The Rights of Bear Arms

the right to bear arms

has me thinking

of bears and their ‘arms’

[their legs?  are the front

ones arms or legs?

who keeps track of such

things?]

and why would I care much

about the walking, food

carrying appendages of bears?

do bears really require a 

constitutional right to

have arms?  isn’t that a bit . . . 

excessive? . . . silly? . . . 

odd?

or perhaps it means that

as a human, I have an

inalienable right to 

own me some bear arms

well – I know some folk

who have bear paws

and bear heads and

even bear skins,

but what would they do

with bear arms and why

do we need to protect

their privilege to 

collect them?

But maybe it really was

a typo and they – our

forward-thinking

fore-fathers really

were thinking about

bare

rather than

bear

arms

which makes a bit

more sense to me

as a gal kind of human

kind of being

given that there are places

like Saudi Arabia

and the Vatican

where somehow

my decovered

yea bare

arms

are cause for

great offense

and chafing

of hands

and gnashing

of teeth 

[I wonder why it is

that teeth are gnashed

and hands chafed

rather than the reverse]

for it seems that the

mere sight of my 

arms bereft of cover

reveals something

unseemly afoot 

in the ’verse 

but in my

puzzlement I am

sure that I am unsure

what it could possibly

be – so no – fore-fathers

surely did not think upon

the nakedness of my 

upper extremities

[even the name

is suggestive – extremity?

what then is so extreme

about my arms, I continue

to wonder in vain]

surely they meant guns

to protect and protect

and protect – for 'twould

make no sense to be

protecting naked arms

or polar, black, brown,

panda, grizzly and other

of the ursine kind in the use

and enjoyment of their

own arms, now would it?