Taking the Second Amendment to its Logical Extreme Conclusion
So, you're probably aware that the Constitution has this thing called the Bill of Rights, and one of our most sacrosanct enumerated rights is the right to bear arms.
So here it is, the Second Amendment, just to show you that I, too, am capable of looking stuff up on Wikipedia:
"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."
Okay, great. I'm not much of a gun person, but hey, I get it. Without the Second Amendment, we wouldn't have action movies with lots of firepower and explosions and stuff. Check.
Much of the debate around this amendment is whether the Founding Fathers were really serious about guns and gun ownership, and what really serious really means. Jefferson, Hamilton, et al, are of course strangely silent on the massive killing power of a fully automatic weapon in the hands of deranged drug dealers, but we'll just move off that point for now.
So imagine someone in our current political climate taking this amendment and saying, "Listen, this Second Amendment thing says that we have the right to bear arms, mostly because guns enable us to overthrow the government. Now, if you don't have a gun, then you're truly not ready to enact your civic duty if called upon to do so. So we're going to hire a bunch of guys to come around and ask to see your guns, and if you don't have one, we'll fine you $10 bucks."
I can't make this stuff up, but it's real, I swear. The guy's name is Basil Marceaux, and he's running as a GOP gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee. He explains all of this on Jimmy Kimmel Live. I'm not sure if he's considered a serious candidate, but boy howdy, reductio ad absurdum doesn't even begin to cover it.Be forewarned, though, that if you follow this link, it'll be 4 minutes of your brain exploding.
Follow Technorati