Tequila

Thank you to CapeTown and Boston for bringing up an issue so divisive that someone outside of the four of us was compelled to comment. I fully support it (bringing up abortion and gun control) but it seems kind of like a cheap shot. It's like wandering into an AA meeting with a bottle of Cuervo and shouting, "Who really believes that one shot is going to knock you off the wagon?!" Anyone who hears you is going to respond, one way or the other.

I heard you, and I’ll take a shot. I think that everyone who has contributed so far has dodged the key issue. I plan on doing the same, but only after I distract you by pointing out their mistake. It’s called banter; it distracts the audience.

“In terms of the ease with which one can acquire a gun, however, and the fire power of available weapons, the 2nd Amendment does not seem to be supportive in the case of a automatic weapon,” says CapeTown

“I believe that abortion should definitely be legal at least during the early stages (I think the current law is no regulation until after the first trimester), while as it gets later into the pregnancy the arguments become stronger for some kind of government regulation,” says Boston.

CapeTown suggests that he would like to ban automatic weapons, as opposed perhaps to muzzle-loaders, bolt-action, semi-automatic, etc. Boston wants abortion to be limited “later.”

To me, the real difficulty of governance is setting standards that one would apply to the masses. Some drivers would suggest that they could drive safely at 80, but that "those other idiots" are dangerous at 50. The hardest part of making decisions for a large population is deciding at what level you are willing to sacrifice your freedoms so that others will not have them.

So far, no one has addressed the real issue, of setting those limits. It may seem ridiculous to suggest that an organism is a fetus at day 209 and an unborn child at 211, but in reality it’s no more arbitrary than suggesting that you are driving safely at 64mph and recklessly at 66mph.

The key question is one of when. When does abortion become murder, and when is a weapon too powerful to be privately owned. So, CapeTown, Boston, and Andy D, answer the real questions at hand. Set the limits.

See what I did there? Banter.

A Militia by Any Other Name...

When pondering some of the hot button political issues of today -- gay marriage, abortion, voting, etc. -- I tend to side with those in favor of individual rights. It just seems logical, human, and American to allow for as many individual freedoms as possible; the burden should fall on the side of those who argue to limit our rights not those defending them. Why shouldn't two people in love be afforded the benefits of a legal and state recognized marriage? Why shouldn't it be left up to the pregnant woman to choose an abortion? Where I become a hypocrite, however, is with gun control. While one could (and many do) frame the pro-choice debate by claiming an abortion is tantamount to murder, I do not see this as grounds to make abortions illegal. Yet, I do see guns as an unequivocally threat to public safety. The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

At first, the economically phrased Amendment seems clear -- if you're not a well regulated Militia, then you don't necessarily have the right to bear arms. Yet, last Friday, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 in favor of the individual's right to bear arms, claiming, "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." My reaction: anger, betrayal, disollution, and then I feel into a Vinny Barberinoesque stupor, saying outloud with hands to my face, "I'm so confused."


It appears as though this is, as The Second Amendment Foundation called it "a landmark for liberty", or a notch on the bullet carrying belts of America's gunlovers and their disconcertingly strong lobby and its figurehead, the NRA. Upon searching further, I did find some interesting information on the subject of gun rights and the founding fathers' plan (see links at bottom of post). Though I feel that there can be an positive and fruitful compromise here. I don't necessarily have a problem with individual rights allowing for someone to own a gun, but I fail to see why gun control is the negation of these rights. Why does someone feel that they must have a gun immediately and why the hell don't we all agree that if you do have this pressing need, then you probably shouldn't have a gun? So, please read the links below and figure it out for yourself, because the more I think about this, the more I feel the urgent need to buy a gun, and then I'd just be more of a hypocrite.

Links to read: The Debate Team (a good video with quotes that Good Will Hunting would have cited if caught with an unregistered weapon), Stuck on Stupid, and a good overview of what people are saying from Michelle Malkin.