Can I be serious for just a moment? No? Well, all right then ....

1:28 pm, May 28, 2004

Not That I'm Pro-Gun, Let's Just Say I'm Pro-Constitutional Amendments (Except for that retarded 18th Amendment)

What is it you hear from all these peace-niks? All these anti-gun, Macgyver-wannabies? Whenever Charlton Heston says something asinine like, "I'm exercising one of the rights passed on down to me from those wise old dead white guys that invented this country. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me," people always have their stock argument en tow.

"We should look at how the Second Amendment was intended, not necessarily how it is worded."

Of course, if we took that argument and applied it to the First Amendment, things might be a little different.

While our forefathers didn't envision every man, woman, and child owning and using semi-automatic assault rifles, shooting up schools and taking out innocent bystanders in the ghettos; they also certainly didn't intend the burning of the American Flag or the flashing of a woman's G-String to be taken under the First Amendment's protection of the right of free speech. Nor did they wish for such foul or obscene language to be sprung forth on our nation's airwaves (if, they indeed did envision "airwaves"). Among other things, I believe that their intent for the First Amendment went so far as to say that one can speak his own mind regarding politics and the way our country is run without fear of reprisal from people in authority. Not to walk around saying, "Shit and Piss and Fuck You and Suck my dick." (Of course, I'm not saying I have anything wrong with any of this, but if Thomas Jefferson knew then what we know now, I'm sure he'd be appalled).

Now, people will want to argue semantics, and that's fine. Yes, saying, "Suck my dick," does not kill someone like, say, a bullet through the eye socket (or two dozen rapid-fire bullets in the matter of a few seconds). It doesn't matter. You either choose to believe what the intent was, or you choose to find as many loop holes as possible until the Bill of Rights adjusts with the parlance of our times.

The gun jockeys have made it their mission to use the Second Amendment as a shield ever since the word "Automatic" was used in association with their weapons of choice.

Likewise, the profane have used the First Amendment in a similar matter.

Just be happy you have a First Amendment with which to cry foul upon the Second. (And, a Second Amendment to shoot the fuck out of those God forsaken crybaby whiners!)

Almost as quickly as the boundaries of the Amendments have been stretched, politicians have been trying to strip the freedoms away. For every restriction the Republican government is guilty of placing upon our First Amendment rights, the Democrats are equally as guilty of restricting the rights of gun-owners in this country. Why is it, when a majority of the American population is capable of handling advancements in both free speech and weapons technology, there are still politicians kowtowing to a minority segment of the country who finds offense in one or the other?

Well, I think we know the answer to that. Protection of the children. Since when did the children of this country start running things? Last I heard, you needed to be of a certain age to run for public office.

I say, let us keep our guns, let us say whatever the fuck we want, and tell your children to stay in their fucking rooms until they're 18. Until that time, if you're so worried about the livelihoods of America's children, feel free to abolish all televisions and radios from your households and start investing in panic rooms. I hear that's all the rage with parents interested in over-protection.

2004-05-28 08:03 pm
have you been drinking again steve? ;) :*

2004-05-28 09:45 pm
Hey, I would NEVER let Prohibition stop me!