"A well regulated indicia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Please forgive. An octopus has little need for law because it is hard for us to read, interpret, and understand the “shall nots” of living in a human society. We live as solitary creatures with little social skill. Yet, the language of the Second Amendment seems clear to me. If you intend to keep and bear arms (and I have at least 8 of these), you need to bring your well regulated indicia with you.
Perhaps well regulated indicia imprinted on tee-shirts will suffice (TAO, we should discuss licensing rights). Ones that read:
Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it! After all, these indicia are timestamps that let you know when you have expired.This armed robbery brought to you by Walmart.
This Post Office massacre is sponsored by UPS.
This gang killing is backed by Smith & Wesson.
… or …
This political assassination is a
public service message of Koch Industries.
Many thanks to Sheria who inspired this post. Any more t-shirt ideas?
AH but guns are just inanimate objects! Silly cephalopod, guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people! That's the argument I hear over and over again at least ...
ReplyDeleteI like your tee shirt ideas; you could sell them at family reunions across America!
ReplyDeleteSheria, perhaps there is a market at funerals too. We could set up a table next to Reverend Phelps and the Westboro people and give away free arm bands with every t-shirt.
ReplyDeleteFirst, a few questions. Would Walmart, UPS, Koch and company sue us for defamation or misuse of their corporate blah-blah or something? When the Empire strikes back, does the Millennium Falcon have any rights or recourse?
And where is TAO? We need real t-shirts, not virtual ones.
Already had my say about this with the Capt. He thinks I'm nuts.
ReplyDeletePolitics Plus had a similar post today. I posted a comment there.
Tom, our good Captain has sailed away for a week, so I am sneaking this post under cover. Of course, there will be hell to pay when he returns, but I got that covered. I'll offer him a percentage of royalties on all t-shirt sales.
ReplyDeleteAt that time, there was no Army, no money for weapons, or ammo. If the colonies needed to be defended, it would have to be the colonists. So they included a right to own guns, and they would have to bring them with them. to fight.
ReplyDeleteSo someone in the National Guard (other armed services) would be allowed to own a gun and bring it with them to fight.
Since we now pay taxes to supply our defense forces, I see no reason (according to the wording of the amendment) any one has a right to own a gun.
Founding fathers would have seen it as a given, that people would have guns to hunt, put food on the table, and protect themselves against hostiles (mainly Indians).
They did not write that into the amendment, although I’m sure they would agree that Americans should have the right to own a gun, and so do I.
Had the founding fathers a chance to see our society today, I doubt they would object to reasonable restrictions.
I think we should have stricter restrictions on guns.
Every right in the Constitution has restrictions.
You know, all this jot and tittle business, this literal interpretation of the Constitution, reminds me of how so many of the Patriot movement are also literalists on the Bible...all books, all verses, all at the same time. I keep hoping their heads will explode from the cognitive dissonance. Anachronism personified.
ReplyDeleteI want T-shirts!
"in·di·cia. pl.n. 1. Identifying marks; indications. 2. Markings on bulk mailings used as a substitute for stamps or cancellations." Sheria, what on earth did they mean by it?
My favorite bumper sticker from the 2008 election was of a more spiritual nature but certainly would make for a wonderful teeshirt.
ReplyDelete'Who would Jesus bomb?'
As for guns and ammo. Why not enforce the 2nd Amendment as written? Have all the guns, Stingers, grenade launchers, Glocks you want but if you do you're in the militia.
One weekend a month training in small arms handling, small unit tactics and crowd control.
Two weeks every other summer for extended training.
Deployment on the nations borders every couple of years for a few weeks service.
Availability for call up during national emergencies and disasters.
What 'real American' wouldn't leap at the opportunity to serve his/her country?
The NRA Protects A Potential Serial Killer
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not your Octopus spinning sensational, yellow journalism-type headlines. In the Daytona Beach area, there were a series of murders (3 possibly 4 women) wherein the victims were shot with the same kind of weapon. Law enforcement officials would like to examine the records of gun dealers where the murders took place, but the NRA is opposed to any records search. Specifically, officials are interested in gun purchases made in 2004 and 2005 to determine who may have bought the weapon.
