We don’t have enough arguments around here anymore.
Here’s a thought – since arming gangs and psychos is obviously bad for America’s kids, why don’t we treat gun ownership more like prescription drugs? Anybody who can demonstrate a need gets the appropriate firearm. As long as you have a valid hunting license you can keep a rifle or shotgun or one of those ridiculously huge pistols with a scope on it. People with a clean record who live in dangerous neighborhoods, have stalkers or an abusive ex or any other clear need to protect themselves can apply for a handgun. Licensed security professionals can make the case for submachine guns. I might even rethink my support for banning assault weapons – if someone can show membership in good standing with a well-regulated state militia and preferably some military trianing, what’s the problem with issuing him/her an assault rifle? As long as the militia is responsible for the actions of its members I would expect self-policing keep the worst behavior pretty effectively under wraps. That approach hasn’t hurt Switzerland.
Like prescriptions or a car registration the guns would be subject to a yearly renewal, meaning that to keep his firearm the user maintains his hunting license, his employment with the security agency or his membership in the well-regulated militia and occasionally passes a proficiency/safety test. That doesn’t seem too onerous and it even adds an extra layer of personal responsibility, something rightwing readers ought to like.
What do you think?
Zifnab
I think this is far to sane and well-thought-out to ever pass muster in either party. You need to include several million in kick-backs to the NRA and Smith-and-Wesson. Then you need to increase funding to the LAPD drug awareness program. And it needs to include money for a bridge to a small island in Alaska.
Also, if you could work in a few lines that legalize the right for a fetus to carry a loaded weapon, that would probably help your case.
likes guns, likes gun control too
sounds totally fine to me.
there will be the normal abuse, as with prescription drugs, but any step away from the unregulated middle-eastern bazaar model we have now (‘meester, would your eight-year-old like a nice uzi?’) would be an improvement.
The Other Steve
Ok, here’s the problem. That’s the way concealed carry used to work in most states. You asked the Sheriff, and if he was your buddy and you sufficiently kissed his arse, you could get a license.
The NRA’s campaign to supposedly introduce concealed carry wasn’t going from no guns to more guns. It was going from subjective hand out of licenses, to objective criteria.
I don’t agree with the NRA, and they’re obviously dishonest with how they sold the law changes. But I agree with objective criteria.
demimondian
I’d actually be quite content with a simple requirement for a short course in firearm safety being required to buy a handgun. Failing that, if we can mandate a waiting period for medical procedures, it sure seems we can mandate a waiting period for handgun purchases. (With suitable standards for provision of court-ordered intervention in cases like the “murderous ex” case.)
Punchy
Show me the Amendment that guarantees the right for prescription drugs and I’ll show you some support for your scheme.
Remember, if you criminalize gun possession, then only criminals have guns (cringing at my own spoof).
Paul L.
Tim, Lets try your suggestion with other amendments.
1st – You can exercise your free speech rights if your opinion is the “mainstream”, or are a “approved” member of the media.
The left is working on this with Mccain-Feingold and Hate Speech laws.
4th A search warrant is not required to search your home if there is a missing person(s) escaped prisoners(s) or suspected terrorist(s) in the area.
croatoan
We’ve already armed gangs and psychos by lowering the recruitment standards.
Zifnab
We wouldn’t want you to “shoot” your mouth off. I know how satire can tear right through you. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will get me slapped with an injunction. After all, if words could kill…
And as for your snipe of McCain-Fiengold, the only people who have a problem with that law are con-artists with deep pockets. M-F doesn’t restrict freedom of speech, it restricts the size of the bull-horn you get to preach it out of.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
We could always talk about Israel. That’s a nice, contentious issue.
What do you guys think of Olmert’s leadership, particularly vis-a-vis the invasion of Lebanon? In hindsight, was it good/bad/ugly/all of the above/none of the above?
I’m waiting for BIRDZILLA to weigh in on your proposal. I value his insight immensely.
You’re shot dead with the guns you have, not the guns you wish you had.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Why don’t we ever hear the good news about Iraq? After all, there’s no country on Earth where the Second Amendment enjoys greater popularity.
Paul Wartenberg
I think we should replace guns with samurai swords. But that’s just teh geek in meh. Damn you, Hiro!
Bill H
Arguments regarding gun ownership, especially yours, overlook one basic issue. Not all people who own guns do so for the purpose of using them. Some own them because the guns, even modern, machine-made ones, are fine pieces of machinery which they find interesting and which they enjoy owning purely for the pleasure of having and looking at them. Does it really make sense that I would need to maintain a valid hunting license and go through a training course to keep a rifle hanging on my wall?
srv
Put another way, Tim supports maximizing body counts.
