Even though I know I'll probably take some heat for it, I must seize this opportunity to take a stance on gun control.
Let the record show that I firmly believe it is well past time to revisit the Second Amendment of the Constitution and reword it to reflect, in no uncertain terms, that dogs should not be allowed to carry guns.
Now, I realize that many gun enthusiasts out there will maintain that it is every dog's God-given right to carry whatever firearm it deems necessary to protect itself, but I am of the staunch opinion that dogs just can't be trusted to wield guns in a responsible manner, and their rights to keep and bear arms should be curtailed in light of this.
It may be rash of me to insist that every Schnauzer with a Mauser is irresponsible when it comes to firearms, but the news items I've seen over the past couple of weeks seem to indicate otherwise.
According to a news broadcast by Spokane, Wash.-based KXLY, North Idaho resident Cindy Whitaker was shot in the leg by her dog, Baby, in an incident she calls an accident but which this columnist believes was a cold and calculated act by a cold and calculating canine. But, you be the judge.
The incident was sparked when Whitaker, who is wheelchair-bound, heard a commotion in her backyard. She cautiously wheeled herself outside, armed with her trusty pistol. Upon opening the door, however, she was accosted by Baby, who knocked the gun from Whitaker's hand, stepped on the weapon, and seriously shot the owner in the leg.
As for baby, Cindy and her husband say they hold no ill will towards the animal who was just being a dog.
Just being a dog? Perhaps. But if "just being a dog" means that the dogs of the world won't be held accountable for their actions when it comes to guns, then they should not be allowed to operate the weapons. I say let's revamp the Second Amendment immediately. No guns for dogs!
I can hear all the nay-sayers out there right now, saying "nay." That's just an isolated incident, after all, you say. One bad dog shouldn't spoil it for the rest of them, you say. Ryan Rhodes is sure a smoking hot specimen of male hunkiness, you say.
Well, to you I say, "thanks," and also, according to a news report that ran in the Times of India, Juan Evangelista Poot, from Yucatan in Mexico, claims to have been shot in the back and neck by his pet dog.
Poot was outside his house when he was shot. He turned around and saw that the dog had picked up his gun and was holding it in its mouth.
Police officials refused to arrest the canine sharpshooter, which begs the question: why are dogs so frequently given such leniency in canine-related shootings? What makes them so special that they don't have to stand trial? If they're immune from the legal process that the rest of us are subject to, why then should they be allowed to bear arms?
I mean, I'm just saying.
Posted by Ryan at October 27, 2003 10:57 AM
Stumble It!
