Call It an Issue I Have With Women's Gymnastics

Okay, here goes: I got into a discussion with two women last night about women's gymnastics and … it's just better that I move my thought processes to my page, because it really was off-topic of that post. Or rather, move it to my blog. Because it's gonna be a long ride.

My women friends understandably support women's gymnastics and are … I really don't want to put words in their mouths, but they're audibly happy that the ladies performed so well, and are miffed at the poor coverage. They believe the women deserve respect. As I said, this is understandable. Because they're right. Those gymnasts do deserve respect and aren't getting their due, and I should have left my comments to my own devices page and my own topic.

Because, meanwhile, I am perpetually miffed at the sexism in the sport, and rather pervy sexism at that, both from the standpoint that the men get insufficient coverage, and the standpoint that men's gymnastics emphasizes “power and strength” whereas women's emphasizes “agility and flexibility”. Or as I like to phrase it, men's gymnastics emphasizes athleticism where women's emphasizes pretty girls dancing.

Please bear in mind, I do not *want* it to be that way. I *see* it as that way. And don't make the mistake of thinking that women getting more coverage is “reverse sexism”. It's actually *not* (in my considered opinion) a victory for women that women's gymnastics gets more attention, but another example of the sexism in sports overall, where men still make all the rules, and men like to look at pretty pixies; where the men on Sports Illustrated are football, baseball, basketball and hockey players, and the women are swimsuit models. (Not all inclusive, and I'm getting off-track. Sorry.)

But enough of the hyperbole. Let's look at the differences between the men's and women's programs, starting with the superficial:
Men wear a sleeveless, satiny (but sometimes just stretch cotton) leotard, with separate pants, on rings, high bar, parallel bars and pommel horse, and they wear the leotard with baggy shorts (covering the pelvis) on the floor and vault. Women wear shiny, sequined leotards with sleeves, with as much of the pelvis and legs exposed as is legally possible.
Women are heavily made up. Men? No.

Men are on average aged 20 to 24. Women are on average aged 16 to 20. This is only because they've prohibited anyone who hasn't turned 15 by the start of the Olympic year from competing*. In 1996, Kerry Strugg was the old woman of that group at 20. This is why I referred to them as “girls” above. And I'm not alone. Although he seems entirely fine with it, American coach John Geddert said “Without sounding condescending to young women, this is a little girl’s sport,” to the Washington Post on November 9, 2012 (and we'll each decide for ourselves whether you're being condescending or not, thanks.) Of course, it wasn't always that way. In the 1950s and 1960s (I can't find records for an Individual All-Around before 1952), the female all-around champions were aged 30, 21, 25, 22, 26, and 20, in order.

* I keep seeing that the age limit was raised to 16 in 1997, but I also saw an article that claimed that all of this year's Chinese girls meet the age requirements, but that same article listed one of those girls as 15.
Oh, and this year's US men are aged 23 through 29.

Men compete on 6 apparatuses: floor, vault, high bar, parallel bars, still rings and pommel horse. Women compete in 4 apparatuses: floor, vault, uneven bars and balance beam. The vault is pretty much equivalent for both today, though they may do different vaults and only have to compete within their genders. Once upon a time, however, the men had to vault the length of the apparatus, the women vaulted the width (that's at least one improvement). On the floor, the men move from tumbling run to tumbling run, taking small, controlled step sequences between, except when they stop to either balance on one foot, do a handstand or do leg flairs on the floor;
 the women make a tumbling move, then dance across the floor, then another tumbling move, then they preen and stick out their butts, et cetera.
Do women's gymnastics take athletic skill? Yes, absolutely and for sure. But it is hidden behind unnecessarily decorated with makeup and sequins and dance moves, which take away from that athletic skill. And the unfortunate fact that even though it takes an incredible amount of skill to jump from having one foot in front of the other on a four-inch wide beam and land in the exact same spot, it looks … kind of silly,

