Dead kids sure are a bummer but….

 

I know the title is rude. It appears to be insensitive. Maybe even shocking.

But I honestly don't think I'm the one being insensitive and shocking here.

I've been sitting here in Japan since the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, trying to imagine how a typical gun owner would complete that sentence.

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but you know what's a real bummer? Not being able to go to a gun show and buy anything I want by slapping some cash on the counter."

 

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but I'd really be bummed out if I couldn't own 57 handguns, shotguns, assault weapons and use hollow-point bullets."

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but can you imagine what a bummer it would be to have to put a new magazine in my AR-15 after getting off only 20 rounds?"

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but there's no way I'm going to take classes in gun safety or have some punk bureaucrat come around every year to check up on me."

What is a typical gun owner willing to give up so that any one of the the victims of the Newtown massacre whose photos appear in this article would be alive? And what is so important to a gun owner that the lives of these people, and the other thousands who are killed by gunfire every year, can be so easily dismissed?

 

Truth is, I have no idea why I'm even writing about this. Because trying to get significant changes in our attitudes about guns really isn't about laws and regulations. It's about becoming sane again. And I don't see that happening.

Here's how the gun-loving members of the American public responded to Sandy Hook: "Shock figures show buyers are racing for firearms in Sandy Hook school massacre state" and "Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons".

I love this:  "Gun backers want to arm schoolteachers"

My wife came up with this one:  BulletBlocker, 'Bullet Resistant Products'

Bulletproof backpacks for children?  Is it just me or does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

 

I understand the powerful appeal of guns. Maybe not as intensely as the gun nuts out there but I do understand. I even understand the need for the latest and greatest of everything. We've been conditioned to want to own the biggest, the baddest, the best. We just can't fall behind, you know.  

"Damn! My next door neighbor just got an AR-59 MICW. What if we get into an argument over how high to trim the hedge? I'll be outgunned!"

Okay. I know I'm rambling. I'm not being coherent or rational.

 

But the truth is, none of the discussions about guns and gun control are remotely coherent or rational. 

We can nitpick over the details of gun regulation but frankly the whole discussion is so far out off the edge, it's like a conversation in an insane asylum between Napoleon and Jesus about what they should do with Elvis over there in the corner to keep him from singing "All Shook Up" during arts and crafts.

Yes, it's that bad.

It's pure insanity.

It's pure insanity because when people flock to gun shows to buy more guns after a tragedy like this, it's akin to a lung cancer patient spending his life savings on cigarettes and giving them to all his friends and relatives.

 

It's pure insanity because not even the simplest, most sensible, least intrusive limitations can get through Congress.

It's pure insanity that we can't even ban weapons which have no other purpose than killing and killing fast, ones like the semi-automatic rifles used in so many recent gun massacres.

I got a Tweet from Yoko Ono a few days ago. It said ... "Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the USA since John Lennon was shot and killed on 8 Dec 1980."

Which brings me to the way I would complete the sentence.

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but we've gone completely insane, so even if we shed a few tears, we really don't care deep down inside where it counts." 

[ Insert prayers here for the America which is being lost, for the children who are being abandoned, for the death of the American Dream. ]
  
[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

 

The Right To Bear Nuclear Arms

My lovely Japanese wife frequently asks me about gun ownership in America. In Japan, it's difficult, if not impossible, to buy a gun. So when there are incidents of gun violence in America __ and there have been many recently __ she understandably questions the prudence of having so many guns around.

I explain that written in the U.S. Constitution __ specifically the Second Amendment __ is a clause which protects the right of U.S. citizens to possess and use all sorts of guns for a variety of commonly accepted purposes, hunting and self-defense chief among them.

She has several times asked me, "Is it really that easy to buy a gun there?"

I came across this article:  "Amazon ships assault rifle instead of television".

Apparently it's not only easy, it's actually difficult to not buy a gun. This guy just wanted a nicer screen to watch TV and movies and ended up with a full-blown assault weapon.

I got to thinking about the whole thing and came to a surprising conclusion. The rationale for having so many weapons at our itchy fingertips springs from the powerhouse argument contained in this pithy gem of philosophical analysis . . .

Guns don't kill people. People kill people!

Since this is irrefutable logic, I began to wonder why it has been applied so narrowly. The truth is, guns are just one form of lethal entertainment. Thanks to the amazing advances in science and technology, there is a cornucopia of devices which fit the legal definition of "arms" as referred to in our Constitution. It seems to me, the legal framework and the rationale would apply equally to nuclear weapons.

Now, narrow interpreters of the Bill of Rights might say:  "There's nothing in there about the right to bear nuclear arms."

I say:  "So what? There's nothing in there excluding them!"
Conservatives argue that government should be about increasing the options of its citizenry, or at least staying out of the way so that all of the options are on the table. Normally, I'm not one to agree with people on the right end of the political spectrum. Grudgingly I admit the wisdom of their arguments here is just too overwhelming.

So let's go for it! After all . . .

Hand grenades don't kill people. People kill people!

Stinger missiles don't kill people.  People kill people!

Cluster bombs don't kill people. People kill people!

Predator drones don't kill people. People kill people!

Nerve gas doesn't kill people. People kill people!

Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people!

Just think about how much fun we can have if we're not restricted to only using sawed-off shotguns and assault weapons! It'll be awesome! And finally, hunters will regain the upper hand from those pesky critters out there who have been outwitting them and managed to keep from being slaughtered into extinction. We'll show 'em who's boss around here!

Understandably there have to be a few controls in place. You can't just have anybody and everybody driving around with WMDs in the trunk of their SUV or family station wagon. But with some reasonable waiting period and background check, I don't see why this couldn't work. Permits could be issued as they now are with handguns . . .

The bearer of this permit, offering appropriate corroborative identification, is entitled to possess and use within applicable limits and restrictions, explosive nuclear devices up to 50 kiloton explosive equivalency, as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It's time to claim our rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and realize the profound wisdom of the founding fathers.

It's time that we be able to put in that munitions cache which has become the hallmark of a safe and happy American home, all of weaponry available today, including nuclear bombs.

It's time to assert our constitutionally protected right!

The right to bear nuclear arms.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]