Americans continue to face a civil rights crisis. Following the recent, tragic events in
Boston, Wayne SelPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Bomb
Association, stated, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a bomb is a good
guy with a bomb. As long as bombs are
illegal, only criminals will have bombs.
And we have seen that outlawing bombs has not kept them out of the hands
of criminals, while law-abiding Americans have been deprived of their Second
Amendment rights by monumental, unconstitutional overreach by the federal
government. The NBA believes it is time
that Americans have their constitutional rights to bear any and all arms
restored and we will be filing suit against the federal government challenging
the unconstitutional infringement of our right to bear bombs.”
Pundits in
the lamestream media have claimed that the NBA is a bunch of extremist nut
cases, but if the Founding Fathers had only intended for Americans to have the
right to bear firearms, they would have said so. “Arms” is a synonym for armaments and a quick check in any
dictionary makes it clear this is not limited to pistols, rifles and assault
weapons.
Some might
argue that bombs have no uses other than to kill and maim, but these
unenlightened persons have obviously never engaged in the sport of dynamite
fishing, nor used a small explosive charge to open the lid on a too-tightly
closed jar of pickles. Bear bombing
is a far more challenging sport than bear hunting with a rifle. It
requires both getting much closer to a bear than needed with a barely-sporting
hunting rifle with telescopic sight and anticipating speed and direction
changes a bear will make while lobbing your grenade. A child who has learned to throw the grenade not where the bear
is, but where the bear will be, is a child who has learned an invaluable life
lesson. She will be a leg up on her
non-bear bombing peers, assuming no hunting accidents. Cleaning and cooking a detonated bear
similarly requires far more skill and effort than slicing up and roasting an
intact carcass.
Some might
argue that the Founding Fathers could never have anticipated modern
developments in personal explosives like dynamite, plastic explosives, and
IEDs, but that’s the same, lame argument that the Senate rightfully discarded
when courageously refusing to buckle to the will of the majority of the
American people and ban assault weapons or magazines holding large numbers of
bullets. In fact, the inability of the
Founding Fathers to anticipate those advances in personal firearm technology is
what makes regaining the right to personal explosives so crucially
important. While Wayne LaPierre of the
NRA claimed that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good
guy with a gun, the NBA has pointed out that, against a gunman armed with
multiple assault weapons with high capacity magazines and wearing body armor,
an individual with a concealed pistol has virtually no chance – but a patriotic
American lobbing a concealed grenade at the gunman or gunwoman? Game over.
When even a
Canadian peacenik like Bruce Cockburn wistfully sings, “If I Had a Rocket
Launcher,” it is clear that this un-American, unconstitutional restriction on
our right to bear arms must go. I hope
that our courageous Congress sees fit to act without waiting for the NBA case
to proceed glacially through the court system so that, eventually, the Roberts
court can restore our constitutional rights.
It is important not to lose sight of principle and just grab an easy,
incomplete victory. The Second
Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. Period. Next week, I’ll
discuss handy, home uses of sarin wrap.
mildly bombastic
ReplyDeleteHow did I miss having first comment?
ReplyDeleteYou are exactly on target. Bullseye. At a time during the American Revolutionary War when rifles faced off against field artillery and the big guns were cannons on fixed forts and sailing men-of-war, self-arming our citizens with mere rifles to 'protect' them from tyranny worked as well as beating the British without French Imperial financing... NOT.
ReplyDeleteWhile a fanatical belief in individual freedom was *not* shared by a majority of the North American colonial populace, it was certainly good business for a sufficient minority of warlord businessmen aka John Hancock smugglers and mujahideen farmers hooked on the free life of farming aplenty on an open frontier with as much stolen Indian* land as they wanted to grab.
In this day and age, though, as well as even then in colonial times, guns are 1) useless against helicopter gunships, cruise missiles, remote electronic surveillance and all other tools of government tyranny and 2) produce the sickening cycle of violence observed after the Boston Massacre (of 1770) and described by Ghandi and King and every decent inner light-lit Quaker i've ever known.
We outlawed slavery and dozens of other aberrant 'rights' enshrined in our constitution over the last 220 years - if the rest of the world does not agree that guns are a 2nd amendment right next to our 1st amendment right to freedom of speech then maybe we are just maybe probably completely wrong about guns. Let's end the insanity.
If only the world ran on reason.
*Indian being the historically accurate term used at that time in that cultural milieu.