Soda Blog

Transitive Property

Many Democrats say that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush.

Many Republicans say that a vote for Michael Badnarik is a vote for John Kerry.

If that's so, if this transitive property of politics theory is true, then on Nov 2nd I expect to see all Republicans vote for Nader, and all Democrats vote for Badnarik!!! :)

Vote FOR Something

Many people plan to vote for John Kerry only because they can't stand the thought of 4 more years of Bush.

Many people plan to vote for George Bush only because they can't stand the thought of Kerry in the White House.

Don't vote against something.

Make your vote count, vote FOR something.

Vote Libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/
http://www.badnarik.org/

Lord of the Votes

One Vote to rule them all, One Vote to find them,
One Vote to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Kerry, Bush & the 2nd Amendment

Presidential nominee John Kerry recently stated, regarding his support of the 2nd Amendment (paraphrased), "as a sportsman, I've never thought about going hunting with an Uzi or an AK-47."

Hmmm... as a sportsman, neither have I. I have, however, gone hunting with my MAK-90 - a semi-auto variant of the AK-47, a gun that looks like an AK-47 but functions, for all intents and purposes, like any semi-auto hunting rifle.

But that's neither here nor there. His point, and mine, are both moot. Why?

Because the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has nothing to do with hunting. A state, county or municipal government could take away the privilege of hunting completely and not in the least go against the 2nd Amendment (many municipalities, do, in fact ban hunting within their jurisdictions).

Instead, let's see what the 2nd Amendment itself says about why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is so important:

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.

What many people seem to fail to realize is that the 2nd Amendment was written as a way to make sure the federal government could NEVER take away the ability for the People to keep and bear arms because their membership in the Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Necessary. Not "could help" the security of a free State, but necessary.

Note also that the "People" in the 2nd Amendment are the same "People" as in the 1st Amendment and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Framers surely didn't use "the people" to mean one thing in the 2nd Amendment, and an entirely different thing in the other amendments. Thus, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a speedy trial, the right to free speech, et. al. are all rights recognized as belonging to all individuals. The right to keep and bear arms is therefore not a right of the States, nor of the National Guard. It is a right of every individual to do so, and these individuals, collectively, comprise the Militia of their respective State.

And lastly it is a right specifically protected not so we can go shoot bambi, but because the Militia is necessary to the security of a free State... from tyranny foreign or domestic, from violence from petty criminals to the government, for self- and homeland-defense. The ability to keep and bear arms isn't protected in the Bill of Rights so we can hunt animals, it's protected so we can - if all else fails - hunt criminals and tyrants.

And don't think for a second that Bush is any better than Kerry on this subject. He talks a good talk about respecting the 2nd Amendment, but previously he has promised to sign any extension to the Clinton-era AWB ("assault" weapons ban), showing that he, too, thinks the 2nd Amendent is about hunting...

(Addendum: As my friend Jon says, Charlton Heston was wrong about this, too)