From a long way away, in another democracy with a constitution, Australia, I think there's a consequence of American religiosity that even libertarian, atheist, progressives don't see. Your founding fathers are so revered that their imperfect words are argued over in the courts, and the political effort made to stack the courts so that those words are reinterpreted to move with the times. It's like the fixed scripture of your choice getting endlessly reinterpreted. You shop around for the contemporaneous preacher who spins them the way you're comfortable with. Those words have a lot good in them, but for fuck's sake *change* them until they say what your society actually wants. If it's too hard to change your constitution, fix those parts that make it so hard. The attitude that words written so long ago are immutable is not reasonable.

You make an interesting point, but the word "regulated" has undergone a linguistic shift in meaning since the second amendment was written. Specifically, the term well-regulated basically meant that the militia functioned as it's supposed to...

Of course, this doesn't invalidate arguments about keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them: a four year old rightly can't buy a gun even if they had enough money. In fact, an argument can be made that if you're not a part of a well-regulated militia, you may forfeit the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the congress could feasibly define a well-regulated militia and then declare that nobody else has the right to own a gun.

Of course, that wouldn't go over very well and would actually make the point of the NRA about how if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns.

So why not have two simple tests for gun ownership? One, demonstrate that you know how to use it properly and responsibly. (military service, police training, and classes run by the NRA could all qualify) Two, undergo screening to ensure you're psychologically fit for it.

Hi Geo -

As a firearms enthusiast/collector, I'll toss out a few thoughts. I'm really pleased with how rationally you made your points, but then again, I shouldn't be surprised - if more people were skeptics, we'd have far less vitriol and far more meaningful discussion. As far as not being the right time to discuss gun control, it's always the time to discuss pertinent issues of all types. The point is that we should be wary of enacting knee-jerk legislation as a result. Hurriedly passing new laws in the wake of tragedy gives us things like the PATRIOT act and getting free prostate exams when trying to catch a flight.

Personally, I have no problems with waiting periods - it means twice the number of trips to my gunsmith when purchasing a new gun, but I'm happy to have double the opportunity to talk shop with him. I don't yet have a concealed carry license, but I have gone through training for it - as a result, I fully support requiring training for such licenses, as I felt it was extremely helpful and enlightening. As gun owners, we're generally not opposed to well-considered restrictions as long as they make sense. But we're a bit gun shy (if you may pardon the horrific pun) when talk of further legislation arises, recalling things like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which overwhelmingly focused on banning cosmetic gun features (in other words, if it looks scary, it's illegal) and in reality provided no statistically significant effect on gun crime.

On the subject of tanks, you may be surprised to know that it is entirely legal to own one, though I believe its weaponry must be disabled (if you have a couple hundred grand in your couch cushions, check out armyjeeps.net). In the UK, you can even drive your privately owned tank on _public roads_ (you just need the appropriate driver's license for tracked vehicles - no, I am not making this up).

Regarding the second amendment, the "well-regulated" term does not indicate the more common modern use of regulations (that is to say, laws and restrictions), but regulation in the sense of proper operation, discipline, etc. Think of a well-regulated clock. No, not a clock that files its income taxes every April, but one that has been carefully adjusted to 'run true'. Personally, I haven't paid much attention to second amendment arguments - I view my personal interest in guns as a hobby. I'm not a hunter, and I rarely do any target shooting. However, I am utterly captivated by the engineering and craftsmanship of such objects. For example - John Browning designed his model 1911 pistol (a design which is now over a century old, mind you) so that it could be fully disassembled _using only its own parts_. Wrap your head around that one for a minute.

For me, it's not about the second amendment - it's more about that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. Just as you, Geo, can find fascination in deconstructing a song's time signature and admiration of lyrical elegance, I get the same feeling from looking over a beautifully color case hardened rifle or firing a mechanically unconventional pistol. I'd hate to lose that enjoyment due to the actions of some nutjob.




Anyhow, I loved the fade to nature sounds you did with 'swimming under the universe'. But then I realized "Wait, what were you doing swimming at 2AM with Kiki Lee?!?" Was this a 'clothing optional' swim? I was waiting for the bow-chicka-chicka-bow-bow music to kick in, but really, it sounded like a wonderful time, and I'm envious of the experience.

Farewell, Count Linkovitch von Koshka. My own kitty made me fully revise my opinion of cats as well (and from the photo, she could easily pass as Link's sister). I clicked on the link to Ms. Info's pic of him, and as per his last request, gave my own cat some extra hugs in his honor. Thanks for not playing "Small Comfort" as a tribute - it's a beautiful song, but makes me cry. The song you did play was absolutely marvelous - can we expect it on the next album, whenever that may be?

How the Word regulate was used in the 18th century http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LRc__FT9QU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Very sorry to hear about Link. As you say, I'm glad we get to miss him, and his presence in the Geologic Universe ensures a lot of us will.

Regarding "party tricks": No, I don't think so. At least not in your case, and I suspect not in many others.

I readily admit I can't cite psychological or anthropological reasons...I'm just offering my impression. But as much as we know you through this one-way podcasting friendship, I think your friends here have a pretty good feel for how the Ukie part of you operates. It's just part of who you are, interwoven through the stories you tell us as part of your daily life: Your pride in your musical heritage through your father, the gigs you play, the vacations you take, your school days.

I don't actually think it's wrong if this is mostly a party trick for some people. What's the harm? Fun, neat, interesting little thing...as long as they aren't somehow insulting their heritage, so what? And it probalby does still retain some lesser meaning to them. But you don't share party tricks with us here; you share the things that interest you, that annoy you, that matter to you, and Ukraine is an inextricable part of that.

I think you worry about being too full of yourself, about coming across as a fraud. I think this is one facet of that, as is your hestiancy to accept credit where it's due for your 5-minute on-the-spot TAM compositions (yes, Geo, it's good everyone thought those were pre-written by a specialist...it'll be even better when they all know you well enough to know you wrote them.) As I've mentioned before, you don't have anything to worry about there. Anyway, we'd say something. ;)