So, 4000 American military personnel have been killed in Iraq. A news interviewer was talking to VP DICK Cheney about the situation in Iraq. She mentioned that a majority of the American public polled as being against the war. His response: "So?"
Cheney, apparently, gives a shit.
He cares less that he steered this country into a war.
He cares less that this war had no justification.
He cares less that this war has cost the lives of 4000 American soldiers.
He could care less. But I'm really not sure how.
I don't know why this surprises me. This is a man who got drunk while hunting and shot another man in the face. And don't even try to say that didn't happen. If it didn't, the administration would not have waited a day before allowing him to give a statement to the police. They had to sober him up.
This is a man whose arrogance knows no bounds.
And this is a man who is a heartbeat away from being the President.
That is something that scares me the most.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Guns, guns, GUNS!
This week, the supreme court was asked to consider whether or not the Washington D.C. handgun ban should be allowed to stand.
The reason for this was because the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution states that Americans should be allowed to keep and bear arms. Arms, as in firearms.
It also states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It states this before stating that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
May I say at this point that the terms "well-regulated" and "militia" do not belong in the same sentence.
May I also say that the first definition of "militia" is this: "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies."
By its very definition, a body of "citizens" enrolled for military service and serving time only in emergency it the exact opposite of "well-regulated".
Militia can NEVER be described as "well-regulated".
So that argument goes RIGHT out the window.
As such, the right to bear any type of "arms" is never guaranteed.
The right to bear a weapon that can empty a 100 round clip of ammunition before you can SAY the words "100 round clip of ammunition" is NOT a right the founding fathers considered.
The right to bear a weapon that was developed in the former Soviet Union as a weapon that could help 10 Russian soldiers standing side by side defeat a regiment of Nazi soldiers that outnumbered them 20 to 1 was NEVER considered when this amendment was enacted.
And the right that enabled a small-time criminal to bear a weapon that was NOT illegal at the time to have the ability rob a minimum wage gas station attendant was NOT foreseen by the framers of the Constitution.
In case you were wondering, that last example comes from personal experience.
I've been robbed at gunpoint. Just in case anyone wondered.
I was a strong supporter of gun rights. Right up until I was robbed by someone who held a gun that was not illegal under the laws of the time.
I wasn't the only one robbed by this man. He held up a friend of mine. about 2 days before he robbed me.
By the way, he was never caught.
Cops at the time believed he was doing it to support a drug habit. So I can take some comfort in the fact that he's probably dead of an overdose by now.
Which gives me no comfort.
Y'see, he obtained this gun (which probably didn't work) with absolutely no legal obstacles.
Because what few obstacles there are to owning guns in this country are marginal at best.
And the Supreme Court that is in existence today WILL vote to remove any that exist.
DUCK!
The reason for this was because the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution states that Americans should be allowed to keep and bear arms. Arms, as in firearms.
It also states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It states this before stating that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
May I say at this point that the terms "well-regulated" and "militia" do not belong in the same sentence.
May I also say that the first definition of "militia" is this: "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies."
By its very definition, a body of "citizens" enrolled for military service and serving time only in emergency it the exact opposite of "well-regulated".
Militia can NEVER be described as "well-regulated".
So that argument goes RIGHT out the window.
As such, the right to bear any type of "arms" is never guaranteed.
The right to bear a weapon that can empty a 100 round clip of ammunition before you can SAY the words "100 round clip of ammunition" is NOT a right the founding fathers considered.
The right to bear a weapon that was developed in the former Soviet Union as a weapon that could help 10 Russian soldiers standing side by side defeat a regiment of Nazi soldiers that outnumbered them 20 to 1 was NEVER considered when this amendment was enacted.
And the right that enabled a small-time criminal to bear a weapon that was NOT illegal at the time to have the ability rob a minimum wage gas station attendant was NOT foreseen by the framers of the Constitution.
In case you were wondering, that last example comes from personal experience.
I've been robbed at gunpoint. Just in case anyone wondered.
I was a strong supporter of gun rights. Right up until I was robbed by someone who held a gun that was not illegal under the laws of the time.
I wasn't the only one robbed by this man. He held up a friend of mine. about 2 days before he robbed me.
By the way, he was never caught.
Cops at the time believed he was doing it to support a drug habit. So I can take some comfort in the fact that he's probably dead of an overdose by now.
Which gives me no comfort.
Y'see, he obtained this gun (which probably didn't work) with absolutely no legal obstacles.
Because what few obstacles there are to owning guns in this country are marginal at best.
And the Supreme Court that is in existence today WILL vote to remove any that exist.
DUCK!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)