have gun, will what?
i know i've been a bad blogger, but i'm back, finally ready to compose full sentences again and give voice to the thought that's been ricocheting around in my head since last week- yeah, it's been a little busy with me working days on the intersex/genitally ambiguous radio segment, him working nights plus designing another show, and us trying to get together to buy a car and some pants+shoes...we barely managed the errands, far less spending quality time and all that stuff we got married for. the most time we've spent together (awake) the past 2weeks was the couple hours @ jake+jenn's housewarming (yay), and the following night passed out on the couch when he unexpectedly got off early.
so. onward and upward...
after watching more than enough episodes of law+order and csi to qualify as an amateur-expert, i been thinking about the gun thing- not that i'm trying to fuck with anybody's constitution here, just airing an opinion.
i feel that if anybody thinks they're badass enough to kill another human being, they should have to get down and dirty. if you wanna take a life it shouldn't be easy- you should have to get up close and personal, and fight the owner for that life. you should have to be intimate about it- not be able to do the deed from a distance.
i guess my issue isn't with the guns themselves, but with the fact that they allow people to kill other people from just far away enough to not feel shitty about it- of course, there are those who wouldn't feel shitty about it close up either, but i think making attackers take the time and fight hard for it would cut down on fatalities. i mean, if somebody knew that to kill the person who "stole" their significant other, they'd have to run up on them with a knife or brass knuckles and be prepared for a fight they might not win, it might not seem as worthwhile...
being able to drive by and kill as easy as buying fast food seems unfair.
i know the constitution says people have the right to bear arms, but i'm not sure why we need to. then i was reminded that some people still hunt.
but i figure that not many people need to hunt to eat anymore. if you hunt for the sole purpose of food, then you should be able to apply for the appropriate permit for a gun solely for that purpose. but if you hunt as a hobby, well, look how many other 'hobbies' are illegal- why should hunting be different? is hunting less dangerous than marijuana?
i'm not suggesting that anybody should be denied a constitutional right, but that maybe the reason for that right should be re-evaluated. it just seems (and yes, this is a simplification) that maybe this whole issue is blown out of proportion because some people want to continue hunting, which justifies everybody being allowed to have a gun in a time when most of us don't have to shoot our dinner, which then allows us to hunt each other for sport as well.
but if nobody had one, then nobody else would need one, right?
i mean if some do, then everybody should be allowed to, but might it be better to make it so that nobody does? how important is it that hunting be legal? do people need to bear arms? is it worth being able to kill each other with less effort than walking into the restaurant to order and purchase a meal?
and on that note, i say let him eat fluffy, but see for yourself...
walk good.
posted by sweet trini @ 5:07 pm
3 comments
3 Comments:
Here's the thing about the 2nd Amendment, it does NOT say "everyone has the right to bear arms." It says (paraphrase) "IN THE INTEREST OF KEEPING A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, everyone has the right to bear arms."
Amendments aren't long-winded--they don't throw in extra words or clauses for no reason. That tells me pretty definitively that they didn't mean for everyone to have weapons just because. Since we have a very well-regulated institutional militia now (the National Guard), I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated, just like the 3rd (no quartering troops in private houses--when's the last time that came up?).
And on the hunting thing--nobody hunts with handguns or automatic weapons, so that argument only applies to rifles and shotguns.
You're right, too--if nobody has 'em, nobody needs 'em. In a lot of European countries, not even cops have guns--and their murder and crime rates are miniscule compared to ours.
For the record, your husband owns a gun, though at this point in my life I don't really see myself having the need or chance to use it again (though there are time driving around this city that i find it might come in handy). In my case, it is more of an heirloom, though I was still hunting at the time I received it from my grandfather.
It is a bit of a qunadry for me, in that the gun is back in VT mainly because I don't want it in my house here in the city (and the thought of walking into a DC police station with a gun to register it gives me the willies in that looming bad death sort of way). It is however a link to my grandfather and in turn my family history.
This seems to be what makes the 2nd amendment debate sticky. I don't need the gun, but it is a family heirloom and a beautiful example of my grandfather's craftsmanship (his hobby in his later years has been hand crafting guns, I mean barrel, trigger, stock and all). People seem incapable of seperating this type of gun from handguns, and assault weapons, and feel like a law against one, is a law against all. Its this kind of short sightedness that leads to them try to (or have they succeeded already?) repeal the gun ban in DC. I don't pretend to know what the solution is, but I think common sense tells us that we need to review the amendment and update it for current times.
And to further my love of hypocracy... Its a travesty that they want to violate your civil rights by performing a background check on you before you buy a gun, but there is no problem with the airlines searching all your bags without you being present, as long as they leave you a note to let you know they have fondled your underwear.
Hey sweet trini this is Ayanna (nah not scrawn, de nex one)
Given that so far I have successfully avoided actually going to the U.S and obstinately refuse to be fingerprinted to get a VISA, here’s hoping the trigger-happy LAPD, Charleston Heston, Bill O’ Reilly (or anyone else from Fox News for that matter) wont be brandishing the 2nd amendment at my black behind any time soon. Now if I can just find a way to stop worrying about that “well-regulated institutional militia” and the rest of the U.S armed forces landing up on Frederick Street with guns blazing…
Since we are on the topic of the U.S constitution, I thought this was hilarious and right up your alley: Notice of Revocation of Independence
Check it out (if you have not seen it before). It made me want to write one to both Europe and the U.S from Africa, called:
Notice of Revocation of Civilization or, You stole our culture, mineral wealth and our inhabitants and now we want them back.
Title is a bit long but I’m working on it ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home