Oh dear...

My plan tonight was to hang around the loop for a while and take pictures, then go home on a later train. I only have a couple of choices: the 6:31 gets to Kenosha at 7:56, and the 9:35 gets there at 11:15. Couldn't they have put one in the middle? I don't want to leave that early, or that late.

But in any case, I realized just a moment ago, shortly after getting on the train, that I didn't put a CF card in my camera before leaving home.

Well, I'm not going to be too frustrated. Maybe I'll see if I can pick up a small, cheap one at a Walgreens or something. If not, I'll decide what to do when the time comes.

Would anybody in the loop area like to meet up with me after work for walking around downtown Chicago for an hour or two? Maybe I'll even walk over to Grant Park. It'll be kind of a pain hauling my laptop bag everywhere though; maybe I can leave it at the office. I think my badge lets me in after hours.

(no subject)

Someone in Russia posted pictures in abandonedplaces after climbing an abandoned radio transmission mast. A damn radio transmission mast!

As someone in the comments said, you get vertigo just looking at these pictures.

If I had the chance, I'd climb this in a heartbeat. I'm so envious.

Here are more pictures from people who climbed this in the middle of winter. That might be a bit much, even for me. This site says that this is the tallest abandoned structure in Russia, and is shorter than the Empire State Building, but not by much. Not sure how accurate that is, but holy cow is it tall.

http://englishrussia.com/?p=2159

(no subject)

My LJ-friend brownkitty (someday we'll meet in real life! I'm sure!) pointed out a USA Today poll on the second amendment. It asked whether said amendment provides individuals the right to bear arms. I said that the question was vastly oversimplified and couldn't really be answered in the handy 'Yes', 'No', and 'Undecided' checkboxes that USA today thoughtfully provided. When she inquired about my reasoning, I thought about it some and wrote this (one small typo corrected).

Well, maybe I'm overanalyzing it. Or underanalyzing it. I'm not sure. But I find that I tend to look at things from all possible sides that occur to me, so it makes me want to start thinking about the whole mess that's surrounded the issues of gun ownership for my whole adult life, and before, I'm sure.

When I first read the question you linked to, what I got out of it is basically "Should it be legal to own guns." Without knowing what type of guns, or the extent of those rights that the asker is supposing would come from this particular bit of the constitution, it's hard for me to say.

It could be taken to say that the right to bear arms is contingent on there being a well-regulated militia, which, apart from some survivalist groups and what-not, I'm not aware of the existence of. Since we seem to have secured our national freedom in other ways (a standing military force), perhaps the right to bear arms under the second amendment should no longer be in effect.

On the other hand, that part of the statement is not imperative; it's not stating that anything must be done; it's just a statement of cause. Really, a matter of opinion. The founding fathers believed that a well-regulated militia is necessary for national security, and so stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed in order to make sure that a militia could be formed. The fact that a militia hasn't been formed for some time doesn't mean that the opinion that a militia is necessary for security is necessarily wrong, nor does that have much to do with part of the law that is stated imperatively.

The founding fathers could have as well said that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for security of our nation against the mighty Indian tribes..." or "...for the security of our national right to paint our toenails fuchsia..." for that matter. I think it could be argued that that part is just opinion and not relevant to the validity of the command, nor the result of it. If the people feel that the opinion is wrong, well, that's arguable, isn't it? The action that it gives rise to is what matters.

I feel that, on some level, the second amendment does protect and enforce the right of the general public to own weaponry. Part of why I feel that's important is because I don't trust my government enough to feel that all power of violent resistance should be surrendered by the public. On the other hand, I suppose an argument could be made that, if things got bad enough to talk about armed revolt, the standing army, or at least parts of it, would be involved in it anyway. I don't know enough about revolutionary politics to comment deeply on that I suppose. But I do feel it's good for citizens, en masses, to have the last resort of violent resistance if all other political process is somehow stripped from them.

But the question posed here casts such a wide net. Is it asking if members of the public should be allowed to own pistols? Or whether they should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons? Or own SAMs and mortars and hand grenades? I don't know, so I'm not sure how to answer.

I'm not even quite sure where that line of what should be legal to own for private citizens to contribute to the 'security of a free state' and what sort of ordinance is beyond what could reasonably be said to contribute to that goal.

For my part, I have very little interest in owning a gun, and doubt that will ever change. And, for no deeply considered and rational reason I can articulate, I feel like the general populace owning military level stuff is a bad idea. But I am glad that, if I wanted to, I could buy a gun. I don't like them. I wish fewer people had them. But I don't want them to be illegal. I don't know what that says about my political beliefs.

And just like so many other things in life, I doubt a clear-cut line can be found where one can say with authority that one can have weapons on list 'A', but not weapons on list 'B'.

And then we have the issues of felons and criminals owning guns. The amendment states that "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed." Are criminals not people? Felons? Aren't existing laws preventing them from owning guns an infringement? I think they're most likely the right laws, but aren't they, technically speaking, unconstitutional?

I dunno. Again, maybe I'm overanalyzing. If the question is really asking something like 'Does the existence of the second amendment guarantee some level of rights for some portion of the general populace to own some kind of weaponry', my answer is yes. Anything more definite than that, and I'm very hesitant about answering in any definitive way.

So I'm curious; how do you feel about weapon ownership in the United States?

(Incidentally, I'm now on the way home, having decided not to spend twenty bucks on a memory card I don't really need. Chicago pictures next week maybe!)

The things you find when surfing the net with your parents....

Doctor Emmet Brown; a brilliant, eccentric scientist forced to hide his true nature, his soul, from an uncaring and close-minded world. And perhaps even from himself. Until a young man named Marty McFly came into his life, awakening feelings that, for so long, he told himself he could never have.

Their story unfolds in Brokeback to the Future. And, you know, it's kind of strangely hot.

"It was an experiment in time. But the one variable they forgot...was love."