The reason so few people get killed by guns today is because most gun owners are awful shots.
Give them some ‘militia’ training, and people will be much more effective shooters.
CaseyL
I agree with Zifnab: this is far too sane a proposal to fly. I can’t for the life of me understand why gun proponents balk at the idea of requiring some minimal proof of sanity/competence when purchasing a gun.
We’re not saying “people” (in general) can’t have guns – hell, I have a gun. (Not that I’d mind much giving it up.) We’re just saying that crazy people and criminals shouldn’t be able toget guns as easily as they currently can.
Maybe the gun control advocates should shift to that rhetoric; the “it shouldn’t be easier for a crazy person to buy a gun than it is for them to buy a bus pass” approach.
Cyrus
Which is a totally apt comparison, because the First Amendment also begins “for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated press”… oh, wait, no it doesn’t.
Dreggas
Just unfucking believable
Pb
Paul L.,
Where the hell have you been…
Zifnab
I still like Chris Rock’s solution. Everyone can have a gun, but bullets should cost $5000 each. That way, the only people who get shot are people who are absolutely worth it. You know a guy needed to die when he has $25k in ammo in his chest.
demimondian
Remember, guns don’t kill people. Localized trauma, blood loss, shock, and progressive organ failure kill people.
Jake
Works for me. I suggested a driver’s license type model for gun ownership back in one of the VT shooting threads. (I also fully support the CR solution.) But then I also favour a requirement that people re-take their driver’s license test on a regular basis because I’m a dirty nanny state hippy.
And now, a heart-felt plea to all of you who love animals:
Please, please, leave PaulEll’s jackelopes alone. They are already weak and lame. There is no need to kick the poor things.
Punchy
You’re kidding, right? Do you have any idea what the mean IQ is for those yokels in Miss and Bama and Georgia who most desperately want guns?
If you gave a competency exam prior to ownership, the number of gun owners in MS or TN would drop from a few mill to 7.
Dreggas
Guess I’m an exception (of course I live in California) I have a 134 IQ and fully believe in my right to have guns :).
Andrew
I like guns and beer.
demimondian
Actually, yes, I do — I went to college with many of them, and have kept in touch with a number since then.
Many of those I’ve kept in touch with would fit right in at any snooty high tech firm — except for their politics, of course.
Rome Again
Can you personally guarantee that it will never be used. Someone you have no control over could use it as a weapon against you (think of a robber) or against someone else (think of a child or grandchild who sneaks it out without your knowledge).
Unless you can absolutely prove that it would never be used (and there is no way you could ever make that guarantee), “owning it just to look at it and appreciate it” seems like it is not worth the risk. Sorry.
Tim F.
Because I wanna is one of the weaker arguments for unrestricted gun ownership.
LITBMueller
I TOTALLY agree. There may be a “right to bear arms,” there is NO right to buy bullets!!!! I say, tax the living shit out of them, so they cost a ton. And, you have to have a Bullet License, too. The regulations regarding who can buy bullets when and where can be as strict as we want them to be. The money taken in from the taxes and licenses can be used to put more cops on the street.
Because, remember, guns don’t kill people – bullets do.
Tlaloc
Why make them available at all? there are a number of nonlethal weapons you can buy now that will disable or disorient an attacker without killing someone in the case of an accident. Tasers, stunguns, mace, blinding lights, deafening alarms.
Tsulagi
You can have my two gun cabinets and contents when you pry them from my dead, cold arms, and the bolts into the wall studs. Said with a smirk and laugh, but not entirely joking.
I would think for liberals one argument against overly restrictive gun control could be GWB, or someone worse (I know it strains the imagination) in the future. It wasn’t all that long ago, soon after 9/11, when if you even suggested the gutless prep school cheerleader was anything other than our savior chosen by God, or his actions were anything less than perfect, you were a hate-America traitor.
During that period Ashcroft drew up Patriot Act II which among other things enabled your citizenship to be revoked at the discretion of the president or AG, and your ass to be deported to a place of their choosing. Club Gitmo anyone? You think the Depends Pub crowd wouldn’t have signed off on that thing if anything other than a GW fart had gone off in Washington? Ashcroft was really salivating for the PA sequel.
Tim F.
To add to my comment, licensed collectors already exist and I see no reason why they wouldn’t under my scheme as well. Heck, I know a guy near Colorado Springs who could hold off a decently-equipped infantry battallion. The rules are strict, and you will get to know the local ATF guys on a first name basis, but if that’s cool with you and you pass a stringent set of requirements then it is cool with the government.
