Here’s a research topic for an aspiring student. Why is that for nearly all dangers prevention involves the reduction of said danger? For example no one ever suggests the solution to preventing death from fires is more fire. The only exception that comes to mind is the NRA suggestion that to prevent getting shot we need more guns.
Archive for Ready to Bake
In continuing the “Ready to Bake” series: With all of the ten year analyses of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and downfall of Saddam Hussein, I have yet to hear one mention that Iran’s power has increased as Iraq’s decreased. I’d like to see a detailed analysis of Iran’s power with regards to the fall of Iraq. As much of a dick Hussein was he did keep Iran in check.
This is the first in a series that’s going to called “Ready to Bake.” The idea behind Ready to Bake is that there are a lot of ideas that would just take too long to write out in detail so I’m going to present the executive summary of my idea without the rigorous explanation and attention to detail these thoughts deserve.
When I hear people speak about The Constitution of the United State, they treat it as if it were written in stone, the beauty of The Constitution is that is was intended to be a fluid document. Not changing on whim like quicksilver but ready for slower change like molasses. This should be pretty evident from the fact that the first acts were adding ten amendments to the document. So when I hear rhetoric about what The Founding Fathers intended, I call shenanigans. They would likely tell you what they intended is no longer relevant and that is why the document can and must change. Just like the repeal of the 18th Amendment other amendments are open for repeal.
Which gets me to the 2nd Amendment and the much discussed right to bear arms. If you think The Founding Fathers imagined a gun that could fire multiple times a minute, let alone a second, you clearly aren’t well versed in muzzle loading and probably think The Constitution was a Google Doc that the signers collaborated on in a Google Hangout.
As for those who would also speak in absolutes, take a look at the 1st Amendment wherein we are still granted the right to speak freely “or abridging the freedom of speech” but there are limits, you cannot yell fire when there is none in a crowded building, you cannot libel or slander. As such it is reasonable that my right to bear arms can be restricted with reasonable restrictions like not being allowed to own a weapon of mass destruction or a fully automatic assault rifle.