Does anyone here know why we have the right to bear arms? It wasn't so we could shoot the King of England, I'll tell you that much. It was part of a compromise between the Constitutional framers. People on the left, so-to-speak, the Anti-Federalists, didn't like the idea of the United States having a standing army, thinking the government controlling one could lead to something resembling (what we modern peoples would call) Mussolini's black shirts; incidentally: look at Blackwater. The "founding fathers" compromised and guaranteed an individual's right to own a gun, for a citizen controlled militia.
Now, I'm iffy on this ruling, I think the second amendment is important for reasons involving Blackwater, but I wonder, would a handgun stand up against the powerful artillery controlled by that group of contractors? I think not! If we have the right to bear arms, we should have the right to bear arms capable of overtaking any government controlled standing army to protect ourselves from fascism (so, Justice Scalia, give me a goddamn AK-47, a stealth helicopter, and some proper armor (you know armor, like the contractors have, not the military)).
Obviously the average person should not be able to own an AK-47. This puts America in an odd position. We should either A) destroy any military that can't be counteracted by a people's militia, or give every sucker, felon, drug dealer, suburban mom, or stock investor a goddamn round of bullet piercing armor and a bazooka!
We nee to preserve the right to bear arms, but what good will it do? People who claim that it'll keep them safe need to read a FUCKIN' STATISTIC. They're much more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. I swear, at least a nationwide gun ban would make us safer as a whole (i.e. England), we need to get guns off the streets. No one needs a gun unless they're A) protecting themselves from Blackwater, B) hunting deer during deer season or C) killing people (which is ILLEGAL!).
In regards to Scalia's dissenting response to the recent ruling regarding the detainees at Guantánamo Bay. You frickin' used the word "homeland!" When have we used that word before September 11th, huh? NEVER! As far as I'm concerned I equate that word with Heimatland (look it up, for those of you not up on your Nazi Germany history). You ignite more fear into the average american heart than any other group (be that group composed of Islamic fundamentalists, Evangelical abortion-clinic-bombers, or those radical environmentalists who kill forest rangers). By the way, I support all three of those aforementioned groups right to their opinions, and in the case of the radical environmentalists, I even support them ideologically; but their terrorist actions need to be QUELLED.
Stop trying to scare us into supporting Bush's opinions, you asswipe!
That's it, I can't rant anymore. (Despite how much more I can say, and I probably will if I go back and edit this later).
Comment so I can debate with you (or possibly agree...I'm a rage-aholic, and I love arguing with people I disagree with...it calms my nerves).
