I Just Hope Mine's Bigger Than Yours

Yeah, and you should see the holster you need for that sucker...

Well, your old Pope hasn't written a post in lo, these many months, for various and sundry reasons, some of them dealing with sloth and lack of motivation, but just this evening, predicated on a Facebook post by my friend and ex-brother-in-law, Eric, I now have both determination and motivation. (Although neither in great quantity.)

(FYI, I am Pope John The Tall, leader and CEO of the All John All The Time World Church and Pizza Parlor; an explanation of my meteoric rise to prominence is featured above. See up.)

As I was saying, my friend Eric posted several pictures of himself and his lovely better half, Kim, on FB, showing them at a shooting range firing a weapon that I had never seen the likes of previously. Admittedly, based on my limited knowledge of guns, anything other than a simple shotgun, rifle or basic handgun is outside of my experience.

It was, frankly, an evil-looking thing, in one sense, and yet oddly, in another, quite beautiful. (Kim's a cutie, too.)

Being the type of person that enjoys learning strictly for it's own sake and no other, I queried my ex-BIL as to what type of weapon it was they were shooting.

(Full disclosure here: Eric and I have had some previous discussions on the 2nd Amendment; since he's the shooter and I'm the ignoramus, you can assume who took what side of the debate.)

After replying that the weapon in question was an AR-15, and that it was .223 caliber, I replied back, asking Eric what usage, other than target-shooting, one would have for a weapon of this type. Truly, my intent was merely to obtain information, and nothing else. (Although I have to tell you, to me, this thing looked like something you would use to overrun an enemy position.)

This was my erstwhile friend's reply, verbatim:

"Hopefully that is all I will have to use it for but it makes women hot to! Is this just a precursor to a debate on the second amendment John?"

Now I freely admit, from Eric's point of view, the question was warranted, although I had given him no indication I was looking for such debate. I replied that, no, I had nothing of the sort in mind, that it was merely idle curiosity, and as I said, my penchant for learning.

Shortly thereafter, I logged off and turned to other things, but I couldn't get Eric's question out of mind. (I believe he thinks I'm a closet liberal, which I'm not, but I am quite a good deal more moderate in my politics and ways of thinking than he is; he's also a good deal better looking, and has more money to boot, but I'm smarter. More humble too.)

I kept thinking about the 2nd Amendment and gun-ownership, a subject on which I have done a fairly extensive study. No, for the most part, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers, when writing the Second, had in mind that everyone in America should have the right to arm themselves as if they're going to repel an enemy invasion next week; what they had in mind was to ensure that, since we had no standing armed services at the time the Constitution was written, that all male citizens of that era be free from the various states interference with their responsibility to the Federal government to be members of "a well regulated militia", should the necessity for said militia arise.

In fact, that's how the Amendment is worded: "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."

Given what sounds to our 21st ears as rather archaic English, according to all the legislative history I've been able to find, what the FFs were saying was this: because we have no standing army, and because we might need to kick the snot out of the English or the French at some undetermined time in the future, no state can keep a citizen from having a firearm; in fact, we're going to do all we can to ENSURE EVERYONE has a gun. And knows how to shoot Redcoats with it.

My ex-BIL is not, to my knowledge, a member of "a well regulated militia", hence, other than for his own enjoyment, or to potentially blow the bejesus out of some miscreant who takes it upon him or herself to enter his home some early AM with nefarious deeds in mind, he has no more need for a weapon than a horse has for a can opener.

Yes, children, I would love to see ALL guns outlawed, and not because I'm some bleeding-heart liberal.

Guns, in the wrong hands, kill people, and that's wrong.

Honestly, I don't mind that Eric, or my son-in-law, Dennis, or some of my other friends, own guns; I know they're responsible owners, and that the weapons they have are handled properly and safely. (Okay, I admit I cringe knowing my son-in-law is introducing my grandsons to guns, but if they have to come to have this knowledge, better at the hands of someone who will teach them proper gun etiquette.)

Over the past year or so, however, my position on gun-ownership has evolved; I still don't like the damn things, and I hate their violent potential, but if we're going to have to live with them, and let's face it, with the NRA and the gun manufacturer's lobby and the Supreme Court, etc., like it or not, we're going to have them, then here's my new position:

Ready?

Since I believe it's all or nothing with guns, I think the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten to not only protect the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", but I think it should require EVERYONE to be armed, all the time.

That's right, race fans, just like in the Old West: EVERYBODY should pack.

Because if I have to worry when I'm out for my morning walk at 6:00am, late in October when it's still dark out, that some gang-banger asshole is going to pull up next to me, decide that he doesn't like my face and put a 9mm slug in my fat butt, then screw it, I want a Browning Hi-Power hanging on my hip, just waiting for me to quick-draw his ass into oblivion.

If you can't beat'em, shoot'em.

As a good friend of mine from the Old South would say, I'm as serious as a hog on ice. If we can't outlaw all guns, and good luck with that, then everybody should have a piece.

Think that wouldn't reduce random shootings and violence? Bet your ass. During the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the United States were going about the nuclear arms race, it was called MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction. When both parties have equal firepower, typically it makes both parties stand down just a little quicker.

Hopefully.

So no, Eric, I don't want to debate the Second with you; these days, I'm on your side. I realize the futility in believing that this country will ever outlaw gun ownership, so I want to be protected. Yes, I have seriously considered purchasing a handgun to keep here at home, for protection against invaders.

And I can easily take that consideration the next logical step and say, hey, if I should be able to ensure my safety in my home, I should be able to ensure my safety on the streets as well.

Don't screw with me, pardner, I'm packing heat.

OR NOT. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? (Isn't that the name of my atomic-powered rocketship?)

Love and grenade-launchers,

PJTT

P.S. Oh, that monster up there at the beginning? Here's the link to the article that explains it:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/1280861 

Go ahead, make my day.

copyright 2012, Krissongs Inc.