RSA
If the barrel of a gun were filled with epoxy and the firing pin filed down, I think it would still look fine hanging on the wall.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Plus, if America ever descends into a Bosnia-style/Iraq-style civil war, we’ll have tons of paramilitary bands that every faction can call on. I like it!
Andrew
Alright libruls, what else are we going to kill the zombies with?
Zifnab
I prefer using the fifteen pound crowbar or the battle axe, as zombies are slow and those don’t run out of ammo. Of course, boss zombies usually need more firepower to take down, but you can pick up the zippo lighter and aresol spray can till you get the rocket launcher from the abandoned military base in Act 3.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
According to the “Zombie Survival Guide”, a well-disciplined person armed with a rock is better off than a rabble armed with the latest technological gizmos. A crowbar is practical, both for zombie kills and for prying open doors and locks. A hatchet is also pretty useful. A crossbow is ideal for stealthy zombie elimination. Katanas are wonderful for decapitation, and so are those Shao-lin spade thingies you see in the movies.
Those are just some start-up ideas. Read the book, you’ll learn why some others, such as chainsaws and (most especially) handguns are usually less than ideal.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
There’s also this helpful advice from the Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency.
Andrew
Read it. Own it.
Disagree with the conclusions. Brooks is clearly an effete librul not capable of making the hard decisions that the zombie horde will force upon us.
Handguns are far superior to melee weapons for close in zombie work. Crowbars, axes and swords are just going to get stuck. Baseball bats and other clubs are not reliable head smashers. You’re just going to get tired carrying around a 10′ polearm. Crossbows are good for one shot.
You’re gonna get tired right quick from all of this crap.
I, on the other hand, am going to dispatch zombies about 5 times faster with my hi-cap 9mm, and then I am going to shoot you in the leg and leave you as zombie bait while I jog away.
WHO’S THE SUCKER NOW?!?!?!??!???
Jake
A special powder made from spices and burnt hair of course. Sheesh. Don’t people read their Varley any more? [/SF Geekness]
mrmobi
Ok, zombie problem aside, there is no chance that any meaningful gun legislation will make it through this, or probably any future congress. As you all know, the NRA is the most influential lobby in DC, period.
After 9/11, when the FBI wanted to check to see if any of the terrorists purchased guns, the Justice Department said no!
No matter what happens, no matter how horribly we are attacked, no matter how high the body count, it will always be easy and relatively cheap to buy guns in America.
I give up, let’s argue about something else. Say, poisonous compounds put in foodstuffs to increase their protein numbers, or cutting taxes drastically while the national infrastructure crumbles, or how a 22-year old college graduate will average about $20,000 in debt upon graduation, and health insurance will cost about $200 to $300 per month.
grumpy realist
But doesn’t the spices-and-burnt-hair only work on Titan zombies? Earth zombies…uh, holy water, garlic, and a stake through the chest?
Tsulagi
Personally I think background checks for gun ownership and waiting periods for handguns are a good thing. I could even get behind some sort of licensing for gun owners. Hell, for people wanting to drive a car we make them take a written and driving test to have at least a minimum amount of confidence they won’t immediately kill themselves or others when they get behind the wheel.
What I would close are existing loopholes like gun shows which can be like arms marts. Also how some weapons are classed. A semi-auto Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle is in the same class as any hunting rifle. You can pierce an armored Humvee with this thing. Body armor? You might as well be wearing T-shirts and be comfortable for all the good armor would do. A Barrett or similar for home defense or hunting? Yeah, right.
Even Osama has bought these things in the States. Now if someone with some shooting skill were to pick up a Barrett at a gun show and get some API (armor piercing incendiary) ammo, they could have some real fun on a cross-country trip. Plinking at chemical plant storage tanks over a mile away. An airliner on a taxi runway waiting for takeoff? Let’s light up the wing fuel tanks.
This situation is only one determined loon or asshole away from a real mess.
The Other Steve
Actually we don’t.
We only require license and registration of an automobile if you want to drive your car on public roads. If you have your own roads on your own land, you can do whatever you want.
chopper
Show me the Amendment that guarantees the right for prescription drugs and I’ll show you some support for your scheme.
9th.
chopper
constitutionally speaking, the idea is valid if it’s done on a state-by-state basis. it wouldn’t be a federal program at all.
however, if a state decided to start up such a system it would be interesting to see how it ends up.
likely it wouldn’t cause much of a drop in certain forms of violence that are cause predominantly by non-legal gun owners in the first place.
