Joho the Blog » I’d rather we had a right to an open Internet than a right to bear arms.

I’d rather we had a right to an open Internet than a right to bear arms.

No, I’m not suggesting that we amend the Constitution to guarantee American citizens a right to access the open Internet. I’m suggesting that it’s weird that from all the rights we could imagine — a right to an education, to adequate health care, to equal pay for equal work — we continue to enshrine a right to carry guns.

Why guns of all things? Because of a fear of an armed federal take-over that made sense in 1787 but now is merely paranoia? Besides, when the feds have actually used armed force against states claiming rights, the states were defending slavery and segregation. Besides, if you’re hoping to defeat the US military, you better be pressing for a right to own tanks, jets, and, for those states with beachfronts, some battleships.

So, no, I’m not suggesting we pass an Internet Rights amendment. I am suggesting that we pass an amendment nullifying the right to bear arms. Let guns be regulated the way we regulate other objects that can harm us and kill our kids.

6 Responses to “I’d rather we had a right to an open Internet than a right to bear arms.”

  1. Thank you.

  2. I, too, thank you. I’m so discouraged by the chorus of “now is not the time to discuss gun control.”

    If not now, when?

  3. The Second Amendment, contrary to “popular” opinion, does not enfranchise to every independent citizen the right to tote heat.
    Envisioning a Representative Democracy, the Founding Fathers describe a government what’s powers derive from the consent of the People. Moreover, the Government IS The People, as brought home by any prosecution when the charge reads “The People vs. So-And-So”. The well-regulated militia part is the “tell” in that the police agencies (militias) are enfranchised to bear arms.
    Not the general citizens, who, of course, are protected from harm by the government of their peers. There has yet to be a case where armed citizens have prevailed in maintaining the peace, except when they are reloading. The legends of the Wild West notwithstanding.
    So what’s this all about? Look at the legions of weaklings who insist they need a gun. Cringing behind an tattered clause in a fanciful document composed centuries ago, they misrepresent the foundation of our Nation in an increasingly obscure attempt to instill fear in their fellow citizens. “I may have a gun in my pants!”
    Stupid.
    Ruby Jo, my friend, NOW IS THE TIME TO DISCUSS AMMUNITION CONTROL! Let the imbeciles have they guns, just make it extremely difficult to obtain ammunition. An unloaded gun is severely safer than a loaded gun.
    BAN THE BULLETS!
    It’s the bullets that maim and kill. And the bullets aren’t expressly mentioned in the Second Amendment, in spite of what subsequent Supreme Court decision may have been rendered to the contrary.
    As far as rights are concerned, I posit that we have no rights. If we did, we wouldn’t have to fight so hard just to retain what few privileges remain.
    Happy Holidays To You All!
    And may love light your life.

  4. It would take but a minor change in the US [Sometimes called ES as in Excited States] Constitution.

    Change ‘The right to bear arms’ to ‘The right to bare arms’, then everyone can cool down, roll up their sleeves an get on with the real work of building a society which remains today a sometime incoherent amalgamation of disparate states.

  5. I like the valuable info you provide in your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I’m quite sure I will learn many new stuff right here!
    Good luck for the next!

  6. I read this piece of writing fully on the topic of the resemblance of most recent and earlier technologies, it’s awesome article.

Leave a Reply


Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon

Switch to our mobile site