Grizzlies and Guns
Jan. 8th, 2004 11:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
omorkaYou feel so stupid when it happens , , , something that has been right in front of you all this time suddenly pops into focus, steps up and slaps you in the face . . . it doesn't happen to me that often . . . but:
The Second Amendment says nothing about guns.
The NRA is absolutely, truly smoking crack. If they were really serious about the amendment, they'd be fighting for every citizen's right not only to have firearms, but also to carry swords, spears, and glaive-guisarmes; to stockpile hand grenades and shoulder-launched rockets; to trade bombs, mustard gas, and napalm on the open market; even to build nuclear weapons in their backyard.
The gun control lobby has even better drugs. The Amendment has already been broken, and was the first time someone was turned down buying their own personal cannon/bomb/rocket launcher. They don't need to fuck around with dancing around the gun lobby; why are they bothering? If they can outlaw swords, they can outlaw guns; someone carrying either is armed.
Who thought that "arms" meant only firearms? Where does this half-assed idea come from? And how did it get so embedded in the public discourse that it took me twenty-nine and a half years to see through it?
And, could they twist around the First Amendment the same way?
What on Earth can we do when our Constitution clearly gives every citizen the right to own weapons of mass destruction? Which is more destructive, that or repealing one-tenth of the Bill of Rights? Can we tame the Second without strangling the First? (Or Fifth, for that matter? And where are the Third Amendment nuts?)
Dang. Some days it doesn't pay to pay attention.
"I can see; let me see clearly."
The Second Amendment says nothing about guns.
The NRA is absolutely, truly smoking crack. If they were really serious about the amendment, they'd be fighting for every citizen's right not only to have firearms, but also to carry swords, spears, and glaive-guisarmes; to stockpile hand grenades and shoulder-launched rockets; to trade bombs, mustard gas, and napalm on the open market; even to build nuclear weapons in their backyard.
The gun control lobby has even better drugs. The Amendment has already been broken, and was the first time someone was turned down buying their own personal cannon/bomb/rocket launcher. They don't need to fuck around with dancing around the gun lobby; why are they bothering? If they can outlaw swords, they can outlaw guns; someone carrying either is armed.
Who thought that "arms" meant only firearms? Where does this half-assed idea come from? And how did it get so embedded in the public discourse that it took me twenty-nine and a half years to see through it?
And, could they twist around the First Amendment the same way?
What on Earth can we do when our Constitution clearly gives every citizen the right to own weapons of mass destruction? Which is more destructive, that or repealing one-tenth of the Bill of Rights? Can we tame the Second without strangling the First? (Or Fifth, for that matter? And where are the Third Amendment nuts?)
Dang. Some days it doesn't pay to pay attention.
"I can see; let me see clearly."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-09 07:36 pm (UTC)The Constitution doesn't specify what arms we be allowed to keep, so it should be within the right of the legislature to allow some weapon, but not any weapon. In the interest of sanity, we're probably better off with firearms, since they have prohibited automatic weapons and silencers. Only "quiet" weapons are prohibited (bow & arrows being the exception, since accuracy is a difficult to attain skill - crossbows are restricted).