 especially in the middle of a routine. And especially compared to the flairs on the pommel horse. Although, yeah, scissor kicks look pretty silly, too.
And when you compare gymnastics to other sports, the differences are glaring. Even though the costuming in women's volleyball is ridiculous, the sport is the same as for men. They may not compete against each other, except in equestrian (where let's give the horses the credit they're due) but Archery is Archery, Cycling is Cycling and Water Polo is Water Polo. (Although, I'm not quite sure why the women's cycling road course is so much shorter than the men's or the women swim 800 m when the men swim 1500.) You can also contrast this to winter's figure skating, another heavily artistic sport, where, even though there certainly seem to be problems of sexism there (especially in the fondness for pixies), both the women and the men are required to show footwork as well as jumps. Mind you, I don't want to see the men dancing to the music and exaggeratedly sticking out their butts between tumbling runs. No, I'd like to see, and I think the sport would get more respect if, women's gymnastics rid itself of the prancing and preening. I'd also like to see collegiate women's gymnastics be the training ground for our Olympians that men's collegiate gymnastics now is, instead of the place Olympic girls go to retire.

I'd also like to see men's gymnastics get more air time, but that's a different topic.

Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter and Gay Pride vs Hetero Pride

We've all seen it: a movement comes up trying to right a wrong, and then, once it's popular enough, the counter-movement pops up. Once we saw enough blacklivesmatter hashtags, we started seeing alllivesmatter. That one didn't take long at all. We are seeing people asking, “When's heterosexual pride month?” “When's white history month?” and the oh-so-popular Men's Rights Movement, as if white, heterosexual males were somehow a persecuted class in need of protection. (News flash: you're not.)

Now, my liberal friends are saying that all of these counter-movements are an attempt to derail the progress of civil rights and equality. And the originators of these counter-movements may even be trying to do that, but the rank and file are probably thinking, “No...” (more later on what the rank-and-file are thinking.)

What brought me to this conclusion was a nearly random thought about the abysmal failure that is Title IX. Title IX (“title nine”) is a law that was designed to offer athletic opportunities to women in colleges and universities, but it hasn't exactly turned out that way. What Title IX states is that, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Laws being laws, there's probably more to the law than that, but... How this reads to me is that Federal funding of educational programs should be evenly distributed between programs for men and programs for women, without regard to co-ed activities. How it's actually been put into practice is that colleges and universities that receive federal funding have to have equal opportunities for men and for women. Which sounds great. Football alone has 105 players allowed on NCAA rosters, and the major teams do everything they can to fill all 105. After all, football is a big money maker. That should be lots of opportunities for women. But it's not. It seems to me that while Title IX demanded that colleges provide equal opportunities, it didn't really do a lot to fund those additional women's opportunities. So colleges still have limited funding, even with a “big money maker”. So to fund those 105 women's opportunities, plus the numbers provided by basketball, baseball and hockey, it seems they had to take the money from somewhere. So they made cuts: men's gymnastics, men's wrestling, men's rugby... Temple University recently cut the men's gymnastics program because it couldn't fund itself, despite all the money that comes from having a major NCAA Division I football team and basketball team. And cutting these men's sports also served to reduce the number of opportunities they had to provide to women. Look at all the money they saved!

That leaves conservatives thinking there are only so many opportunities to go around. So what are the Rank and File thinking when they spread “alllivesmatter”? They're probably thinking, “I need to protect what's mine, otherwise my job / rights / life will go the way of Temple Men's Gymnastics.” And truth be told, they're not entirely wrong. In some cases they are – entirely wrong, that is. We can fight for black lives without putting white lives at risk. We can teach police departments how to resist racism, and require background checks and psychological tests, and have them actually follow proper take-down procedures, and get rid of that archaic “fraternity” system where good cops cover for bad cops' bad behavior, without letting real criminals get away, and without putting police lives at risk. In fact, as the sniper in Dallas shows, digging heels in and refusing to change the way police departments do business puts police lives at risk. It puts the lives of good police at risk. In the same way, recognizing a gay person's right to marry, right to be considered next-of-kin to his or her significant other, right to hold and keep a job, will not reduce a heterosexual's right to marry, right to be considered next-of-kin to his or her SO, or right to hold and keep a job.

