’s not it, by the time Alger appears in public, I will ensure he says it is. I’d like to disclaim that the views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the staff, management, or owners of BTB, but you-all know that’s a crock. Thing is, I pretty much agree with what Alger was trying to write, even if he did it so poorly. I hope this is a lesson to him.

Luvya! L8R

–Da Doll

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *