What kind of ‘sport’ allows only one side to be armed

Mitt Romney and other prominent Republicans were on the major TV channels last week making speeches at the National Rifle Association, extolling the virtues of hunting as one of our most noble and virtuous sports, an integral part of Americanism and inherent right of every American.

Just what in the hell is noble, virtuous and sporting about grown (wanna-be macho) men with high-powered rifles shooting magnificent birds out the sky and innocent deer in the forest like they are despicable creatures who have no right to be there, although they were put there by the same God who created the shooters, who would claim that God gave them the right to kill any non-human creature just for sport?

But what kind of “sport” allows one side to be armed and the other not...isn’t that beyond the definition of sport? Isn’t it simply unprovoked murder for the gratification of the murderers? What is the difference between hunting today and the Christians vs. the Lions in the Colosseum centuries ago?

Hunting wasn’t subjected to such questioning when food was available no other way, but those times are long gone. Actually, there is an over-abundance of food today with tons of it wasted every day. While causes like PETA are labelled extremist nut cases, especially by those who support the principles of the National Rifle Association while waving the American flag. In the televised speeches made last week by politicians, all of them Republicans although there are millions of Democrat hunters, I heard the words “hunters, shooters and sport” mentioned again and again with exuberant pride, as though they are nationally accepted synonyms for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If that is part of the Republican party platform, I would never sign it.

I think mine is a point of view, that if put up for discussion and vote by the public, the party would find there are millions of people it wants under its tent who would agree with me. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Which means Americans like me will have to go along with the status quo because it is so deeply and strongly entrenched — by murderers who see themselves as proud (make that arrogant) Americans, and anyone who opposes them is a nut case.

Or is that how it has to be?

Does the silent majority have no choice but to remain silent and allow an intrinsic wrong to be perpetuated as an intrinsic right under the symbol of the American flag?

Jim Donovan

Del Mar