[Hockey is better than guns, but I’m not sure that this is one of my better diatribes.]

I have a problem: I don’t think that the Bill of Rights guarantees us all a right to own an Uzi.

Though it’s painful to admit it, there is a strong case to be made that the Constitution gives us each the right to own a firearm–not an automatic weapon, or even semi-automatic, or even a handgun–but a firearm; actually, it is stated quite clearly that we are all given that right. Heck, it almost reads like it’s our duty.

Let me go on record right now as stating that I hate guns. I hate them as only a pacifist could. If I had my way, I would outlaw guns so that only outlaws had guns. (Which means it would be easy to spot the bastards–but I digress.)

But where in the sacred document that created our American government does it say that we are all guaranteed the right to own a device that can deal out death at the rate of 30 rounds per second? At what point does it lay out our right to own a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol that is designed to lay out 15 of our enemies (or classmates)? Or that we can, each of us, carry upon our person a hidden device capable of blowing a man’s head clean off? Nowhere in that basis of our system of government does it state that we are all allowed to become Dirty Harry.

Which is fine with me.

Think about it, though: the NRA is always complaining that their rights are being trampled, that the members of that glorious and patriotic group are being denied their basic rights as Americans, that Charlton Heston is maligned as not only a horribly wooden actor but an insensitive president of their coalition. What would happen if we said, “OK”? What would they do if we said they could keep ownership of their shotguns and their hunting rifles?

What would they do if we told them they could keep their hunting rifles only if they agreed that handguns and assault weapons would become illegal?

I’ll tell you what would happen: a long-term decrease in the number of gun deaths in this country, that’s what. How does that sound? 

Because, at the end of the day, when you look at the numbers of fatal incidents with firearms, I would be willing to bet that 99% of them occur via assault weapons and handguns. What’s more, I’ll bet you could get the membership of the NRA, who for some bizarre reason hold a large number of representatives in sway–could it be, I dunno, perhaps money?–to accept a ban on those forms of firearms in exchange for the guarantee of the hunting rifle as an unalienable right. (“Unalienable rights” are covered in the Declaration of Independence, of course, but there is obviously a parallel with the message in the Constitution.) “The right to keep and bear arms,” the Constitution says, and the NRA fights for that right every day in every way.

Speaking of the NRA, I don’t think I’ve seen one comment so far from them in the coverage of the Virginia Tech murders. Either the liberal media has decided not to inflame the issue or give them any power by allowing them to speak out, or the NRA is just as speechless as the rest of us on this one. Kind of hard to justify that a kid who was involuntarily committed to psychiatric care was allowed to legally purchase weapons and ammunition, isn’t it?

When it comes right down to it, I’ll bet that most of these gun activists are merely hunters who don’t want to have their right to hunt taken away. And though you’ll never see me wielding the business end of a gun, I don’t think that that’s such a bad deal. Those damned deer eat all of the bark off the trees, anyway, and my wife is always telling me to pull over because she wants to stop and look at them. Give me a break. Heck, at that point, you might as well hand me a rifle, because I want to get home and watch the hockey game.

And Bambi is the only thing standing between me and the opening face-off.