Tuesday, November 20, 2007

The Rite Two Bare Arms

I am not a gun owner. As a teenager, I fired a .22 caliber rifle a few times and it didn't make me giddy in the least. In fact, though I only shot at a few crows and stationary targets, I found the whole exercise a bit discombobulating. I realized at a young age that guns are dangerous and, placed in the wrong hands (people with evil motives or anyone in a foul mood), could easily become implements of death and destruction.

Of course, I realize I'm in the vast minority. Most families have at least one gun and some people own personal arsenals. Any suggestion from folks of my ilk that the world would be better off if we rounded up all the guns in private hands -- and melted 'em down -- is met with cries of "It's my damn constitutional right!"

Technically speaking, this assertion isn't altogether true. The U.S. Constitution only guarantees the right to "bear arms". "Arms" are weapons and a gun is only one of many arms.

We already have a few laws in place that limit what types of armament a private citizen can own or possess. The average person is forbidden from owning/possessing tanks, flamethrowers, land mines, cruise missile, nuclear weapons and a few specific types of guns.

With this in mind, why not outlaw the private ownership of all guns? Remove them from all the Wal-Marts of the world!

To stay in line with our constitution, we'd allow citizens the right to own/possess knives, billy clubs and bows 'n arrows, to name a few. If nothing else, I bet it would greatly reduce our murder rate!

Ever heard of a drive-by knifing?


  1. I've heard about youngster beating up others with their baseball bat while driving by, though

  2. Every time I ask a gun-totin' 2nd Amendment zealot what militia they belong to I'm met with complete silence. It seems they're either not a member of a militia or it's a big secret.

  3. The whole reasoning behind the right to bear arms in the constitution is not understood by most people.

    According to the declaration of independence,(Can be read here.) people have the right to overthrow their government when it is no longer serving them properly. Now, if, as you suggest, we can only own knives, bow and arrows, etc. how can we expect to take on the government with its guns, tanks, and bombs? It then becomes extremely one sided.

    Now, most people would think of the idea of overthrowing the government as treason. (Especially the government.) At this point I would agree, but to protect our right to overthrow it if it ever comes to that point, we need the right to own weapons that would give us a chance against the army.

    Albeit, there is a great danger in giving everyone the right to have them. It is definitely a hard line to draw. Just thought I'd share my understanding of it. =)

  4. Hello Trey;

    You've been awarded the "Roar for Powerful Words" blog award. Please see this blog for details: http://theshamelesslionswritingcircle.blogspot.com

  5. Here is one Australian's perspective on gun control.

    (Came to your blog by way of both getting Theresa's award!)

  6. I'm a pacifist but also strong supporter of gun ownership. This might seem like a contradiction but it isn't. Citizens need to be armed to prevent abuse by governments or occupying forces. Is this an absurd notion in America 2008? Perhaps, for now. Let's talk again in 50 years when global warming begins taking a real toll, China rises to prominence, and the developing nations crumble. Those aren't tinfoil hat predictions either.

    Its very easy to be against guns when times are good but think back to when the Constitution was written, it was tumultuous and our founding fathers had a great distrust of government. This is a scenario that plays itself out again and again in history.

    I'm not some right wing wacko. I'm a supporter of the Green Party, unions, and also a practicing Daoist. To be against gun ownership after researching the past and looking to the future is what's really "wacko." Its important for citizens to own the means to secure their future.

  7. With this in mind, why not outlaw the private ownership of all guns?

    This is the ignorant attitude all liberal socialist idiots have.

    Let's try some common sense:

    A: Only law-abiding citizens obey the law.

    B: If you outlaw all guns then all law-abiding citizens will obey the law and not have guns.

    C: The only people with guns will be those that don't obey the law - the criminals.

    D: Knowing that any home of a law-abiding citizen will be without a gun the gun-toting criminal finds many easy sheep for the slaughter.


    I have a better idea - how about we allow citizens to carry weapons and kill the criminals that try and inflict harm on them or their loved ones?

    Why do idiots like you always side with the criminal element?


  8. Well, let me put it this way. The world, in my opinion is much like a play, and in our grand play, there exists the gun already, and the consequence of that is that it eventually goes off before the ending. So unless you can remove the gun from the play entirely, (destroying all guns, all knowledge of how to build them, and all language akin to guns) the gun is going to "go off" or otherwise appear at the greatest times and most tragic times. This proves the solution to the murder rate is not found through more government control of existing weaponry. Instead the solution is going to be a more innovative one that affects the individuals desires to kill rather than there physical capability.

  9. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!


Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.