So the question remains: who's starting all of these counter-movements? Well, if we create opportunities for non-privileged people (gays, women, blacks, latinx, transsexuals, …) without reducing the opportunities for white heterosexual males, what is the cost? Well, obviously initially, the cost is to business owners. You know, the dreaded One Percent. Yep, them again. See, creating a full-time, cost-of-living providing job costs money to a company … until such time as that wage-earner starts spending that money, and it all gets funneled back into the economy. But what costs money to a company costs profit to the CEO and stock holders, and despite the requirements of their jobs, they are apparently not forward thinking. And they're certainly not in it for the good of the economy at large.

Pride Bracelet

In the beginning of June, a store (that shall remain nameless) started selling stretch bracelets out of a little box decorated in pride colors (the box was decorated), with the text "#loveislove" on the side of the box. And I thought, "Ooo. I should get one of those," partly for myself and partly to stand with Orlando. So I looked through and looked through, and not one of the bracelets had the beads in the right order. And some of them may have even missed a color or two entirely. (Once I saw that they weren't in the right order, I stopped paying that close attention.) I tried looking at local crafting stores, but while they sold some premade bracelets, none were in pride colors. I tried the nearest city's gay bookstore, but it's no longer the store it once was.
So I tried going to a local beading store. The woman there sat with me fishing through the morass of beads in three different bowls until we found enough beads in the six pride colors to make the bracelet pictured above.
It turned out so easy (though it was time consuming fishing for the right beads), and so affordable that I thought I'd check etsy to see whether anyone was already doing this. (I hadn't checked ahead of time because I didn't want to wait for delivery.) Unfortunately, a lot of people are already selling pride bracelets, some of which are very much like the one above. Hey, I never claimed it was all that original an idea.

Why Do My Camera's Pictures Look Like An Oil Painting?

I bought a new camera this past weekend. I had thought I was going to need over a thousand dollars to get a camera which could take really large-sized pictures at an eight-times optical zoom, but this thing has the 8x zoom, and the large picture size is 5152 x 3864, which is huge. So I bought it on Sunday morning, and to my delight, the thing came with a fully charged battery. Or maybe a mostly charged batter, because unfortunately, it only lasted 2 hours of a 6-hour event.
Anyway, here's the real problem: When I zoom to 100% magnification on the pictures I've taken, they look like an oil painting. Of course, I don't have a monitor with 5152 x 3864 pixels, but part of the point of that size is that I can leave space around the subject and then crop to my subject. And the old camera had some really good 100% magnification.
Here's an example of a picture taken with the new camera, cropped to 1024 x 800.

That doesn't look so bad, but when you click on the picture, you'll see what I'm talking about. Or you should.

I've chosen a comparable picture for comparison.
Here's that picture scaled down to 1208 x 800:

And the new camera's whole picture scaled down to 1067 x 800

(Why they have different ratios, I do not know. That stuff should be standard, so sez I.)
Now, here's the old camera, without scaling, cropped to 1208 x 800:

Mind you, the old camera doesn't have 5152 x 3864, so here's a picture from the new camera, scaled to
 3008 x 2000, which is the highest pixel dimensions the old camera can do, and then cropped to 1067 x 800:

Note on the subject matter: I usually dislike posting photos of people without their permission(s). But when you're a college, or professional athlete, competing in an event in a large stadium, which is broadcast on national television, you don't have that same expectation of privacy as the guy who happens to be shopping at the local supermarket.
Note on the post format: I was originally going to put in a table of the photographs, with a row of new camera pictures and a row of old camera pictures and the columns being the full picture, a scaled picture and a cropped picture, or some such, but it doesn't seem like that would really elucidate anything.

A New Take On Baptism?

It's that time of year again. In early June, our church holds a baptism service, which means our pastor has lost his ever-lovin' mind. Take this week's sermon title as an example: he titled it “Baptism and Communion”, and in the 40 minute sermon, he spent 40 minutes talking about why everyone needs to be baptized. See a problem there? Oh, sure, it was communion Sunday. We have a communion Sunday every month (I think; my schedule doesn't let me attend every month). But last month, they didn't title the sermon “Share … and Communion” or the month before that “Contagious Inviters … and Communion”, because they recognized that Communion, while part of the service, was not part of the sermon. But for some reason, this week they felt the needed to include Communion in the sermon title, even though they wouldn't actually be talking about it. Reminds me of last year, when he actually raised the question, “Does a person need to be baptized to be right with God?” and he would not answer the question. Hint: The answer is no. But something about Baptism turns our pastor, who I otherwise genuinely like, into an advertising guru, or possibly a grifter, shilling his shell game.

