Monday, May 16, 2005

Letter to a Senator: Gun Control

I didn't write this, but I endorse it and agree with it. The author obviously has a good sense of humor, as well...
And lastly, the line that never fails to get me, "nobody's talking about taking away hunting rifles". "These guns aren't needed for hunting." "These features have no practical use in hunting." I cannot honestly believe that the Maryland Bar is worth the canine feces on my shoe if they admit people that say and believe that about the Second Amendment. As an added measure, why don't we examine the little sentence that so many people seem to misunderstand? Let's see, it says:

"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."

There it is, in it's entirety. It's not some arcane mystic mumbo-jumbo that requires the most intense interpretation. It says what it says. But wait...I don't see the word "hunting" in there at all. Nor do I see "deer", "buck", "13-pointer", "cape buffalo", or even "rhinoceros" in there. Wait!, I think they mean the verb "bear". My friend, I'm going to be straight with you: the Second Amendment is not about hunting. At all. As a matter of fact, the intent of the authors of the constitution was to delineate the right of the people to own guns to protect the freedom of the United States. Let us read between the line(s) here; from what on earth would we be protecting the freedom of the United States? Between you and me, Senator, I don't think they meant wild animals.

Read the whole thing.