So some lunatic who felt it prudent to believe that he was some arch villain from the batman universe decided to shoot up a movie theater. Of course this was followed by my wonderful liberal comrades who then insisted that, a) guns kill people, not nutcases who think they are the joker. b) video games somehow made a perfectly normal person forced to kill people. And c) since we all have guns we should ban them and subject ourselves to a spanking for such irresponsible behavior.
Of course my liberal brethren indeed have a minor problem which is of course the Constitution which generally frowns upon such things like taking away people’s weapons. In fact this whole debate makes me realize how much my liberal comrades and Christian crazies are alike when confronted by something they really don’t like.
You see, us heathens scoff at the uneducated crazies when they state, “the separation of church and state is not in the constitution”. But indeed they are right. The first amendment says nothing of the sort. It only states that the government refrain from forcing people to adopt a religion. However when interpreting the constitution the Justices though 200 years of precedent can use other writings of the founding fathers to figure out just what the hell they were talking about. In this case the phrase was found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson in response to a preacher in Connecticut complaining about the 1st amendment and how people should be forced to go to church. Jefferson as you might imagine was pretty cut and dried about this whole matter. Thus the free society we have today.
Now a number of years ago a suit was in front of the supreme court challenging some of these “gun laws” that my liberal brethren have put in place to keep us all safe. Like our Christian nuts they ran into a pesky thing called the 2nd amendment which is pretty clear on the matter. Like their conservative counterparts they instead argued that this was not the intention of our founding fathers at all since they state prior to their assertion we should all have guns that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” Hence according to their flawed reasoning we indeed should have to be in a well regulated militia to be able carry those dangerous things.
The problem of course is that the founding fathers didn’t give a flying Mongolian cluster fuck about keeping people safe and wrapped in bubble wrap. They cared about keeping us free. Of course logic does not deter my brothers and sister. So let us indeed take a look at how the amendment was originally proposed by James Madison. It Read
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”
That is pretty clear, the militia is of course us. which is even further clarified in subsequent revisions where they explicitly say that the militia composed of the body of the people. Couple this with the fact that the document was written by a bunch of guys who thought it prudent to have a armed insurrection every 20 years or so and were quite adamant of keeping the government afraid of its populous to prevent tyranny. its pretty clear that they wanted people armed to overthrow the fucking government.
Of course the subsequent decision made my liberal brethren quite unhappy and much like the Christian Crazies to this day they insist that their world view is correct despite settled law and fact. Which now ends my constitutional lesson and indeed brings us somehow to the Spanking Updates of the Week!
Now the thing is, despite my browbeating of my disingenuous liberal friends I do think the violent overthrow of the government is an outdated notion. But if it is, then you have to go amend the constitution rather than making silly arguments and wasting everyone’s time. The problem they say is there is simply not enough support to do this. Which of course means that you probably should be amending the fucking thing. Now since my friends seem to think owning a gun means that you will use it on a murderous rampage or indeed simply shooting someone you disagree with it is indeed a good thing that neither Madison Martin nor Sarah Faye had one since someone would be dead instead of spanked. From My Spanking Roommate or the better valued 5 site Clare Fonda Pass. 
Our Able Amsterdam Authoritarian has a nifty little new toy. Dubbed “The Stinger” it seems to do quite a job on Monique’s lovely little bottom if the bruises on her bottom and tears in her eyes are to believed. She indeed confessed to him that she absolutely hated that thing which of course means that is a quite effective spanking implement. From Real Life Spanking. 
Amelia Jane Rutherford finds herself in a compromising position this week and indeed almost in her lovely birthday suit. None the less I doubt that the thong offers much protection against the cruel cane on Firm Hand Spanking. 
While our girls are subject to a whole array of implements to punish their bottoms. In real life I would hazard a guess that after the hand, the belt is most used to chastise girls. There are of course a good reason for this Dear Reader. That is, no matter where you are, you usually have a belt on and being that it is long and made of leather it is quite effective at persuading a young lady to behave as you wish. Since indeed it is so mobile it also gives one the advantage that if needed you can spank someone like young Monica here when the incident occurs rather than waiting to get home. From Real Spanking or the better valued 8 site Real Spanking Pass. 
Well Dear Reader with the economy in the shitter we all need money (particularly myself). But Danielle Hunt seems to have a particularly bad spending habit. Of course there is one very good cure for that. Her personal financial adviser administers this preventative medicine on her bared bottom on English Spankers. 
Sometimes out young ladies simply have unreasonable demands Dear Reader. Take young Mary Jane who insists to her father that she be allowed to go out in the evening even admitting she had not yet completed her paper which was due the following day. Such a demand can only be met with one thing Dear Reader. A very sore bottom while she completes her paper. From Punished Brats. 
