Weapons of our Mass Destruction


Last night, friends and I got together to celebrate the brief visit of one of our own.  We talked about the most relevant topic of the day of course: the tragedy at the Newton, CT elementary school.  We all agreed that “our right to bear arms” in this country is antiquated. With the “arms” of the past, one had to get up close and personal, you had to think long and hard about whether or not you would use your one musket shot to kill that particular person.  You had to walk up to a person and stab them.  Now?  People can spray a semi- or fully-automatic weapon indiscriminately and be sure to hit someone.  We have become too desensitized to gun violence in this country.  We have made being able to kill someone, a right.  We were all animated and upset by the incident, many of us working with children, or in schools, or with underserved populations–but we ended the conversation on as light a note as we could muster in light of such tragedy.  We agreed that the only kinds of guns that people should be allowed to have are antique, single shot, revolvers, and muskets.  That way, you have to think about every bullet going into the chamber, and everyone coming out.  Notice in the video below, how many steps he has to go through to fire one bullet.

Semi-automatic and automatic rifles should be seen for what they are: weapons of mass destruction.


2 replies
  1. GWAlum says:

    Very interesting reflection, but if we are to be consistent in how we apply our present day understanding of the Constitution and all that is therein, including its amendments, then such an ultra-originalist reading of the Constitution (ie: let’s let the Constitution mean today exactly what it meant at the time the part in question was enacted), if we are to not be hypocritical, must be applied throughout the Constitution. The practical effect is that the foundation of much of today’s liberal reading of the Constitution (especially the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses) would also have to be thrown out in favor of an ultra-originalist reading of the Constitution. One example that jumps to mind is abortion rights, which can find no grounds in an originalist reading of the Constitution. So though this particular interpretation of the Constitution sounds appealing, those who follow it mark themselves as ultra-originalists and cannot then also argue with a progressive reading of the Constitution that recognizes such important implicit rights as that of abortion.

  2. The Doctor says:

    @GWAlum thanks for your comments. You make a very valid point though to suggest that the “right to bear arms” is antiquated is to suggest that it had relevance, but perhaps needs to be reconsidered. This I believe is progressive. It is not “let the constitution mean today exactly what it meant at the time.” In fact, I mean to suggest that it had a particular meaning then, and we need to reevaluate what it should mean now. And this is where the joke comes in: If that doesn’t work… then just give people them old raggedy guns that took 3 minutes to load. But… it’s just a joke. Made us feel good to think about folks having to reload after every shot… instead of being able to kill so many people in 3 minutes.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.