“The world is indeed full of peril and in it there are many dark places.
But still there is much that is fair. And though in all lands, love is now
mingled with grief, it still grows, perhaps, the greater.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien
So, there was this Ring. A Dark Lord named Sauron wanted to use it as an ultimate weapon in conquering all of Middle-earth. If Sauron had the Ring, he would send the land into complete chaos and mayhem. What could possibly be done to prevent this from happening?
Well, it fell onto the stout shoulders of a young hobbit named Frodo. Frodo had to get rid of the ring. He was tasked with throwing that son-of-a-bitch straight into the fire of Mount Doom. You know why? So bad people wouldn't get ahold of the ring and use it to hurt people. Some things are just too powerful to have any practical use in the general public.
I'm sure this brings many questions to mind. Questions that I will now address:
1. What if some Middle-earthian just wanted to keep the Ring as an heirloom or for a collection?
I'm glad you asked. A creature named Gollum tried to do just that. He couldn't let go of his "precious" Ring because it made him feel powerful and protected, or else this nonsense could have been stopped a long time ago. I mean, Gollum actually bit off Frodo's finger trying to get the Ring. Let it go, man, it's just a Ring. There are more important things.
2. Shouldn't Middle-earth have gone to the root of the problem and tried to develop a system to rehabilitate Dark Lords and prevent new ones from rising up? Then Frodo could have just kept the Ring.
That's an excellent idea. But, what if a Dark Lord unexpectedly skirts the new system? No, we have to be safe. There is too much at stake. The two solutions could both be effective, but they are not mutually exclusive; the Ring still has to go.
3. But, what about horses? They trampled people during the Battle for Middle Earth! And that's not to mention the accidents horses cause when their riders are intoxicated! By your logic, shouldn't the horses be thrown into Mount Doom, too, as they hold the potential to hurt people?
No, ass hat, because a horse's primary purpose is not to cause harm to other people.
4. Okay, well what about other weapons like swords and bows and arrows? What's the difference between those and the Ring?
Well, I'm glad you asked. Those weapons could be needed for protection of Middle-earth or to hunt for food. The main difference is that by their very design they are unable to inflict the quick and widespread harm that the One True Ring could. True Rings are not used merely for hunting or protection. If you must use something for protection, use a standard weapon like a normal person.
5. Well, if the hobbits and elves had their own True Rings, they could have defeated the Dark Lord Sauron without destroying the Ring.
Maybe, if the Dark Lord didn't use his Ring for evil before the others even knew what was coming. Also, more Rings just means a greater availability for other Dark Lords.
6. Did you ever stop to think that maybe this trouble started because Eru Ilúvatar, the supreme being, was prohibited in Middle-earth schools?
No. I never thought that. Because it is nonsense. First of all, Eru Ilúvatar is not prohibited in Middle-earth schools. In fact is is welcome in the schools. It just isn't mandated by the Middle-earth government or the school system itself. Second, what does this have to do with a Dark Lord getting ahold of a weapon and wreaking havoc?
7. But it is my right as a Middle-earthian to own a Ring!
It is not your right to own or do anything you want, especially if the harm to others outweighs the benefit. It isn't your right to own underage hobbit pornography (as an aside, hobbits are underage if they are younger than 33). You know why? Because as a society we have decided that in the interest of public protection it is reasonable for that "right" to be denied.
Was I saying the Ring this whole time? Bah. I meant assault weapons. Oh well, I'm too lazy to go back and change it.