Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Another View Into "Common Sense" Regulation

Certain logic implies that punishing a murderer by clamping a set of 140A Tricos to his scrotum, and hitting him up with some 120VAC until he finally confesses is Constitutionally A-OK. You know, as long as it's common-sense.

What's that? Oh, it would violate his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination as well as smoke-starting his now-squished backup singers his 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Well, what if it's in Everybody's Best Interests? What are you, anti-safety or something? Dude could be one of them terrrrrists, and we...

Oh. The point. Allow me to make it.

The Washington Post asks if the 2nd Amendment means you can buy a Shitload Of Guns (re: more than one per month/year/age/dimension). Jim responds:

Why, yes, in fact it does. If it were otherwise it could easily be interpreted to to limit insipid editorials to one a month. Useful, perhaps, but unconstitutional and therefore out of the question.

Well, now that you put it like that...

Please, someone, tell me straight up: which Constitutional Amendments are subject to reasonable regulation and which ones are not?


1 comment:

  1. I always thought the Amendments were the reasonable regulations. But then I also thought they regulated the Government instead of the people.


Feel free to drop a line. You don't have to keep it clean - God knows, I won't - but keep it above the belt.