I publish this wonderfully sublime letter to the editor in today's Post-Dispatch without further comment to spoil your enjoyment:
Mending the Differences
This nation is celebrating another birthday, but this one has a special meaning. For the first time in the history of the land of the free and the home of the brave, the United States has an African-American to guide her. For many, that's a cause for celebration; for others, it's a cause for concern.
When Barack Obama was elected president, he vowed that he would represent the interests of all Americans. I think he has.
But some people think that Mr. Obama is far too liberal. They feel so threatened that they take the constitutional right to bear arms literally. These individuals probably never have taken an honest look into Mr. Obama's policies, but instead heavily rely on information from hate groups.
I have disagreed with some of what Mr. Obama has done while in office-- not bringing the previous administration to trial on war crimes; not reviewing the "don't ask-don't tell" policy, which causes constant fear in our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the military; and giving in to pressure from Democrats and Republicans regarding to responding to the Iranian elections. But my liberties are not threatened by Mr. Obama. He may do things differently than the men who went before him, but no one's liberties are threatened.
This year, the nation's birthday comes as we say goodbye to a gentleman who arguable [sic] was the greatest entertainer this nation has ever seen and who was America's greatest ambassador during his time on Earth: Michael Joseph Jackson. Through Mr. Jackson's music, nations came together to celebrate differences. Michael was a citizen of the world, and outside of America, he wasn't seen as strange as he was here.
Happy birthday, America. This year, we should take time to make life better for those with whom we disagree.
--G__ B__
Posts
12 comments:
Never mind the misspelling, don’t writers usually mean UNARGUABLY when they use this? Do they really want someone to argue with them when they’ve made such a statement?
One thought jumped out at me: "they take the constitutional right to bear arms literally."
Wow. When some one doesn't really believe that a sentence (Second Amendment, here) doesn't say exactly what it says, particularly when the SCOTUS recently confirmed that meaning, we're in trouble.
*sarcasm on*
Ah, see, you don't understand what the writers of the Constitution intended. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with violent, physical guns and everything to do with the "guns" of the mind and spirit: the power of fancy words and charisma to persuade all... as demonstrated in the letter from G___ B___ above.
*sarcasm off*
Someone actually wrote that? *smack head* I want to cry.
~ Matthew
Another vapid non-argument from a rabid liberal mentality ... and one would take the right to freedom of speech literally as well. Happy little Marxist ... go back to the shadow.
Steve
Peggy,
To quote Bill Clinton, the left's intellectual giant, "Well, that depends on what the meaning of IS, IS.
After that stupid quote, it seams the liberals don't want to take anything for what it really means.
Peggy, it isn't as simple as you might like to believe. The 2nd Amendment says "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."
This is where lawyers get paid big bucks - trying to figure out if the word "militia" can be applied to the general population.
The second part of it asks a great question, that being the phrase "well-regulated." Goodness knows that the NRA would allow anyone the chance to own submachine guns, bullets that pierce police vests, plastic guns that can sneak through airport screens. Besides in Israel where it is mandatory for Jews to have guns (but it is illegal for Christian and Muslim Palestinians to own them,) the US is the most heavily armed nation on earth.
Peggy, I think that with 40,000 deaths due to guns in the US, I'd be hard-press to call that "well-regulated."
Anon, if you want a thorough legal analysis on why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means what it does, I suggest you read Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. I can't improve on it.
Switzerland also has a mandatory gun ownership law and is more heavily armed than the US. It is a very peaceful and beautiful country.
In response to the Timman and Anon at 13:15.
Precedence has shown that it is okay for citizens to carry arms. To me it is one of those things where the tradition and practice of millions of American's habits and customs has helped shape the law, versus vice verse.
I am okay with citizens carrying arms. I would like to think, though, that we all can agree to some limits on it. Seriously, who needs a machine gun to feel safe? Or armor-piercing bullets? Plastic guns that can be snuck into any public arena on the planet? Who in their right mind thinks that "Saturday Night Specials" help make America any safer?
Most of the guns and ammunition used in the recent Mexican drug wars that have spilled over into the US come from the US.
Had to laugh - some German friends called Frankfurt "little Chicago." They said that was because one year seven people were killed by guns. Sadly, that happens in many weeks, not a full year, every summer in St. Louis.
Anon, I appreciate your comments. I disagree about this:
"Most of the guns and ammunition used in the recent Mexican drug wars that have spilled over into the US come from the US."
This statement has been advanced by the administration without any proof, in order to advance a particular agenda. I believe this claim is bogus. If you know of any hard evidence on this, please feel free to respond.
There is a difference between regulating machine guns, or plastic guns, etc., and wanting to have an inventory of every gun owner in order to intimidate and control them.
ok this is what i think, obama wrote the article about himself and had it submitted to every major newspaper in the U.S. he has not only made himself god, but now has taken the task of canonization upon himself regarding the reverend michael jackson. just a theory.
Pleeezzzzeee - no more St and God Michael Jackson!
I think the person misunderstood "bearing arms" - it really means we can go without clothing on our arms - and that right is protected. It was a misspelling - should be "bare arms".
Don't you LOVE those letters to the editors? Sometimes they are better than the comics!
Martha in KC
Post a Comment