Imagine a machine. It’s heavily built, very tough and utterly unforgiving of mistakes. It is ugly, metallic and plastic.
There is a subculture in our country that buys millions of them. Some are considered beautiful while others have no aesthetic qualities whatsoever. Some people use them for recreation, some collect them, others are attracted to the deadly power they give, and a few want nothing to do with them at all.
This deadly hardware has evolved over time to greater power and has become so easy to operate that even children can do so.
It makes militaries more efficient at their unpleasant task of killing their enemies.
It has killed many people including young children, movie goers and shoppers.
Incredibly, this state of the art hardware is available quite easily to civilians. There isn’t much of a need to justify the possession of one of these high-tech killing machines.
There is specialized training for young adults to learn to operate one of these items. Ideally speaking, an owner will need liability insurance.
Regardless of ease of accessibility however, there aren’t reasonable laws on safe storage, no requirement that they are safely locked away.
Technology exists to lock them in such a way that they can’t be operated by any except the owner. However, the death merchants who sell them and the extremist users of these “toys” refuse to consider legislation mandating such lifesaving restrictions. Perhaps this is an insult to their manhood.
These people are organized too. They have dozens of organizations with millions of members that shout down any attempt at rational debate. They shout about their “rights” to utilize these weapons for “sporting” purposes.
There are more consequences affecting us. Society is poisoned by the residue from the chemicals used for the propellant for these weapons of mass destruction. Even if you haven’t purchased one, we all pay the price for the use of them.
Far too often, they cause accidents, injuries… deaths.
The time for debate and compromise is over. It has come the time to ban them immediately. Round them up, destroy them all.
Save lives. End suffering. Help society.
Ban automobiles now.
Kate Tracy says
Nice Katrina. Onion worthy for sure!!!!
Well played! :-)
Easy Kat… don’t forget about our 2nd Amendment rights. You can’t just throw that out, it’s there for a reason.
Apt. 154 says
Sarah Clews says
This is very creative-thanks!
Jim Green says
Katrina; When you read the 2nd Amendment, you will notice it says, to protect from threat, BOTH foreign AND domestic. After pearl harbor, Japan thought the U.S. was weak and wanted to attack the mainland. They were talked out of it because populace was armed. Do you know that homeland security in the last 6 months has purchased over 1.4 BILLION rounds of ammunition and over 700 fully automatic rifles for themselves. President Obama, more then once, has spoken about raising a civilian army as strong and well armed as our reg. army. Why?
J. Green says
Katrina; Before you do away with the 2nd amendment, you should think about how it supports the rest of the amendments. If the 2nd amendment is outdated, maybe the 1st is to. Look how information is spread now days, how easily information is spread. Did our founders invision the internet? If the 2nd amendment goes, how long before the rest are thrown out. How are we protected against goverment tyranny?
Kelsey Leavitt says
I would just like to point out that Katrina wrote a satire.
She’s not for banning guns. The last line reads “Ban automobiles now.” She’s saying that if we want to ban guns we might as well ban cars.
Emily Hunt says
Great piece! And I’m with Kelsey Leavitt – make sure you read all the way to the end before you get riled about 2nd amendment rights :)
Despite blatant disregard for what this article is arguing (Ban Automobiles), “Jim Green” does not even know the facts in regards to what the second ammendment states. He claims that in the second ammendmend it says “to protect from threat, BOTH foreign AND domestic.” However, when I last read the second ammendment, it said (in full), “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.”
Beyont this, the column makes an excellent point. Where do we draw the line? If we ban guns, what about automobiles, knives, etc.? In fact, maybe we shoud just ban everything, as everything has a poprensity to kill. Then we will all just die from lack of air, water and food. But at least the guns would not kill us.