It seems like Danielle Hunt is not the only girl that has a spending problem. It seems young Mila here wanted to go shopping. While most of us would have probably given her the benefit of the doubt and spanked her when she spent too much. Our favorite Dirty Old Man decides to go the proactive route with a promise of an additional spanking if she spends too much. From Spanking Coeds. 
Finally for today we have a very odd interpretation of what a trip to the beauty salon should look like. It seems that for this poor girl the pampering has been changed to punishment. From Hand Spanking. 
Brushstrokes
Can't Dirty Old Man stand up and spanking her right? It's fine but it looks a little out of place – lounging back on the couch with a yard stick. Nice updates B-Strokes. Sorry, but I feel invited to comment about the 2008 Heller case you mentioned (which allows citizens in D.C. To own a handgun). I am not sure that it can be as broadly interpreted to include a right to own automatic weapons. Although not sure whether you meant it when you wrote it but I am also not sure that founding fathers wanted citizens to overthrow the government that they created or if the term "militia" (in 2nd Amendment) simply meant the general population, but on that 5 of 4 on the Supreme Court agree with you. Are there limits, though? Grenade launchers? Tanks? Helicopters with missiles? What about a Molotov cocktail? A water balloon with a little smallpox inside? Any limits on the term "arms"? I know, people like to hunt deers with flame-throwers. It is an issue of freedom.
[...] of the Week Her first caning Smack Supergirl Spanked in every room Industry news Scarlet lines What should he do Personal trainer Nice otk She´s come to be spanked On a cruise [...]
Historian Jill Lepore has discussed at length, in an excellent article published last month in the New Yorker, the curious history of how the 2d amendment has been teased from being about a well-regulated militia into a "right" for Americans to keep and bear paramilitary weaponry with as little regulation as the post-1977 NRA leadership can buy. She prints, as an example of Original Intent, the full text of Madison's draft of the Amendment, which you have kindly and candidly reproduced above. While I think that one can carry the Original Intent fetish too far as a countervailing force to such concepts as "evolving standards of decency" (take a look at what the Constitution originally said about "persons" held in involuntary servitude, in a century when America's black folk were for the most part white folks' lawful chattel), a careful look at the history immediately preceding the first Constitutional Convention brings to mind Shays' Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion. To suggest that the Founders instituted the Second Amendment in a spirit of licensing such armed wildcat insurrections is simply ludicrous; quite the opposite. The whole point of the Second Amendment was to achieve a reasonable balance between the state's right to keep the peace and repel foreign invasion on the one hand, and the need for a citizenry competent to bear arms in the country's service to that end. And that is largely how it was interpreted well up to the middle of the 20th century; today's readers below a certain age will be surprised to know that the NRA openly and explicitly declined to oppose certain gun control measures of the Vietnam War era. It is only since the 1977 Cincinnati coup within the NRA administration that the organization has become the darling of paramilitary libertarians and their congressional lackeys. As one who was a victim of a gun crime just two years before that coup, I view the shabby logic of that catastrophic flipflop with understandable skepticism. That we are the laughingstock of the civilized world in this respect is neither here nor there, but I can do no better than quote a famous conservative who observed "One does not bear arms against a rabbit." In America, guns are for shooting people and "well-regulated" be damned. This is simply lunacy, and one wonders how many more schools and theaters have to be the site of massacres before the nation gets its head out of the sand. For my part, I have the scar from a gun-inflicted wound to prove the folly of the NRA's point of view, and will carry that scar to my grave.
While I have not read the article, respectfully Professor, I am going to point out that I don't trust anything the "New Yorker" has to say about gun control any more than I trust Fox News to report objectively about the health care law. With regards to your assertion once again I respectfully disagree. If you read the many writings of the founding fathers its pretty much clear why they specifically addressed what they did in the 2nd Amendment. Once again, these guys were revolutionaries. They wanted the populous to be able to overthrow the government.
Now that being said, Do I think it is an outdated notion? Absolutely. In regards to Bart's comment. I would argue, yes. However the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the carnage that modernized weapons could wreak. I would also argue that if they were suddenly brought back to life they would probably smack us upside the head and tell us to use common sense.
But the issue is what the document says and the intent of the writers. I will leave you with their many quotes about the subject
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion – Thomas Jefferson
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. – Thomas Jefferson
Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms. – James Madison
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – Samuel Adams
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive – Noah Webster
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people- TENCHE COXE
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… – Richard Henry Lee
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good – George Washington
For the record I am not a member of the NRA