Baraka_Guru

I know...I know, I made a language joke to make a point. I understand the phrasing is meant to point out that "guns are just tools." But I guess my point is that "guns are very effective tools for killing people, which is why most people use them for that purpose."

I'm not sure where I'm going with it, but it's clear that guns are the #1 tool of choice to kill people. The success rate I think has something to do with it.


People like to use cars as an example of something other than guns that are regulated. I'm not sure I buy much of it, based on the problems posed in the Constitution. However, when we revoke licenses of drunk drivers, reckless drivers, or when we deem certain vehicles unsafe and bar them from the road, we do so not because we're blaming Cars; we do this because the driver has failed responsibility. This is why we license drivers instead of just banning all cars.

However, you're going to get drunk drivers who drive with suspended licenses. You're going to get people who will always drive recklessly. You're going to get people driving condemned cars. These, I suppose, would be "criminals."

This isn't a valid argument for getting rid of the licensing of drivers and checking the safety of their automobiles. "If you make it harder for good drivers to drive, then only bad drivers will drive." No...that seems silly. I support a reasonable system for licensing drivers, as I support a reasonable system for licensing gun owners.

But then we get back to the Constitution. The problem with the driving/gun comparison is, of course, that driving in public is a privilege and private gun ownership is a right. However, I recently read a summary description of the Second Amendment, which I will share with you:

The Second Amendment: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.

As an editor/word geek, it gave me a laugh. It's kind of true. Think about it: if a legislative body, legal team, or other official body attempted to pass off something like the Second Amendment today, it would be ridiculed. I really have no idea how it got by even back at the time. It's so murky. I think what was written in it was done so with assumptions that were understood at the time that are essentially lost to us today.

It's not clear. If it were clear, there would be far less debate.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot