Osama bin Laden's latest message. Most observers, including the White House, seem to have missed its significance. In it, bin Laden offered us a truce (an offer we should have accepted, if only to attempt to seize the moral high ground). The Koran requires Muslims to offer such a truce before they attack. The fact that bin Laden himself made the offer, after a long silence, suggests al-Qaeda attaches high importance to it.Time to buy the gun?
Why? My guess is because they plan a major new attack in the U.S. soon. I would be surprised if the plan were for something smaller than 9/11, because that could send the message that al-Qaeda's capabilities had diminished. Could this be "the big one," the suitcase nuke that most counterterrorism experts expect somewhere, sometime? That would certainly justify, perhaps require, a truce offer from Osama himself. Of course, al-Qaeda's plan may fail, and it may be for an action less powerful than setting off a nuke on American soil. But the fact that Osama made a truce offer should have set off alarm bells in Washington. So far, from what I can see, it hasn't.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Lovely!
Sarcasm, that. Wolcott turns me onto AntiWar.com and a look by William Lind at what Americans have yet to focus on, fat and sleepy culture that we are:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Most definitely, my man. Better do so soon before the Dems take over and take away your right to do so (like they did in our home state). Then, apply for that carry permit before they cancel that too!
(as an aside, I am mystified by the Dems on that issue. It occurred to me recently that Dems think abortion is a constitionally protected right and bearing a firearm isn't. Yet, there is no Abortion Clause in the Constitution (or a privacy right in general) but there is a Second Amendment. Talk about judicial activism - ignoring an entire Amendment and inserting a right where none exists. All to the benefit of your base, of course. And you say the GOP politicized the Court. Tell you what Dems - acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment exists as it is written (with "RIGHT to bear arms"), and I will acknowledge the "right to privacy" even though it isn't written. Deal?)
Still, G, I would get that gun sooner rather than later. Think Kaine is going to make it easier?
agreed, no "right to privacy" in the constitution... of course one runs the risk of appearing to favor no right to privacy when they conclude that...
but yo, naahmy, u skip over that part in the 2nd amendment re: "a well regulated militia" or are we reverting to our par-for-the-course right-wing intellectual dishonesty... ?
Ah, that old, hoary argument. The well-regulated militia was the reason the Original Dads thought the right was necessary. It is not a precondition for that right. Think about it. In order to have a militia back then, you needed able bodied men WITH GUNS. Thus, if you prevented them from having guns in the first place, there could be no militia, unless the Feds created, or forced the states to create, armories for their militias (which, as we see from reading the Constititution, they did not do).
Now, do you have to be a member of the militia? Well, that seems plausible, and guess what? You are. Check the state statutes - all able bodied men are members, whether they know it or not.
Now, by that logic, does that mean that chicks can't have guns?
hmmm... sounds like you're not one for "original intent" then... geez, naahmy, i couldn't be getting more mixed signals from you than if you *were* a chick...
speaking of which...
Goes to statutory construction, and the ability to conform the Const to today's world. Fact is, you look first at the plain language, and if that is not ambiguous, the inquiry ends there. I do not see much ambiguity in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be abridged."
Where you might see the militia argument raised is in the limitations placed on "keeping and bearing." In most states, you can keep and bear on your own property all you want. You just cannot go out with your gun unless you are on milita duty, and that is a farce since the state laws drafting you (and me) into the milita provide for unarmed service, and some states are outlawing militias that are not state-organized (which raises a whole new slew of const issues on freedom of association, speech and peaceable assembly). Mass so regulates it that you must get police permission to own ANY firearm and keep it on your property, and forget about getting permission for a handgun - that takes an act of God.
But, as for your assertion that I am not into original intent, I think that I am. Lok at the times - back then, colonials needed their trusty muskets for all manner of needs, and also for the militia. Also, look at our historical writings. The Original Dads did see the need for a populace to be able to throw off an oppressive federal regime, including by force if necessary. This required that citizens could go "to up and to arms" as Longfellow put it.
"Fear the government that fears your guns."
hmmm "oppressive federal regime"... have one in mind... ?
whooooooo coulditbeeee... ?
could it be... SATAN... ???
Red Satan or Blue, doesn't matter.
Post a Comment