In my younger years, I was privileged to watch a bullfight in Quito, Ecuador. We can debate the cruelty of the sport at another date, but suffice to say a bullfight isn't just about killing a bull: There are layers and layers of symbolism and meaning to each of the tercios, culminating with the matador's escotada that finishes off the bull.
The power and strength of the bull is respected and honoured, but in the end, the bull never stands a chance. In a one-on-one battle, the toro would make quick work of the matador.
But the bull is never given that chance. He is grievously wounded by the picadores and the banderilleros long before the matador steps into the ring: By the time the cape comes out, the bull's destiny is sealed. It is not a question of if, it is only a question of how, and how soon.
Which brings me to the current attack on the Second Amendment. Gun owners have been watching the spectacle of Piers Morgan's antics and Senator Diane Feinstein's gun-grabbing legislation as if that was the fight ahead of us.
It is not.
It is the spectacle.
It is a series of small cuts designed to weaken us, to get us ready for the sword that lies underneath the cape. The on-camera grandstanding of David Gregory and Hollywood's pious hypocrisy are twirls of the cape meant to make us unprepared for the killing thrust.
The sword is now out, and the matador is preparing to finish us off.
But the funny thing is, sometimes, if the bull is strong enough and the matador botches his stroke, a bull can survive the bullfight, and in fact turn the tables on his supposed killer.
Are we gun owners strong enough, smart enough and quick enough to survive the bullring?
For our country's sake, let us hope that we are.