However, the NRA is determined to let serial murderers and terrorists remain loose than cooperate with police investigations. IOW, no record searches.
The link (above) takes you to the story.
This is the kind of stuff that drives this liberal crazy. The Republicans would say I'm erroding their right to guns, if I allow such a search of records. Bullshit.
ReplyDeleteYour teeshirt slogans are an excellent idea, Octo. As Sheria said, they will be perfect for family reunions.
ReplyDeleteBut let's not stop there. I see a great potential for expansion in this venue. Say,
The All-American Family Shoot-out! Open every weekend in July and August. Wholesome family fun for armed people of all ages. BYOG, or we will provide ours for nominal fee. Prizes* for survivors!
May the best armed win!
*Some restrictions may apply. One prize per family. In a rare instance when more than one family survives, additional shoot-outs may be required. Don't waste ammo -- aim responsibly!
Sponsored by the American Gun Owners Family Council.
You know, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas is talking about relaxing its gun total ban in response to rising crime rates - just thought you might find it interesting. And why is it rising? Drugs, human smuggling - a desperate economy; not because the Widow Jones has a revolver under the pillow.
ReplyDeleteBut no, Tom, I don't think you're nuts, I used to agree with you and would cite the same fictional scenarios and pretend we're really in grave danger because a neighbor might just have a .38 special tucked away and was more likely to shoot me than a drug crazed burglar or some punks on the subway with sharpened screwdrivers.
In fact the only person who ever pointed a gun at me was a cop, but that's another story.
These days, I just file this in the same bin I file the arguments that the death penalty reduces murder and banning cannabis reduces violence and crime and Obama raised our taxes and the world will go Commonist if we lose in Vietnam and banning nail clippers on airplanes makes us safer and Fluoride in the water is poison and cutting Bill Gates' taxes creates jobs and boosts government revenues and driving at 55 "saves lives" and Vaccinations don't work. Just the same as banning explosives saved the Murrah Federal building and "just say no" eliminated every meth lab in America -- and all the other enthusiastically fatuous, extra-virgin, fact-free arguments that make a great, giggling game out of ignoring reality.
Believers believe and then make up reasons and print t-shirts. Not a damned thing I can do about it. No way I can put a cap on that blown out wellhead of oily talking points.
You know The UK banned handguns after some emotional incident in Scotland some years ago. Didn't seem to do a damned thing and really, how often does a teacher go bonkers and shoot the kids? Is there more risk in Scotland than being hit by a falling airplane blown up with a transistor radio?
Social and economic factors prevail. Having no functioning public mental health system, treating addictions with policemen; making things in high demand illegal and creating huge, wealthy powerful gangs thereby is what kills people, not the number of sharp or blunt objects or crossbows and yet violent crime in the US has been declining for nearly 30 years -- but believe what you will. It's still sort of a free country and there's no law against never learning.
Can't buy a gun in Juarez or Tijuana or anywhere else in Mexico! Another big success story for the banning brigade. You know, the town I used to live in banned the Bomb about ten years ago. I bet they sleep better now. They also banned hand guns and campaigned with signs asking how many people had to die even though in it's hundred year history, nobody had ever been shot there. All they needed was a few gospel singers and a tent -- a little glossolalia and of course some t-shirts, cause it's religion, not reason.
The All-American Family Shoot-out! Open every weekend in July and August. Wholesome family fun for armed people of all ages. BYOG, or we will provide ours for nominal fee. Prizes* for survivors! "
ReplyDeleteSomehow it should trouble someone that this of course is a political fabrication on the same scale as the stories about Obama being a Kenyan. It isn't happening. It doesn't really happen and that doesn't really seem to bother us and such hyperbole makes liberals a laughing stock -- people who live in fantasy land. It's the same kind of hyperbole that gave us prohibition and the war on drugs and costs us one election after another.
