Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I'm going to be half serious with this, since I'm more fond of watching gun control topics from afar.

You're right, it is understandable. Understandable is not good enough. You see, we're in the 21st century. This is where it requires a 5,000 word essay to depict one's "right" or lack thereof in order to describe ones actions. This requires not releasing the latest rendition to the public, tossing in some bullshit here and there about Subsection B, Paragraph 3, Line 12 telling you it cannot be done at 4 am, during a thunderstorm in the state of Kentucky, and further barring it off by making nigh impossible to navigate terminology that can't even be interpreted properly, because no one can find the cutoff switch. Oh, but I also found the law, that one law, you know, that law, in that book, not the one I'm looking for, but that one. You know, because they don't update any sites with any actual info; they expect you to go to some type of physical library where they only have a handful of copies, sit there and fill out a form, if they haven't already been checked out or slobbered on. Oh, but there's 42 English versions of the Bible uploaded somewhere, because that's so much more important.

You see that line everyone keeps using that states it's really easy to understand? Well, considering that Bullet Point A of some document states that it's okie dokie Artichoke-E to edit or remove any Amendment at any point, yet it states in one Amendment that it cannot be "Amended" at any point, it seems, thanks to the lovely wording, that we've reached a Constitutional Paradox.

So, should we listen to Bullet Point A of Subsection 4, Paragraph 12, or should we listen to Bullet Point B of Subsection C, Paragraph 7?

I'm going with Bullet Point 3, in the numbered column. It states that, unless the total surpasses $1,000, you cannot be found guilty. Oh, that's the part I still can't make heads or tails out of in some, whatever the ******** form, internet piracy law, somewhere, that I'm probably not going to find again.

Oh, but yes, the sentence you said, that's actually understandable. As for the rest? What the hell are any of you talking about? It's like legally endorsed fallacies. That sentence is basic English, it's nice, it slides right off the tongue, but of course we need to address each individual word and possibly change the definitions of the words in order to indirectly change it's meaning so it has no salt to take a grain thereof.

I got better advice from Yahoo Answers. I'm not kidding; all I'm hearing is that this is an easy to understand statement. I understand it; I'm wondering what's the catch, because there's always one with these dingbats.

Oh, and sleep. I need sleep.