“The Fine Print”, by Michael Schrader
KNEE-JERK REACTIONS NOT A LAUGHING
MATTER
(Written 01 April 1998. Published in the Neighborhood Journal. Posted 25 June 2009.)
First, let me start off by saying, "Yes, I know it is
April Fool's Day.
No, this column is not some sort of practical joke (although there are
some who would probably vehemently argue the case).
In the wake of the
The answer is a resounding "No." There will always be crimes, regardless of
what the government tries to do, as there will always be people. If we immediately decide to ban all guns in
the United States, those who want to kill will find other ways to kill, and we
will find ourselves continuously bombarded with a further erosion of our rights
in the name of "law and order" until we do not have any rights left.
The argument has been made that if the two boys had not had
access to guns, the dead would still be living.
Thus, guns should be categorically banned. If this reasoning is
correct, so too should stones.
After all, it is in the Bible that Stephen was stoned to death. Had Saul and his followers not had free
access to stones, Stephen would never have died. So. let's get rid of all rock.
What about wood? Many
people have been crucified to death. If
wood had not been so plentiful and easy to get, they wouldn't have died. Their deaths would have been prevented if
every tree had been chopped down, and every piece of wood destroyed.
Don't forget about nails.
They were, after all, used in crucifixions to tack the people to the
dreaded wood. Ban all nails.
Horses?
Get rid of them. All of those
people who have been quartered throughout the years would have lived if there
had not been horses to tie them to.
Of course, all rope would have to go. How do you think those folks were tied to the
horses? What is the primary component of
the hangman's noose used time and time again to take lives?
Want to eat a T-bone steak?
Well, you'll just have to gnaw on it, because knives, after all, were
used by the Manson family in the gruesome butchering of Sharon Tate, and so
they will have to be banned.
Cars?
Well, they have to go, too. After
all, there have been people killed by cars.
Gasoline?
Yup. Gotta go. People have been set on fire. You can't have pillows anymore. They've been used in smotherings. Sorry, Johnny. You can't play baseball
anymore. Bats are a no-no. You know, we've got to make sure that you
don't bludgeon anyone.
Your hands?
Got to lop them off. They are, after all, instruments of
death. Think of all the strangulations
that would not have happened if we did not have hands.
It may sound absurd to talk about the lopping of hands, but,
if you are going to bans guns because they have the potential to be used to
kill people, then you must ban everything that has the potential to be used to
kill, including hands. The net result of
such banning, then, would be a virtual lifeless, police state. That is exactly where we are heading with
every knee-jerk Radical "ban this" and
Reactionary "law-and-order" bill.
For the sake of argument, let's say there are 250,000
criminals in jails across the
Let me just say, I am not a gun owner. I never have been, and I probably never will
be. I just don't have a reason to own
one. However, just because I do not need
one, I do not have the right to tell my neighbor he does not, either. That is what is meant by liberty--the right
to do as ones own conscience sees fit, without interference from others.
If I take away his liberty, what is to stop him from taking
away mine?
Back to “The Fine Print” Index
