Guns and words are dangerous and must be banned

<h2>Guest Editorial</h2>

Sometimes I try to think and nothing happens. Other times I get hit by a bolt out of the blue and "get it", that is, one of those "AHAAA!!!!!" moments.

I was <a href=" an article</a> at <i>Psychology Today</i> by <a href="">Christopher Ryan</a> about the now famous quote from Rahm Emanuel, who works in the White House, where he purportedly said that something was "F*&king Retarded". This particular article was making the point that words themselves ought not be banned. "We can't simply declare every word off-limits because some find it offensive." And I agree.

There was an interesting posting from one of the readers of his column, comparing dirty words to guns. Since I enjoy using both, this got my attention. He says that "[i]f a gun is laying on a table, untouched, it is extremely unlikely that it will do any harm." And he goes on to compare that gun to a word that is safely locked up in a dictionary, not used by anyone.

This got me thinking about words and guns. They can both be considered weapons, for example, "the pen is mightier than the sword." And we have all heard about 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' being illegal, or at least, is not "protected speech." People have been tried and convicted for "inciting a riot" and even for "hate speech." It sure sounds like a weapon to me, or at least it is treated like one by the courts.

So it gets down to how you use it. Sure, you can kill a man with a drinking straw, but a straw is not a weapon. Ultimately then, the actor [the legal term for the one who does the act. --ed] is responsible for the crime, and not the straw, not the word, not the gun.

And here is the "AHA!" moment: What are the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights about? Words, and guns. These are the two weapons that are owned by the people, and "Congress shall make no law" about the words, and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note that in that second quote it doesn't even limit it to <strong>who</strong> may not infringe it. No one shall infringe it, no matter whether Congress or anyone else.

Those forefathers of ours were pretty smart. I guess that after recently having fought a battle, a war, about these things, they wanted to be sure that it was crystal clear who owns the rights of The People, and why. It is likely that they expected us to use the two, namely, words and guns, so that each one could protect the other. We, The People can use them each as weapons when necessary, being necessary to the security of a free State.

Dave Bushong
Hudson, NH