My pastor is not alone in this phenomenon. A few years back, I was … not happy … with some aspects of my church, including this attitude about baptism, so I decided to look for another church. I went to church after church after church in my area, and they all said the same thing: “You need to be baptized. Oh, baptism isn't a requirement for salvation, but you need to be baptized.” Really? Why? No one can actually give a satisfactory answer for that. They just say, “It's a sign of obedience.” But is it, really?

Churches, well, Protestant churches, are fond of quoting The Great Commission: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19) Okay. I actually believe the Bible. I believe that it's the Inspired Word of God, and good for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16) What I don't believe is that God requires us to climb into a pool of water and have someone shove our heads under while that person recites the magic words (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”).

One of the things the pastor talked about during his sermon was what he called, “a brief history lesson.” During Old Testament times, or The Days of the Prophets for those who don't recognize two Testaments, in order for a gentile to become a Jew, he would submit to circumcision, to obedience to the law, to a sacrifice (probably of a bull, ram, lamb, goat, doves, what have you), and to a ceremonial washing. Today, to become a member of the Church, a lot of churches gloss over obedience -- yes, they say you should be obedient, but they don't really talk much about The Law, they no longer demand that a person not have committed adultery, or that the person not be divorced -- and they certainly don't demand an animal sacrifice or circumcision. If those aren't necessary, why do they still insist on a ceremonial washing?

I don't like literalism. I do, however, like understanding. The Greek word “βαπτίζοντες” (past-participle of βαπτίζω) means “to dip under, to immerse, to soak, to sink, to wash”. To a literalist, that means to cover the person in water. Okay, you want to be a literalist, then why would you say “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” instead of their actual names, “I AM” (אֶהְיֶה or EHYEH or Yahweh), “Jesus” (ישוע or Y'shua) and … well, I don't know the Holy Spirit's name, but is that really why they don't use the others? When we talk about how Jesus said, “Ask anything in my name...” he didn't mean that saying “In Jesus' Name, amen” at the end of a prayer will magically make it come true. He meant that if the prayer is in accord with his name, with his identity, then God will do it for you*. (This does not mean that only prayers God was going to do anyway will come true, which would make prayer ... redundant.) Moreso, if you're going to be a literalist, the Bible doesn't say, “Be baptized,” it says TO baptize. So the impetus would then not be on the members of the congregation, or new believers to submit to baptism, it would be on the pastors, teachers and missionaries to baptize people. Maybe that's why they push it so hard. Mind you, there are many, many reasons I don't like literalism.

Because, no, I do not believe God has commanded missionaries to shove people under water while spouting The Magic Words.

Jesus said a lot of things while He was alive (one of which was not, “Always capitalize when referring to me in the third person,” but I digress). He said, “You must be born again.” He called himself a vine, a gate and a shepherd. He called his followers sheep several times. None of these were actually meant literally (and when He said, “sheep,” He did it in love). No, you do not need to crawl back into your mother's womb and come back out again to be a Christian. Many Christian faiths even believe that when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” he was not speaking literally, that he did not transform crackers and grape alcohol into human DNA, while still standing in front of his disciples.

So, maybe, just maybe, when Jesus said, after his death, to “go and make disciples of all the nations, βαπτίζοντες them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” what he meant was not, “go and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in water and saying, 'in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit',” but, “go and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” immersing them, not in water, but in the very identities of who the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are (figuratively, the name). After all, it seems to me that in Jesus' teaching, the state of a person's heart is far more important than outward signs of religiosity.

So that's why I've made the decision to not be baptized as an adult, not because I'm unwilling to be obedient, but because my reading of the Bible tells me that it's not an issue of obedience. I haven't done a search to find whether this is a new idea or not, but I did go looking for a church not that long ago, and couldn't find one that believed in the Bible but didn't believe that baptism was necessary. So call me a trendsetter, call me a trailblazer, hey, you can call me irresponsible, since it doesn't matter what you call me. But seriously, don't judge me. And don't judge others while you're at it. If you want to hold a baptism service, you go ahead. If you want to be baptized, you go ahead. And if I don't, then you might want to consider that I'm not the one being disobedient or hard-hearted.