Jake
Heh, I do not know. I’ll test it by sprinkling some around one of those Evangelical Mega-Churches.
Or, you can just hide packets of HEX in the local IKEA and wait…
ThymeZone
Dammit man, that is just not true.
Jake
“Whateva, I do what I want!”
Yup. I know tons of people who buy cars, drive down to the public road, then get out and walk to their destination. Just like I’m always reading about people break the law on their own land/property but the police can’t do a thing about it because a man’s home is not just his castle, it is like “base” in tag.
nocturnation
Arguments about guns vs bullets are silly. It says arms, and bullets are surely a part of that. I think the key is in the amendment itself. Any member of a state militia cannot have his/her right to keep and bear arms infringed. Once acquired, the gun, now “property” cannot be taken from the owner without due process.
The way I read it, restricting or prohibiting gun ownership for any other reason, even hunting, is perfectly constitutional.
scarshapedstar
Uh… if they went to college, then “those aren’t the yokels we’re looking for.”
RSA
That’s not an argument; it’s a contradiction.
Dreggas
Besides, everyone knows that if a zombie gets close and bites you while you are beating it with a melee weapon you turn into a zombie anyway. I’d prefer being at a distance with something guaranteed to deliver enough hydro-shock to the head so as to completely splatter it destroying the brain.
Tlaloc
“Heck, I know a guy near Colorado Springs who could hold off a decently-equipped infantry battallion.”
I don’t even remotely believe you.
The idea that you and your splatter gun are going to take on the US military should the worst happen and the country lurch to full fledged fascism is a joke.
Hello does anyone remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? Those guys had tons of guns and they weren’t anything more than a speed bump for the *FBI* and *ATF*.
The FBI and ATF aren’t exactly the marines. A US militia would last about 15 seconds in any kind of stand up fight against the coast guard much less a USAF backed US Army and Marine Corps.
Now on the other hand US partisans could certainly fight the same kind of insurgent warfare we currently see in Iraq. But for that you don’t generally want to have a lot of guns. The key is to be inconspicuous. the guy walking down the street with a grocery bag of soap chips is inconspicuous. The guy walking down the street with the AK is not.
If you really want to learn to be armed against possible agression from your nation then buy a computer and learn to hack. On that level you are way more of a threat than on the physical plane.
chopper
well, to the federal government, yeah. a non-state militia member can be allowed to have as many guns as they want or none at all depending on the state they live in.
Mitch
Cyrus note –
Of course the phrase “…well-regulated militia…” meant something totally different in 1789 than what the pro-criminal/anti-gun crowd thinks today. Back then it meant – “well practiced”, and the “militia” referred to the entire male population
Krista
Can we run around calling people “Mystery Sock”?
Zifnab
Once you bring the Airforce into it, then yes, you’re right, the guy with the planes always wins. You could likewise point out that the guy with the ICBM also wins.
That is one thing that gets me about tyrants wanting to own nuclear weapons. Unless Saddam or Amedinajad or Assad or whomever plans on sleeping on top of the nuclear button, what exactly keeps a rogue general or rival leader from siezing your bomb and holding your own capital city ransom.
And I know this is getting precariously close to being completely off topic, but it kinda sorta has something to do with owning firearms. Seriously, if I were a third-world dictator and I didn’t have a bottle of SPF five million sun tan lotion, why on god’s green earth would I want to risk owning a bomb that my own generals could use against me?
Tim F.
You’re not supposed to. It was an exaggeration for effect. Still, his Land Rover Defender with a mounted twin .50-cal (essentially just a technical, but a very unpleasant technical) would slow them down for a minute.
Paul L.
I find this argument a bit disingenious coming from the people who state that the “USAF backed US Army and Marine Corps” can not defeat the Iraqi insurgents and have lost in Iraq.
Of course, the Iraqi insurgents have allies that the US militias do not.
The Mainstream Media.
jonrog1
Certainly, my friends who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan have complained about the shaped charges with Katie Couric’s face stamped on them, and how Shia and Sunni and Kurd all got along just fine for centuries until Brian Williams went over there and riled them all up at the Rosie O’Donnell Golden Dome Mosque Lesbian Party Night.
ThymeZone
When did PaulL go all spoof?
I like him better when he was serious at least part of the time.
Jake
[[PaulEll’s jackelope twitches, dies]]
Jimmmm
[[Which is a totally apt comparison, because the First Amendment also begins “for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated press”… oh, wait, no it doesn’t.]]
