Wednesday, March 5, 2014

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

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? . . . 

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
fore-fathers really
were thinking about
rather than
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
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?