[ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms

[Jeff Davis]

Damien, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the passage you
cite.  No doubt a consequence of the "visiting outlander" effect.
Allow me to help out.

Once again:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"...

The problem here lies in misconstruing the qualifier "free".   Most
folks think the "founding fathers" valued and desired a "free state".
Not so.  The whole "constitution" thing is slight of hand, a
distraction.  They actually wanted roving bands of lawless gun-whacko
"patriots" stalking the face of the planet spreading the gospel of
corn dogs and torture.  They did not themselves have corn dogs or the
means to electrify genitalia, but had the vision to know that the
future held such wonders, and did not want freedom and rationality to
stand in the way of the ultimate in cultural achievement.

So, in order to prevent a secure free state, and seeing that "a well
regulated militia" could be a central guarantor to such, they sought
to prevent it by insuring that every testosterone-overdosed psychopath
not already hired by the government could assemble, so far as their
personal financial resources would allow(it's just silly to waste
money nurturing children whose destiny is to feed the dogs of war) an
inventory of death/torture machines which would have been the envy of
Vlad the Impaler.

If those founding fathers could see the wonders crafted from their
legacy, how very proud they would be.

Hope that clears things up.

Don't mention it.

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 10:53 PM 7/4/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:
>
>> Five of the nine supreme court
>> justices ruled recently that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> infringed" means exactly what it says.  We have reason to be optimistic.
>> Now if we can boot the four who apparently do not understand the meaning
>> of
>> shall not be infringed
>
> I wonder if you could clarify one small point, Spike, for the sake of a
> visiting outlander. What was meant by that strangely anomalous opening
> passage "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> state"? I just can't make out what it can possibly be doing there in a
> statement of *individual* freedom that otherwise, as you indicate, is so
> uncompromising and clearcut.
>
> Damien Broderick