Musings

The Sacred Right To Own Submachine Guns

Okay, the thing doesn't mention guns, only "arms." So can I arm myself with a nuclear bomb? If the concept was stretched beyond muskets to include revolvers (technology unknown to the Bill Of Rights authors), why isn't it stretched all the way to Nukes (also technology unknown way-back-when)? Either this thing means what it says or the Right isn't as absolute as the gun lobby wants us to believe.

It is the only amendment that contains the phrase "well regulated" and the word "militia." When speech (covered by the first amendment) becomes harmful -- like screaming "FIRE" in a crowd -- the government can and does regulate this speech. When owning guns (not specified by any amendment) become harmful, the gun lobby gets up in... arms. Weird reading.

It is a smart amendment. Some foreign power wanting to do mischief in the U.S. has to stop and think of how many citizens are packing.

In my home state -- Texas -- they also have to worry about little old ladies with lethal firepower tucked away in their bras. We have the right to carry weapons that are concealed, although I am still not sure how this relates to a militia. So if you want to take over the Great State Of Texas, you also need to be prepared to do a great deal of bra frisking.

The Right To Hate

If you scream "FIRE" in a crowded building, you will quickly find that Free Speech is not an absolute right. Not everything that comes out of your mouth is covered by the Bill Of Rights. Your scream would cause a stampede, people would be killed, politicians would be gnashing their teeth in front of cameras about your upbringing and manners, and you would be in the slammer for god-knows-how-long.

But if you are a preacher, you can go to the funeral of a gay person and scream hateful things about "FAGS DIE IN HELL." If you are a good, Bible-reading citizen, you can incite hatred of gay people because your religious beliefs are sacred.

Some go so far as to say that equal treatment under the law should be denied to gay people. Why? Get this: because being gay is a preference. First of all, being gay is not a preference, gay behavior is not a preference. Bisexual behavior may involve preference, but being gay is fundamental.

Those saying it is a preference are also saying that they are attracted to both genders but have made a decision to prefer the opposite gender for long-term relationships. Listen to those bigots sometime: hatred pure and simple.

And don't you think that all this talk about "sexual preference" is getting a little kinky? My actual preference would turn this page into porn, dealing with who does what, and to whom, and into whom, and which partner wears the hoop skirt, and all those fights we have over who gets to use the Silly Putty.

When I hear the phrase, I think this: YES. I absolutely prefer sex. So?

If those holier-than-Wynn folks in Washington really wanted to be proper, they would be using terms like "gender preference."

It isn't sexual preference they are talking about. Sex has nothing to do with it. They are talking about "gender preference." They seem to think that using the term "sexual" makes the entire debate seem more base -- with the hate-mongers in a lofty moralistic place looking down at those of us writhing with our "sexual preferences" and our ostrich feathers.

I feel dirty suddenly. I need to go wash my hands... be right back...

On the other hand, one's religion is preference -- as my friend John is quick to point out.

You do not have religion, you have a religious preference.

And if we are to remove things from the law -- such as equal treatment -- because something is allegedly a preference ... are we supposed to start with the first amendment?

The hate-mongers say "equal protection" is really "special rights" and it should be denied to gay people because being gay is a choice. Balderdash: being a Fundamentalist is the only preference I see in this issue.

A U.S. Senator from Texas -- Phil Gramm, who has an intense Georgia drawl but says he is Texas -- once released a paper saying how awful it would be to let "avowed homosexuals" serve in the U.S. military.

Oh, puleeze.

I scanned this hate-filled diatribe into my computer and replaced the word "homosexual" to the word "Asian." Everyone who read my modified version instantly noticed how awful it was. I made sure my changes were obviously not original, and I added a note at the bottom: I was making a point, not going for forgery. Nobody reading my version could think it was Gramm saying those awful things about Asians. Nosiree, our senator's ethics were spared: he only spews toward "avowed homosexuals." And I can just imagine the corner of his lip tensing a little as he spoke the words.

In my version, our drawling senator was upset that the government might let "avowed Asians" serve in the military.

I sent a copy of the letter to his office but never got a reply.

By the way, Gramm's wife is Asian.

And just so you know, I think it is great that our senator's sexual preference is Asian. He just needs to stay out of my face with his bigoted ideas, and he need to learn the definition of the word REPRESENT.