Amendment XXVIII: In Time of Peace, Arms Shall No Longer Be Secured By the People.
It’s Friday. I have the day off, and I need to get back to my study of the ancient people of Ugarit and their wedgy language. Before I do, I want to formally share my thoughts on the school shootings. I believe they are worth repeating.
I believe the school shootings, beginning when I was a senior in high school and continuing to this day, raise the issue of whether man’s creation and use of two atomic bombs has fundamentally altered the status of arms in the United States of America.
To understand how I can see this as the issue raised by school shootings requires me to explain that I believe the natural state of man is chaos. I believe that the manner with which we take a break from the chaos is “the law.” I believe that “the law” is the act of giving up freedom in order to obtain freedom. Philosophically, I believe the U.S. Constitution without the Bill of Rights (of course this document is not real–this is merely philosophical discussion) is “the law.” I believe the similarly-standing-alone-for-philosophical-explanation-only Bill of Rights is the rebuttal which declares preference for life in the pre-law, chaotic, and natural state of man in certain particular areas of life–being in our specific case: arms. Kind of a two-sides of the same coin thing, which itself manifests to the rest of the world the proud and distinct self-understanding of our people.
So that’s what I believe to be the issue raised by the shootings.
Here you’ll see again my solution to this issue, the real issue, the only issue, the issue that you have been up to now unable to say or write because you do not think for yourself, which is to add (second amendment stays) the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “Amendment XXVIII: In time of peace, Arms shall no longer be secured by the people.”
Pete—you strike me-right between the eyes-as a philosophical provocateur; second amendment stay–interesting idea–but I will respond by adopting your preferred abrasive style (i.e. you can’t figure out what I am saying, you can’t think for yourself, I dare you to guess what IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am thinking), your development of the stay concept is half-baked-how would that be implemented and by whom? Justice Stephens probably would like your concept because he did not believe the Second Amendment provided for an individual right to bear arms unrelated to serving in a militia, but the late Justice Scalia–the author of the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) would turn in his grave because he believed as did 4 other Justices that an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms, while not unlimited, was not linked to or conditioned by serving in a militia. I humbly suggest you track down the Heller opinion and read it carefully, including Stephens dissent, then perhaps you could re-evaluate the concept of a Second Amendment stay within the larger context of law and the entropy of man. And keep your posture in the power play position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Likewise, you strike me as the most noble man I know–distinguished from the competition by your calm–for the following reasons: By describing my solution as “half-baked”, you showed that you actually considered it. And by not providing the link to the suggested reading (which, btw, I’m receiving as “Okay, Pete, so you’ve put some thought into this. Now it’s time un-glue yourself from the romantic past”), you showed that further conversation is welcome. Honorable in every way. Thank you. And while I think I’ve skimmed the opinion in the past, only time will tell if I measure up the standard of discourse you just set. I intend to.
PS – Looks like the Ugaritians must remain dead for a few days longer. I wonder if they’ll mind.