Here is a tragic but nonetheless outstanding opportunity for me to practice what I preach. It would be easy for me or for any one of us to start throwing blame at the NRA, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the usual suspects. Notwithstanding, there is blame to be had. I read somewhere that "a poet is someone who tells you what you already know" (and please forgive me if I misquoted and cannot remember whom I am quoting). It's time for me to ask you what you know.
When a Republican says something about "a second amendment solution", what exactly does he or she mean? The second amendment was, I believe, designed to protect the rights of individual states by protecting the arms of their individual militias. The amendment refers to weapons, and only weapons; weapons are all it refers to. The first amendment protects peaceful protests; the second is all about guns. So I ask again: when a Republican says something about "a second amendment solution", what exactly do you suppose he or she means?
It's important that you think about this, not as a hunter, or as a member of a gun club, or as a target shooter, but as an unbiased thinker - rather like a member of a jury. No one is trying to take away your gun; I'm not trying to make you wrong. I would just like you to think about it from a different perspective.
Did we not just have a national election? Did the Republicans not just take control of Congress? Why, then, is it necessary for Tea Party activists to draw cross hairs on Democratic winners in that same election? The people of Arizona voted. They reelected Congresswoman Giffords. We do this instead of shooting. Since when do we use the second amendment to overturn the results of a fair election??