Saturday, April 28, 2007
Outrage
I can only say it so simply. This is outrageous, and has outraged me. Our country is a bunch of sissies and this is exactly the kind of 1st Amendment protection America is supposed to be about. Read this link about a high school senior who has been punished for following the rules and writing something honest. I am not defending his content or timing, but I will defend his rights. The shooting at Virgina Tech is a tragedy and we must do what we can to prevent such tragedies in the future, but not by sacrificing our rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yes, disturbing to say the least. The authorities charged the kid with Disorderly Conduct which is the charge usually used for things like prank calling 911 or pulling a fire alarm, etc. The authorities are claiming disorderly conduct "can apply when someone's writings disturb an individual."
This is patently ridiculous. Words written on paper and handed to an individual can't be disorderly conduct just because they're disturbing. They have to actually be threatening. These words for for a creative writing assignment - that means they weren't threatening anyone.
Greenstigator said: The shooting at Virgina Tech is a tragedy and we must do what we can to prevent such tragedies in the future, but not by sacrificing our rights.
That's right. And that includes our 2nd Amendment rights, too, right?
I think the 2nd Amendment is an incredibly useful and controversial piece of legislation. And it is hypocritical by nature. It needs to be revised. For instance, I cannot have an atomic bomb, an ICBM, biological weapons, or a truck full of cow manure and no farm to fertilize, but I can have a gun. So who draws the line? We do. And I think the line needs to be redrawn to make people safer. What say you?
How did we end up talking about WMD's?
I don't see a natural progression from guns to ICBM's. First of all, it's a specious, reductio ad absurdum argument, i.e. the 2nd Amendment allows "arms", atom bombs are "arms," we don't want people having those, ergo, the 2nd Amendment is folly.
Second, if we allow the progression forward from guns to ICBM's because of their nature as "arms", we must then allow a similar, but contrary, regression. The government could then define arms as, and restrict the use of, knives, swords, baseball bats, pool cues, rat poison, screwdrivers, pry bars, even automobiles.
Guns provide a moral check on government tyranny and a means for self defense from criminals. WMD's do not. I can't defend my house with a WMD. I'll destroy the bad guy, myself, my house, his house, your house, and half the city.
The Constitution provides a place for the government to mantain a military. It specifically says individual states and persons may not. WMD's are strictly military weaponry. Guns are not.
The Constitution already draws all the lines we need.
Travis, I'm curious, when was the last time anyone successfully defended themselves from the government with a gun? I'm not being facetious here, I'm just dubious as to the defensive value of semiautomatic arms when the government has a monopoly on everything better than that.
Travis, I'm curious, when was the last time anyone successfully defended themselves from the government with a gun?
July 4th, 1776
Bunch o' farmers and property owners fought, and defeated, a vastly larger government with a much more powerful military that considered itself sovreign.
But this isn't the point. The point is that what does a just and righteous government have to fear from an armed citizenry? Nothing.
A tyrranical government, on the other hand, has everything to fear from an armed public, and set about systematically disarming it so as to make it easier to control.
In response to Trav.is remakr; "But this isn't the point. The point is that what does a just and righteous government have to fear from an armed citizenry? Nothing."
The answer isn't about a righteous government having to fear from an armed citizenry, it's the citizenry having to fear itself. Or rather fear the crazies within itself having guns.
But I'm not going to argue this point, because I agree with both sides AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!
What we need is not guns, or gun control, or any of that crap, it's a better system without the chance for tyranical government, without greedy a-holes who want to buy the last trees in the country to CUT THEM DOWN, or without people so screwed up inside that they can't even turn to the readily available help offered in every community.
The problem isn't societies guns, it's societies ails.
Post a Comment