Happiness is a Warm Gun

It has been said by those smarter than I we should not discuss politics, religion, sex, or gun control at work and I would suspect that this unwritten rule applies to social media forums as well; unfortunately for myself and no doubt my readers, I have talked about all four taboo areas.

And, it is not because I am arrogant or think that I can cleverly get away with it, I just like to open up discussion and healthy debate over topics that, for all intents and purposes, will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction anytime in the near future.

Why do I do this?

Well, I could say that creativity stimulates the analytical side of the brain which is actually does, but that would not be the real motive...

And, I could also say that I am 67 years old and not longer care what other people think about what I say and/or write... and, while that is partially (see... I am getting a little wiser in old age using the word partially) true, it is not the real motivation either...

So, what is?

Believe it or not, I want to stimulate POLITE discussion as if we are in a college classroom. I just ended my career and the last 3 years were spent teaching management classes for college students and I really enjoyed being in the classroom.

Part of me wishes that I was still there.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It would appear, if my research is correct, that the Supreme Court has looked at this 2nd Amendment on 3 different occasions in 1939 (United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. ), in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller 07-290), and in 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) where the court in a 5-4decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine.However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

Self-defense is a very interesting defense of the 2^nd Amendment because it is so plausible. It is plausible to me because as I read and reread and think about the 2^nd Amendment what really sticks in my mind is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... again, indicates to me that our Founding Fathers gave us this right until our newly formed government could establish a military for protection which made and still makes a lot of sense.

But, even with this self-defense purpose, my question would be self-defense against what? We obviously need to protect ourselves from our neighbors on either side of our home and in front and in back but that is what they created privacy fences for, wasn't it? Of course, I am joking here.

We have a drug sell and use problem in this country that seems to be getting worse instead of better and that, in an of itself, breeds crime and violence.

We also “rape” problem in this country which is not isolated just to college campuses.

We have always had “weirdos” and “crazies” in this country brought about, no doubt, by abnormal mutations to our DNA. And no, I am not a Molecular Biologist but I suppose I am jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

We also have Mexican Drug Cartels operating in the US (to save on shipping costs) that are fighting among themselves which may/may not bleed over in our suburban areas and sub-divisions.

So, self-defense makes sense.

When I was a boy, I was a member of a local Boy Scout Troop and joined the NRA and would go to the firing range at Fort Belvoir every Saturday morning with my troop for target practice; but, that was really my only exposure to firearms until the military.

I have never been a hunter nor do I intend to ever be one but I understand why Native Americans and early settlers needed to hunt for food and clothing. However, I doubt I will ever understand the need to kill an animal for pleasure. And, the odds are not fair actually but would be if the hunter used only their hands to make the kill... or, be killed as the case may be.

I understand that a man (or woman) must protect their family... again, that makes sense; but, what I do not understand is the need to wear a firearm in a holster in public and go into a local store, or a local bar, or a local church with that weapon strapped to your waist or thigh.

Taking a firearm into a bar in my opinion is just asking for trouble, and taking a firearm into a house of worship seems to defeat the purpose of being there, doesn't it?

Should we defend ourselves from violence is an interesting question.

In a militaristic situation, it sorta makes sense, but the war should have never happened in the first place as it is economically counter-productive. And, what are the odds of defending yourself from a sniper?

But, in a non-militaristic situation and predicated upon the fact that the person about which I speak is a devoutly religious person, our Lord is going to “call us home,” when He is ready for us regardless of our desire to defend ourselves; and death and resurrection into heaven is the ultimate desire or should be the ultimate desire of all Christians, should it not?

"The pen is mightier than the sword" were first written by novelist and playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839, in his historical play Cardinal Richelieu; and, has been used by LEADERS throughout the world since then to end the need for WARS.

Carry a firearm if you want to Americans, it is your guaranteed right but don't be surprised when that carried weapon is used against you or if you get “taken out” by a SNIPER.

As always, all comments are welcomed and encourage; but, I do reserve the right not to reply to any and all comments.