CNN article: Gun debate (are both sides half right?)

I’ve long realized that people on both sides of the gun control issue are firmly entrenched in their positions, and I certainly don’t expect this article to make them reconsider (although it would be nice to hear someone say, “Well, they have a point”). But I do know a significant number of people are in the middle with me on gun ownership and its regulation, and this link is for them.
Excerpts and summary:
“The reality is that members of Congress who wrote the amendment weren’t thinking about the individual right to bear arms. They didn’t have to, because they already took it for granted.
“Every record of the Congress that wrote the (Second) amendment and the state legislatures that voted for it shows that their discussions were about the right of the people to maintain state militias…
“At the same time, many Congressmen owned guns, as did many other Americans, and assumed they had a right to do so…
“But they weren’t free to use them entirely as they might have liked.
“That’s the lesson of state and municipal regulations in existence when the amendment was written in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791.” (The article then lists several examples of state and local governments of the time limiting the possession and use of guns.)
The article goes on to quote the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” he wrote.
Finally the article unexpectedly points to the Fifth Amendment as the true protector of the right to own a gun. It forbids the federal government from interfering with anyone’s “life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Guns were property.
The article ends with the observation that “clearly, the right to bear arms goes back to the earliest days of the United States. But so, too, does the power of legislatures to regulate it in the name of public safety.”
As I alluded to at the beginning, I realize how entrenched the extremes on both sides are, but I believe this is a worthy analysis of the issue.

Facebook is what you make of it

Facebook, and social media in general, are exactly what we each choose to make of it. We can use it to share important moments in our lives, trivial moments in our lives, share silly videos of kittens and puppies, and of course pontificate about current events, among countless other purposes. We can make it as drama-filled or as chill as we decide. Despite lamentations when people become fed up with other people’s (usually political) posts, it’s neither good nor bad, but like all things it’s best in moderation and prudence.

Today I learned that a friend I went to college with passed away earlier this week, and I learned it because of Facebook. Without FB, it’s likely I may never have known, since I hadn’t seen him since I graduated college fourteen years ago, not unless I randomly ran into a common acquaintance somewhere down the line. So yes, Facebook is important that way.

This week I also apparently lost a friend because they took exception to my blog post about unfollowing friends whose political posts I had begun to find predictable and/or obnoxious. Insinuated I was being a hypocrite because I wouldn’t read their posts, but by staying FB friends I expected them to read mine, then subsequently unfriended me. That was a bummer, because we had been close once upon a time, even though we hadn’t spoke in over a year, and my blog had nothing to do with that person, specifically. It really bothered me, as have a couple of other people recently who’ve cut ties with me. I’m not talking about just losing touch; I mean they basically burned bridges, and I really don’t understand why. One person earlier this spring essentially stated I was using them in their final communique. “No offense, but I prefer friendships where the effort is mutual”, or something like that. Well, that’s pretty fucking offensive if you ask me, especially when you’re completely wrong. I consider myself to be capable of honest reflection and if somebody criticizes me and my character, I take it to heart…but for the life of me I still believe they’re both wrong in their characterization of me and to have done what they did. But what are you going to do?

I know this isn’t a bubbly post, but I needed to vent some frustrations publicly. Like I said, FB is what you make of it.