But hey - argumentum ad T-Shirtum is the American way, just like backwards hats and baggy shorts and eatin' burgers and talking baseball at the McDonalds in Samarkand or Xi'an. We don't change and we never leave the bubble.
Yes, in a country of over 300 million people we do get some of these post office shootouts. Tornadoes and lightning strikes and even sharks undo more lives than disgruntled workers and terrorists with box cutters kill thousands but Why look at the percentages, the actual risk? We get bombings galore and yes, explosives are more controlled than guns. Hell, you can't buy strike-anywhere matches in Chicago - I bet that cut the arson rate to zero, right?
If you want to have fun with this, go ahead. Everyone can high five - or eight - and feel all that fuzzy, fatuous comradeship which is what it's all about anyway.
And if you're all so afraid of your neighbors going insane and shooting you, perhaps a cabin in Montana would be a reasonable choice -- maybe -- I'm just sayin'.
Just don't tell me I can't take a gun when I go out in the Caribbean.
"However, the NRA is determined to let serial murderers and terrorists remain loose than cooperate with police investigations. IOW, no record searches."
ReplyDeleteYou know, that's no different than trying to smear all Liberals as Communists.
The NRA uses extremist statements to generate an atmosphere of danger and it does not speak for me. I doubt they speak for a majority of gun owners and I think they would speak for fewer if we give up using the same damned tactics, although in fact they don't actually oppose record searches and record searches aren't going to go away one way or another. They do indeed opposed selling to people with felony records, but their argument against "terrorist lists" is that such lists, like the infamous "no fly list" has more false information than fact and denies due process to those on it. Let's not make it worse than it is just because it makes a good bumper sticker or t-shirt.
My prints are on file with the FBI but if I wanted to buy a gun in this gun friendly state, the seller still has to call the sheriff. Yes, there are loopholes which I would like to see closed, but we can't pretend it's like buying a box of cracker jacks and besides, a cheap handgun can set you back $600 and you'll have to wait three days to get it -- just like Jesus.
But bank robbers and gangsters don't buy through legal channels in the first place, do they, so why aren't we talking about prosecuting criminals who trade illegally instead of fantasizing about our neighbors?
What the NRA does is to pump up fear and ammunition prices by using hyperbole and distortion and outright fabrication - which is sort of what's going on here, isn't it?
They do have a great many supporters who are not going to disappear by stereotyping them, or by making up funny stories which play into their hands and allow them to stereotype liberals as authoritarians who want to sell our freedom for an illusory safety.
Of course maybe y'all like losing elections. . .
Hoo boy, am I in deep doo-doo.
ReplyDeleteOcto,
ReplyDeleteQuick head for the oil spill, he'll never find you there.
Capt.
If I did't say it before; I believe Americans should have the right to own guns within reason and reasonable restrictions.
I just think the amendment written applies to the use and right, only within a militia.
I own a shotgun, a .38 special revolver, and a .25 automatic. I used to hunt. I don't anymore, not because of principle, but because of schedule and lifestyle.
I don't trust most people with guns. I have seen the idiot things they do with guns.
A person who shows up with a gun at a speech being given by the President (just because they can) or a town hall political meeting, is an idiot, with trailer trash manners.
Hoo boy, am I in deep doo-doo.
ReplyDeleteYep, Octo. You shoulda known better -- don't mess with our Captain. ;)
(Hop up on the tree, we'll all join you shortly.)
Tom, on several occasions in this forum, our good Captain enunciated reasons why he keeps guns at home. In the aftermath of the 2004 hurricane season, for instance, when there was no electricity or communication or police protection available, there were strangers in his neighborhood who threatened him and his wife. He was forced to stand his ground to protect life and property.
ReplyDeleteThat year, I lived about an hour north of the Captain and had similar experiences ... no working infrastructure and lots of strange people in the neighborhoods. Although I do not own a gun, neighbors looked after each other, and some of them were armed.
I do not question the Captain's reasons or motives. An octopus is known to be an impish creature that gets carried with himself and pushes mischief and satire a bit too far. I would never let an argument or misunderstanding get in the way of friendship.
