The other day I heard the report of two guards being shot to death at the United States Capitol Buildings. This news was sad and tragic. In the interview snippets that were broadcast along with the report were two people expressing opposing views on gun control. A woman said how she couldn't believe that the murderer's father could have a gun around the house with a son who was paranoid schizophrenic. A man said that he had never heard of a gun firing itself and shooting anyone and that it was paranoid schizophrenics that should be controlled, not guns.
It strikes me that the poor lunatic couldn't have killed two men as easily if he had been armed with a Swiss-Army knife (unless he was a Swiss-Army Commando or something), ice-pick, baseball bat, or cattle prod. Compared to people, guns should be easy to control. Just don't have guns around and nobody gets shot! Simple, really.
Peace, order and good government is what we're promised here in Canada. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The right to bear arms (an American notion) sort of implies a responsibility to use them. If they weren't intended to be used, why grant the right to bear them? If they're expected to be used, what are they to be used on? Signposts on an abandoned highway in the middle of the night? Seems like kind of an odd thing to enshrine in a nation's constitution and would serve only to make the signs hard to read. Perhaps they're expected to be used on people. Well, they are.
What a constitution.
Last Updated on Mon, Apr 13, 2009.