PWNED!
Cyrus the Virus makes Paul L his bitch.
D. Mason
I think most people have enough sense to not toss more rights away so the government can have even more power.
Buck
I admire your faith in the general public D. Mason. I hope you are right.
Tlaloc
“I find this argument a bit disingenious coming from the people who state that the “USAF backed US Army and Marine Corps” can not defeat the Iraqi insurgents and have lost in Iraq.”
Reread the part that said “stand up fight.”
Then read the rest of the comment where I specifically talk about running an insurgency like in Iraq.
Then buy a clue.
*Then* post, not before.
RSA
Indeed, when you look up the word “disingenious” in the dictionary, there’s Paul L.’s picture.
demimondian
Um…no
In fact, the militia most certainly did not mean the entire male population. It *now* means the entire male population, but only because of later Supreme Court interpretations of the Fifteenth Amendment.
Punchy
Fixed.
pharniel
My understanding is that Barret specifically monitors privatly owners of the .50 cal, knowing that if it is ever actually used in a crime they are absolutly fucked.
Anyway, your best bet for most of the west is a good hunting rifle, and considering that ‘magnum’ rifles were created specifically because there are game out there tougher than a humvee ‘hunting’ rilfes happen to be pretty good at obliterating people and light vehicles as well.
mrmobi
True, but did they have suitcase nukes? I think not. When you get right down to it, the logical extension of NRAs program to make all guns available to anyone at any time would seem to portend poorly for suppression of the suitcase nuke.
Shit, even I could hold off (if vaporization counts) the US Army for a bit if I had me some nukes!
The suitcase nuke, the ultimate in personal protection. Because nuclear weapons don’t kill people, blast waves and radiation do. And because it’s the only way to be sure.
rbl
Why am I not suprised that the guy with the technical is located near Colorado Springs?
Dreggas
I know, it’s not about guns but there is an interesting piece that TPM picked up on from the Seattle times…
You work for the White House
Andrew
You can put it in your motorcycle sidecar and wire it to a trigger in your brain. No one would mess with you then.
Dreggas
Ninja’s would still kick his ass.
demimondian
Remember, nuclear weapons don’t kill people — vaporization, burns, shock, blunt force trauma, whole-body epidermal debrading, immune system failure, lymphoma, leukemia, and hair loss do.
wufnik
A couple of people here have made passing mention of the militia thing. Actually, Paul Fussell had the most sensible solution to gun ownership in America years ago, when he offered an elegant proposal–since the right to gun ownership derives from the need for a well-ordered militia (note which clause is the dependent one), simply interpret the Second Amendment as requiring that everyone who owns a gun is automatically in a local militia. And mean it. With the full trimmings–early morning drills under the close and careful supervision of veteran non-commissioned officers, frequent two-week or extended vacations to places of interest, etc. I’ve always thought this would work. Plus, local militias could be deployed for local service work when the National Guard is elsewhere.
chopper
so women can’t own guns?
chopper
unless they have a drug-filled syringe hanging out in their naughty bits.
jake
Is this were I refer to the South Park episode where…?
Maybe not.
How about I stick “feminine” between “in” and “personal”?
Oooo. You’re no fun!
Off Colfax
Sounds to me like something I wrote a while back.
See? It’s not odd for a Democrat to think about this stuff. Just highly uncommon. (And Tim has a hell of a bigger soapbox than I do.)
Zombie Santa Claus
That “Zombie Survival Guide” book scares the congealed, virus-riddled shit right out of me. (I know that’s not a very hot image, but fuck you living people anyway!)
Mitch
One could make an argument that women can’t bear arms according to the 2nd A, but the 14th Amendment changed all that
And yes, the militia was the entire male population in 1789
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
gus
Christ, if you really want to start an argument, just say “Macs suck.” or “As a Gen-Xer, I really hate baby boomers (or vice versa).”
bud
Great idea, Tim. You should volunteer to be on the gun confiscation squad when it’s implemented.
One Libertarian meme is that unless you’re willing to shoot somebody dead who violates a proposed law, vote against it.
I think my idea is even better. Put your own ass on the line enforcing it.
What? You’ve got a really important meeting to go to?
Newport 9
As you all know, the NRA is the most influential lobby in DC, period.
A personal project I’m working on is to arrange a no-holds-barred steel-cage grudge match between the NRA and AIPAC.
Who! Will! Win!
I figure if we can just talk AIPAC into pushing for restrictions on gun ownership in Iraq, we can get something going.