Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Supremes on The Second Amendment

I was right. "What I don't expect is that anything substantive will change."

So, they ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but that whatever limits they wish to place upon that right, such as permits, licenses, fees, and prohibitions on effective weapons of military design (the exact weapons specifically protected by the Second Amendment) are OK. Just as long as they pretend it is not an outright ban on guns.

Wrong again, psychos. Rights can not be limited, restricted, licensed, or abolished; but only respected or violated. Guess which side of the fence you have come down on once again.


Drug Use and Religion

I rarely write a blog for such a specific group, but this is one of those times. I am only talking to those Christians (or other religious people) who support drug prohibition. Please read the entire thing before getting angry.

Religion has a lot in common with drug use. Either one can be used in moderation or can be abused. Both can change your perception of reality. Both can make you happy while the effects last. Both have, at various times, been mandated or forbidden. Neither one harms anyone but the "self" as long as it is not coercively pushed on anyone else, and as long as it leads to no aggression. There are those who can point to a lot of aggression that both have caused when abused. Those who participate in both try to get more people to join them, saying that you just need to "try it to understand it".

To support the "War on (some) Drugs" is to make it more likely that the same excuses will be used to declare a "War on (some) Religions" as well. Remember that you do not own your neighbor's life; he does. Or, if you are of the religious persuasion: God does. In neither case do you have any say in what he does as long as he is harming no innocent person. None. To behave otherwise is to initiate force against him "for his own good", which is never really for his own "good".