In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, I was thinking how thankful we, the American people, should be that the right to bear bombs was not included in the Second Amendment.
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association would have a twin called the National Bomb Association and together they would reward politicians who support gun and bomb ownership and cast their mythical powers on politicians who don't.
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, we would be hearing a Wayne LaPierre counterpart taking his Newtown school shooting remarks and applying it to the bombings at the Boston Marathon: "The only true defense against a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb."
And Clint Eastwood's iconic "Make my day" would be said with a bomb instead of a .44 magnum.
And Charlton Heston would have brandished a grenade instead of a rifle as he uttered, "From my cold, dead hands!"
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, there'd be a run on bomb buying after the Boston Marathon by those truly scared their government will take their Founding Fathers-given right to own bombs.
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, bomb rights advocates would say the Founding Fathers intended bomb ownership as a defense against the tyranny of their government.
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, the National Bomb Association and its supporters would be opposing background checks because it's the first step toward taking their bombs away.
And the bomb manufacturers would make a killing, so to speak, as the public lines their pockets with green.
And states like Connecticut with the guts to make laws to regulate them would hear "threats" to move their bomb-making business out of state to a place where bombs are appreciated.
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, bomb opponents would not seek the complete ban of bombs and President Barack Obama and others would assure bomb owners: "We don't want to take your bombs away; we just want sensible bomb control laws."
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, the heartfelt pleas and tears of family members of those killed and maimed by bombs at the Boston Marathon would not move the bomb rights proponents toward applying sensible bomb control laws. Nor would a flight to Washington for the parents of the dead. Or a Facebook photo of a dead 8-year-old boy with the words: "No more hurting people. Peace."
It's not that bomb advocates don't have hearts. It's just that they have as tough a time hearing the voices of the American people over the sound of their bombs, as their gun-toting twins have hearing over the sound of their guns.
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, Congress would have blown up the notion of background checks for bomb buyers the way it shot down the bill for such checks for gun buyers — even though 86 percent of Americans said they support a law requiring background checks on people buying guns online or at gun shows, according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.
If bombs were part of the Second Amendment, they would be as purchasable as guns now are. That is, anybody can buy one — good guys, bad guys and those in between — with minimal to no checks on whether that person should have one. Or two. Or three. Or an arsenal.
I am thankful that America's Founding Fathers did not include the bomb as part of the Second Amendment. It's one less sacred right for which to fight. It's one less bill to kill. It's one less shame for Congress to feel for not passing at least a background check.
It's one less movement to rise from the dead to impose its will to change the mind-set, the law and the culture of bomb ownership.
I'm thankful America's Founding Fathers did not include the right to bear bombs in the Second Amendment.
It makes the fight for sensible laws on guns that much easier.