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?