* This is not a guarantee. It's a truism. There are several reasons why God's answer to a prayer is or seems to be "no". Of course, most of those can probably be summed up by, "It's not in accordance with His identity, at least not right now."

What do you call 5 politicians at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

 Okay, so it's not exactly William Shakespeare

We asked 2016's Presidential Hopefuls to answer this question.
Why did the chicken cross the road?

Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders


Martin O'Malley


Lincoln Chaffee


Ben Carson

Ted Cruz


Marco Rubio


Rand Paul


John Kasich


Carly Fiorina


Jeb Bush


Mike Huckabee


Rick Santorum


Chris Christie


Rick Perry


Scott Walker


Jim Gilmore


Donald Trump


Jim Webb


 

Why I'm a Democrat. Yep. Politics.

The other day, a person I consider a friend posted on her Facebook timeline defending the friend's Republicanism. I wanted to respond to that, but didn't really want to do it on that friend's thread because it's that friend's thread. It's not about me. For the same reason, I'm not identifying that friend here (you know who you are). This blog IS about me, not that friend -- although any friend is welcome to comment.
I post very little on the Internet about politics. I can't say I don't post anything, because I probably have, but it's been few and far between. Or maybe it just seems few and far between compared to my more strident friends. I'd much rather post about David Giuntoli, Matt Bower, how brilliant I think the current season of American Crime is, or how stupid DC Comics was to ... do whatever stupid thing they did last. But there has come a time when I just have to explain and hope that people will understand.

I'm gay. I see you're shocked. Yes, everyone who knows me as LJ should know by years ago now that I'm gay. And the Republican Party has proved time and time again that it does not like the gays. When a Republican politician stands with Kim Davis, who refused to grant licenses to gay couples to get married -- after gay marriage had been made the law of the land -- it's a slap in the face to me personally. It's telling me that I should not have the same right of personhood as a straight person. It doesn't even matter whether I want to get married or not; they're saying that I shouldn't be able to do it, even though the United States Supreme Court has said that I should. Now, you can say, "But that's not what I believe," but here's the problem with that: in the George W. Bush era, somewhere around 2004, the Republican Party put into writing its platform, and declared that to continue to be a Republican politician, you *had* to agree to all of that platform. (Unfortunately, more recently, Republican voters in Virginia were going to be required to sign a loyalty oath before voting in the primaries -- since apparently repealed -- so I can't find the information on this on line.) There is no room, at least among candidates, to say, "I'm Republican, but I don't agree with everything the party stands for."

The Republican Party is quick to defend a person's right to Religious Freedom, especially when that person's religion wants to discriminate against homosexuals (because THEY CLAIM that homosexuality violates God's Laws), or when that religion wants to stop a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy, or when a Christian who is a public school administrator wants to say a prayer at the start of the school day. But it falls a bit short when the Religious Freedom is of someone who is Muslim, or who doesn't want to pray in school be prayed at in school, or who doesn't believe that a collection of cells in a uterus is a living person. Well, here's a surprise for you: I want organized prayer out of school BECAUSE I'm a Christian. I don't want to be led in a prayer to the Madonna and the Saints, because that's not who I worship. And I don't expect you to worship the same God I do, even if you call your God "God". Even if you, "believe what the Bible says," because there are dozens, if not hundreds of religions out there calling themselves Christian, that say they believe what the Bible says, and say the Bible says different things. They want, "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't even want to say the Pledge of Allegiance. (Yes, go ahead, defriend me now.) According to MY religion, the Pledge of Allegiance is wrong. (And please remember, these are my beliefs; you do not need to share them.) I am to give my allegiance to God alone, not a flag, not any flag. But that's MY religion. The great thing about religious freedom is you don't have to agree with me. You don't even have to respect my belief. You do, however, have to allow me to have my belief. And since I'm going to have my belief anyway, you might as well allow it. So, if you like the Pledge of Allegiance, go ahead and say it. Just don't start demanding that anyone else say it. And please go back to the pre-McCarthyan, more grammatically sensible, "one nation, indivisible".

