Blog Blasts from the Past
Blogs exist mostly for their front page. The archives exist in cyberspace, able to be resurrected if necessary, but mostly just sitting there, unread, like that college essay I wrote on William Blake's The Sick Rose that I keep in a drawer somewhere. Not entirely forgotten, but only dimly recalled.
Some blog entries, though, take on a life of their own, and draw comments and attention long after I have moved on to other issues. For example, almost a year ago, I opined that the Second Amendment had outlived its usefulness in "Second Amendment - 18th Century Wisdom in the 21st Century." In the couple weeks after I posted it, discussion centered on the political reality that regulation was probably sufficient, and much more realistic. It was a good, lively and mostly intelligent discussion, and most of us moved on to other topics.
This week, however, saw an inexplicable resurgence in commentary on the post. The post is mentioned in Wikipedia, but that generates only a couple hits per week. Someone, somewhere, must have posted my thoughts on a site popular with gun-nuts, because over the last week or so I've received almost 20 comments on the year-old piece. It's funny to see a fresh storm of commentary on a post I had pretty much forgotten about.
Even more amusing (unless you find terribly upset, high-pitched, tough-talking gun nuts even more funny than I do) is the consistent reaction I get to my brief post on "Florida's Culture of Life", which reads, in its entirety:
The right wing, fresh off demonstrating that they value "life" so much that they will threaten to kill people who allow someone to die according to her wishes, are now loosening up the restrictions on when you can pull out your gun and shoot somebody. Somehow, it's easier to attack Michael Schiavo than it is to ignore the NRA.Despite the coincidental reference to guns, my commentary here seems to come from the fact that if you google the words Florida and culture, my post shows up in the top twenty or so results. As a result, I regularly receive comments from horribly upset and profane high school students who are dismayed that my post does not help them with their school work. On Wednesday, for example, Anonymous left me this vivid insight into the world of a frustrated procrastinator: " . . . i have a fucking project due tomorrow on fucking florida and there's no fucking information on florida's culture shit!!!!!!!1"
It's an odd twist of fortune that this blog, while intending only to dispense wisdom, has caused so much turmoil to gun nuts and procrastinating Floridians.
posted by Dan at 9/02/2006 09:24:00 AM
10 Comments:
Interesting post and comments.
My first inclination was to think if I lived in a high crime area, I'd have a handgun and know how to use it. After I thought about it for a while, I decided I'd save my gun money, work two jobs if I had to, or do just about anything to move the hell out of the crime ridden area. However, that's me. I've never lived in a crime ridden area so my primary objective would be to get out; but, for tons of people, there appears to be no other choice for them or they simply choose to live where they are. At that point, self preservation takes over. That's human nature. They can't depend on the cops to protect them. They know all the criminals have guns. They have to rely on themselves and so many will have a gun.
I think it all depends on your life circumstances and I don't think the second amendment has outlived its usefulness.
I don't have a gun but I do have 2 big black dogs. And one of them can be a bit on the grouchy side ( hates to be woken up, I understand the feeling). I don't worry about someone breaking in, finding my dog & pointing him at me. The worst I would get is a sloppy wet kiss. But the person breaking in .... well, I don't think he'll get a kiss from my big boy.
Sorry, I'm back, had to go check out the window. My alarm (dogs) went off. Damm, another one of those pesky wabits casing the yard.
MarieP
Remind me never to be peeking over XO's shoulder at the library.
gal:
XO has issues, certainly. But if you think the 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness, in any of its intended respects, you are, like XO, delusional and incredibly naive. I largely ignore XO; he rants for show, not for effect or intelligence. But this is America, where one has the right to be wrong. The 2nd amendment is, simply put, the ultimate guarantor of the rest of the bill of rights.
And no part of the Bill of Rights is negotiable. Not a single part, not now, not ever.
Beyond that, I'll not get into my own thoughts here; I think I covered that back then. If you're interested, I'll refer you to http://armsandthelaw.com/, a site that takes on the topic with steady intelligence. You may disagree with it, but you can't simply dismiss it with a foaming at the mouth nonsensical rant.