I'm not treating the discussion as a personal thing, and if we as supposed liberals are to be a better class of people than the self styled conservatives, I think we need to be very much more honest with ourselves than we have been. If I argue heatedly, it's not from anger but frustration and a similar frustration to what I feel arguing with "the other side"
ReplyDeleteWe indulge in stereotyping in order to promote a prejudice without having to supply facts. We assign guilt by association. We indulge in what seems like casuistry, shady semantics, fictional passion plays and endless repetition of baseless assertions contrary to experience to support our pet ideas.
If the second amendment question hinges, as it does, on the exact meaning of the constitution, we must accept that the words "only" or exclusively" do not exist in the second amendment and so the "militia only" argument is as invalid as the false syllogism showing that I'm a dog because I have hair.
The argument from original intent has no weight or authority and if we intend to pursue that one, we have to be reminded that the Constitution intended participation - and indeed freedom - for white males only and full participation for a landed, educated elite. Can we feel superior to those who impute evangelical motives and see Christian expansionism in the constitution because Washington maintained a family pew?
And finally the slippery slope fallacy is still, if I need remind everyone, a fallacy when you use it to argue that if we allow gay marriage "they" will want to marry horses or if you use it to assert that being allowed guns as we always have we will inevitably all own weapons of mass destruction and will spontaneously go insane and murder our families.
These things and more are embarrassing to me as a liberal, not as a closet conservative. The totally unfounded and heavily debauched belief that banning things makes them go away or even reduces their number make us look like the moonbats the bad guys like to insist that we are. Do we really have to give them that one?
To me, the definition of liberalism is most firmly attached to expanding the rights of man, not restricting them. It's about limiting authority. To me being a free citizen includes the right to own weapons that a citizen may defend himself, provide food for himself, protect the chickens from foxes or simply to join in a popular international pastime and Olympic sport -- the right not to be limited by other peoples prejudices, phobias or passions.
Captain, I am sympathetic to your arguments and, personally, I am of two minds (what a surprise) on the issue.
ReplyDeleteYes, to some, perhaps large, degree, personal freedom is at stake in gun ownership. But I also see larger and more sinister issues at play here.
Violence is as American as apple pie, baseball, the myth of self-made man, and the country's grandiose, imperialist ambitions that use it as a means to their own ends. America without violence wouldn't be... America. Violence is our hobby and national pasttime. This is a country where it's easier for a kid to buy a gun than get decent education -- and it is so by design.
Gun violence is a method of population control in the US. The powers-that-be make sure that the least powerful and most dispossessed have an easy access to fast and deadly weapons, with which they can quickly resolve survival conflicts by eliminating their immediate competition (and thus thinning their own ranks). After all, this method is so much easier and "more humane" than imposing blockades on inner city ghettos and such; and it is certainly easier than working toward eliminating poverty and social inequalities, and thus, God forbid, changing the status quo that favors the ruling class.
Inferior and inadequate education, combined with insidious propaganda and the culture of consumerism which makes acquiring material goods, and the inescapable competition it creates, a default mode of existence, assure that the violence rampant among the have-nots will not get directed toward those who benefit the most from it.
And so the world turns. While we debate personal freedoms -- an important issue, for sure -- yet another inner city kid is mowed down. One less mouth to feed.
I'm certainly not going to apologize for my belief that America is already armed to the teeth and that adding more guns won't make us safer. Americans are adding new weapons to their personal arsenals at a remarkable rate (while violent crime rates continue to plummet) and each day brings new stories of peril Americans face requiring citizens to carry weapons as they go about their daily business.
ReplyDeleteSorry. That's b*******t and I won't apologize for saying so.
But don't worry. I don't want to take away anybodies gun. It's too late in the game for that. So rest easy out there in Americaland. Your rights are intact.
And all the benefits society gains from a heavily armed populace will continue.
The more guns we own the scaredier we get.
And for what it's worth it isn't easy to search the internees to find a contituency for man/animal marriage but five minutes of googling can turn up endless gunporn sights where 'Real Americans' fantasize about the weapons they one day would like to own.
ReplyDelete