And abortion? I hate abortion. I think it's a terrible choice. But it IS a choice, one that I will never, ever have to make, thankfully. Because it's one that I will never, ever have to make, I cannot support any effort to prevent the people who do need to make that choice from being able to make it. It's kind of funny that the Right says that if we criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. But they think that if we criminalize abortion, women will just stop getting them, when history has shown us the opposite: if a woman who is that desperate can't get an abortion legally, she will get one illegally, and that's when women start dying or being mutilated. Further, I'm not going to tell a woman who was brutalized by an abusive ex, who became pregnant before she could get away from him -- assuming she *did* get away from him, and leaving aside rape for this post -- that she now has to carry that a****le's seed growing inside her. It's her choice, not mine. I also think anyone considering an abortion is having a hard enough time without facing the possibility of prison.
And let's not be fooled. The Republican Party is not pro-life. If it were, it would be supporting options to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and I mean any options that can work, not just the ones that their Approved Religion okays; and putting in place programs to care for unwanted children. And it's not, because that's certainly not "small government". In fact, if you're going to say that a woman who can't care for a child, for whatever reason, can't have an abortion, then you'd best be ready to care for that child yourself, for the rest of its life. And I don't mean from birth to 18, I mean you pay for the child's college tuition, and take in that child every time it gets laid off from a job, and take in that child if need be, when it retires, or when it becomes so injured that it's no longer able to work. THAT's pro-life. Anything less is just anti-abortion.

You say you hate Obamacare? I hate the name, "Obamacare". The Affordable Care Act has made my medical care actually affordable -- go figure. Due to the economic downturn, I'm currently living below the poverty level. And, no, do not blame president Obama for the economic downturn, which actually started in 2002, but didn't become widespread enough to be recognized by anyone who hadn't been personally touched by it until 2007, the time of the FIRST Economic Stimulus Package. Remember that? When we all got checks, mostly for $300, which did nothing to actually stimulate the economy. Even the SECOND economic stimulus package was in 2008, when they gave bags of money to the banks, and President Obama didn't take office until January of 2009. Anyway, before the Affordable Care Act provisions were accepted in Pennsylvania, I had to pay for doctor visits, lab test, prescriptions, etc, at a time when I couldn't afford to pay for food, clothing and shelter.

So, yes, supporting a Republican candidate who wants to "defend traditional marriage", "preserve Christian values", and "immediately repeal Obamacare", is an attack on me, personally.

I've left gun control to now because it's not my issue. It's not one I take personally. Not only have I not been a victim of gun violence, I don't know anyone who has been (thankfully). But let's go ahead and talk about gun control. Barak Obama has been in office now for 7 years, and NO ONE has come for your guns. So you don't get to hate Obama because he's coming for your guns. He's not. That's just paranoid Republican Party propaganda. That said, how many school shootings will it take for you to admit that the current system IS. NOT. WORKING. (Yes, that last one should be a question mark. Somehow, a question mark doesn't fit the construct.)
They claim that the Second Amendment is inviolate because it's The Constitution. Well, read the Eighteenth Amendment. It says, "After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." So go ahead, report your local liquor store or TGI Fridays to the police. Why not? Because of a little thing called the Twenty-First Amendment: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Will you look at that? An amendment to the Constitution wasn't working, so we got rid of it.
But speaking of the Second Amendment, have you ever read it? This is the exact wording of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [sic -- the comma between "bear Arms" and "shall not" is incorrect.] It does not actually restrict what those arms can be, partly because it was written in 1789, when the ultimate weapon was a blunder bus or a dueling pistol, neither of which are known for their accuracy, range or ability to pierce a bullet-proof vest. Just like the First Amendment says in part that "Congress shall make no law" that is "abridging the freedom of speech" doesn't grant a person the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, the Second should not be used as a defense of stockpiling weapons whose sole purpose is to end the lives of the most people in the shortest amount of time.
It does, however, say that the right to bear Arms is to serve a well regulated Militia. How can you have a well regulated Militia without regulation? Without regulation, any bad of nut jobs can take over a National Park in Oregon (or wherever) and claim they're practicing their Second Amendment Rights.

So, yeah, I'm not a big fan of the Republican Party.