PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

During my adolescence, which began in 1970, I often heard the argument, by people who used psychodelic drugs for recreational purposes, that those drugs never, of their own, killed anyone.  Those drugs, the argument went, wreaked havoc only when misused by someone, either accidentally or intentionally.  The drug has no moral or amoral consciousness---it does not choose to be used correctly or incorrectly; it is only a chemical device.  Its benefit, or its dire results, depend on the usage.

Yet, these substances are placed on a list of Controlled Substances maintained by the government; and possession of these substances---among ordinary people---has been criminalized.  A psychiatrist has the scientific knowledge to prescribe the use of some controlled substance; the nerd next door, who has a chemistry set in his parents' garage, does not.

Each month, when I am scheduled to have my catheter removed and a clean one inserted, I am given a strictly controlled pill that creates a state of mind in which the pain of the procedure is dramatically lessened, and the memory of that pain is difficult to retain or summon.  However, I am only permitted to have one per month, and only as long as the prescription is good, because, in my own hands, it might damage me somehow even though I would only take it during sessions of gout or some of the other internals pains (a couple of them excruciating) that sometimes afflict me.

The very designation, Assault Weapons, should be the first clue to most sane people of the damage these weapons can wreak.  They are created to provide such damage, ostensibly in defense or in alleviation of a military or criminal threat.  I think anyone with some semblance of common sense might agree that such weapons were not even imagined by the Founders when they crafted the Second Amendment.  The right to bear arms should not be abrogated; the right to bear weapons of mass or multiple destructions should be.  The hunting rifle used to blow away a duck, or to shoot at a target in a gallery, or to ward off a home invasion is not the same as an assault weapon.  Do you really need an assault weapon to blow some geese out of the sky, or execute that pesty gopher that continues to rape your tomato patch?---no, of course not.  What use, then, could a person not involved professional in law enforcement, or in military activity, need with an assault weapon?  That many geese and gophers to dispatch?   No, the realm of possibility is not the same as the realm of likelihood.

Radioactive substances are interesting, although I haven't a clue as to how they work.  I know they can provide a source of power for the generation of electricity, so that I can plug up my laptop and write this essay, or switch on the Christmas lights on the day after Thanksgiving.  They also can create mass destruction---Hiroshima, Nagasaki.  Therefore the government assidiously controls the use and possession of radioactive substances.  One could even argue, from the historic use of radioactivity in 1945, that it constitutes "arms."  So should it be included in the Right to Bear Arms?  Or should it remain under close control.

I concede---assault weapons, drugs, and radioactive substances cannot, on their own, cause mass destruction.  They have to be used for that.  But because we cannot legislate morals (some smokehouse shuck would complain about the curtailment of his or her First Amendment rights if we did), we can---and today's incident proves we should---legislate complete and utter control of the provision, possession, and use of such weapons; and should heavily criminalize (with the severest penalties) those who are found to be violating that legislation.  We quake in our shoes and wring our self-righteous hands when we see two adolescent boys kissing, or holding hands on the walk to their school, and we believe that this threatens the institution of marriage, and bemoan the threat.  We put signs in restaurants---"No shirt, no shoes, no service" (although I have never heard how the lack of a shirt or shoes can cause a practical threat to the consumption of a meal)---to curtail the lack of social courtesy (so we believe it) .  ("Oh, that discourteous young man who has come in here for a hamburger---look at him, if you focus your gaze just right, you can see, nearly concealed beneath the cuffs of his bell-bottoms, a couple of bare toes.  Maybe even with metallic blue enamel on them.  His feet can spread bacteria in the dining area."  Well, can't the soles of your jackboots also spread bacteria, especially after you stepped in dog poop before you came in here?)  But, when we hear the news of yet another school shooting, another criminal mass murder caused by the use of the assault weapon, we wring our collective hands and appeal to the blanket protections of the Second Amendment.

To all legislative assemblies that have the power:  please ban the manufacture, sale, and use of assault weapons for all persons who do not employ them in verified and validated military operations or law enforcements.  Restrict their provision and purchase to departments:  the Pentagon, and all law enforcement agencies.  Individuals should never again be permitted to obtain, purchase, dischare, or murder someone with one of those damnable devices.

Starward