So . . . If you please, I'll control my own guns, thank you very much. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the range.
gal, again:
I just re-read my post, and I think I did not say what I thought I think I said (how 'bout that!). I do not mean to say, travelingal, that you believe the 2nd Amend. has outlived its usefulness and are therefore naive or delusional; on the contrary, your post indicates quite the opposite. The naive and delusional among us, rather, are Dan and XO, respectively.
Perhaps I was overtaken by the lovely odor of cordite and smokeless powder . . . . . ;-)
Anon: "The 2nd amendment is, simply put, the ultimate guarantor of the rest of the bill of rights.
And no part of the Bill of Rights is negotiable. Not a single part, not now, not ever."
I'll give you the same advice I gave Hitler during one of our dinner conversations. Just because you keep repeating something as though its fact, doesn't make it true. It may be your opinion, it may be how you feel. It may be what you think. But that don't make it so.
You see, the Bill Of Rights weren't carved in stone by God Almighty. They were proposed by men, voted on by men and agreed to by men (women couldn't vote back then. That came in a later Ammendment). Just like any other Ammendments or even the Constitution itself, they can all be changed by The Will Of The People.
So don't give me that "no part of the Bill of Rights is negotiable" crap. It ain't up to you and your gun totin' buddies (thank God). It's up to The Majority Of The People. God Bless America.
What's that cliche you guys like to spout? "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
I guess that's true.
So if we outlaw guns, and you have a gun, then you'll be an outlaw. And you know what happens to outlaws, right? They either get gunned down by superior firepower or they become somebody's bitch and get passed back and forth in exchange for cigarettes in one of those Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prisons.
Choose your poison.
BTW, Hitler didn't take my advice and I doubt you will either.
1) XO, it's spelled a-M-E-n-d-ment, not "ammendment." It's easier to get the spelling right if you wipe the froth off your lower lip. God Bless Webster's.
2) If you are proposing a constitutional change to eliminate the 2nd Amendment (note one "m"), I'm not in the least concerned. It's chance of passing is exactly zero. God Bless the vast majority of Americans who are more congnisent of reality than you. Even if passed, it would be entirely unenforceable. Remember Prohibition? You'd be less free, and less safe.
Surprising rhetoric for one who claims to value freedom above all else. I guess there is, however, no accounting for stupidity. How much of the rest of the Bill of Rights are you ready to gut? It's just 18th century wisdom, after all. Stood the test of time and all, yes? But it is inconvenient, certainly. Let's get rid of it. Warrants are troublesome. Speech? Just gets on the majority's nerves. Let's get rid of those, too.
Shall I point out that the Bill of Right exists to LIMIT the reach of any majority? That it protects what the Founders held to be inalienable rights; rights that inherently exist that shall "not be infringed," NOT rights granted by government or by any majority? Wipe the froth off your chin and wrap your mind around that for a while. Then we'll talk.
And you'll have to calm down before I'll pass the weapon for your turn at the range.
Anonymous Me:
I'll leave the substance to XO - he's been on a fantastic roll of brilliant, funny and astute commentary. But I will treat myself to the joy of mocking you for your inability to spell. Normally, I'd be tolerant, but those who live by the spelling sword ought to be cognizant of the chance that they might look like a complete ass.
Dan:
XO may be funny (if you go for the ranting lunatic type), but brilliant and astute? Hardly.
And if I misspelled or typoed a word, I can live with that. XO misspelled a central term. Repeatedly.
Anon - I'm not redy to git rid of any of the Bil of Writes.
I was simpley pointing out that you assershun that "...no part of the Bill of Rights is negotiable. Not a single part, not now, not ever." was just plain old bullshit.
All of the ammendaments is negotiable.
Now, go get out your red pen and circle all of the spelling errors for us.
Tomorrow, we'll work on sentence structure and grammer.
Class dismissed.
Post a Comment
<< Home