i hate guns.
in 1972, they'd just lowered the voting age, and i wanted to run for political office. i opted the one office that had absolutely no qualifications as a prerequisite: story county sheriff.
a freshman at the university of iowa, i ran my campaign out of my dormitory room, n269 hillcrest, and got quite a bit of local and national attention. my platform was basic: lock up the guns. i was going to be a hip, young andy taylor.
i lost.
i wish i hadn't, and i wish my gun policy was the law of the land.
it's not.
i tried to find a link to my favorite song from absolutely free, zappa's second album, "invocation & ritual dance of the young pumpkin." i failed.
give it a listen as you think about my zappadan daily musing.
the paper this morning had a sidebar story recounting the list of mall shootings in this country--since the first of the year!! the latest one was in omaha. immediately after hearing this radio flash, i called a friend who lives in omaha, to confirm he hadn't been at that mall. he hadn't been.
i don't give a flying fudgecycle about whether mitt's a mormon, but i DO challenge ALL presidential candidates to address without tap dancing how they justify the insane availability of guns--ALL sorts of guns--in this country. i don't care whether this kid's rifle [an sks assault weapon] was registered or not. i don't want him or anyone else to have one. are the second amendment people going to start marketing "a militia of one?"
from an alert reader: for that two-wheeled militia of one on your shopping list, feel and share this man's pain.
11 comments:
Dear Rev, you've hit a topic that definitely has my interest. I'm a pro gun sort of guy so my question for debate is how do you propose we get rid of the illegal guns that result in the majority of gun use in committing crimes? It's the same old fight of how do you make a law that applies to criminals more than it all ready does? As I see it, if we do away with all guns, it may make the supply dwindle a bit, but I don't ever see them going out of circulation completely and banning them only means that people who don't care about the ban (criminals) will have them (other than law enforcement, etc.)
i recommend a several-pronged approach, treating guns as automobiles, lethal weapons all.
begin with mandatory registration, licensing of guns AND owners, and require that all owners and users carry insurance, putting liability on those who possess and use these things.
in order to get a license, one would have to reach a certain age, take a course on gun safety and use, and not just a three-hour how to shoot, but an actual course. NOT an internet thing. hell, if the nra wants to teach it, i don't care. but without the class, no lawful use or possession; ie, no license.
then criminalize the use and possession of them without such annual license, registration, proof of insurance. then seriously enforce the hell out of these laws. if you use a gun to commit a crime, you serve mandatory time, plus forfeiture of your licenses and registrations. isn't shooting someone at LEAST as bad as possessing drugs? basically a dmv for guns.
do the same for bullets. treat them like controlled substances.
in order to buy and possess them, you have to show a license, permit, insurance and all that crap.
seriously, is it too much to ask? what if you had been at westroads mall?
what if you were there with your four year old daughter, as was the case?
what if it was your wife standing at customer service as you were murdered?
how long does this go on unchecked?
and the legislature wants to absolve counties of their obligation to keep highways and county roads safe for bicycles and other non-motorized users?
but what about malls?
what about schools?
why bicyclists but not school children and holiday shoppers?
what should this country's priorities really be?
what DOES pro-life REALLY mean?
i realize we can put the gun genie back in the bottle, but we SHOULD put a child-proof cap on the damned thing, don't you think?
What exactly will this proposed insurance cover? Who gets paid? What is it EXACTLY that is being insured?
The gun used was stolen, should the insurance company be on the hook for someone they didn't underwrite? Kinda like my health insurance cover me when I am in the act of a crime-
Bratz
oops should have said "my insurance company doesn't cover me..."
bratz
Rev,
While I'm not usually for mandatory licensing on a number of things, I actually like your approach. There are too many zealots that would love to just get rid of guns all together which won't kill off the problem and you've acknowledged that fact. I'm a bit confused about the insurance as well considering if I have to use a gun, I don't expect to compensate whatever it's being used on.
That's a great idea REv. When all the gang-bangers and criinals line up to license and register their guns and buy the insurance, please let me know.
Here's another what if....what if one of the victims at the mall had a gun of their own, with a permit to carry? What if they had retunrned fire as soon as the shooting started? What if that armed victim had managed to kill the attacker before he managed to shoot another victim....or ANY vicitms for that matter.
How will any of the changes you've proposed stop CRIMINALS from using guns to commit crimes. As near as I can tell, all your proposed changes would do is further burden law-abiding citizens.....becuase they're the only ones that would comply
Rev,
I grew up in true hillbilly fashion. Hunting, fishing, trapping. Today with 11 years of past military service I no longer hunt. I now feel guns are for killing people. Very few people truly need to hunt to survive but my younger brother kills about 8 deer a years and lives off of the meat during the winter. Hunters aside, I just don't know how to get the guns away from the criminals?
the best way is little by little, one by one. teach your children not to kill. my little granddaughter has a hard time walking past a tree without stopping to hug it. i intend her baby brother to be the same little tree-hugging hippie child.
if registration is good enough for school, voting, and bicycle license plates, why not guns?
it is among the heights of hypocrisy [right up there with $23,000 marble-topped commodes and private jets for christ] for the "gun lobby" to say that folks ought to have a right to own ak47s.
and they think hillary is dangerous?
watch charlton heston's fine perfomance in "dialing for columbine" again if you want dangerous.
There's the rub Kim. AK-47's by themselves aren't dangerous. All that's going to happen if some deranged lunatic manages to get ahold of one is they're going to do damage with it just as much as they'd do damage with any other gun. People bent on getting and using a gun are going to do it no matter what we do with banning or licensing.
While I don't personally see the need for fully auto weapons, I don't see the need to ban them as long as we're making sure the people owning them are licensed properly as you mention. Shoot I'm of the persuasion that there could stand to be a few more things we license people for including child birth....
no argument there. you have to get a marriage license. makes no sense to stop it there. hell, ya gotta have a license to have a dog, for christ's sake.
tell me, buckshot, WHY do folks need auto- or semi-automatic weapons? just because they exist? WHY?
Why am I not in the least bit surprised the photo you choose to illustrate your dream featured Communist Chinese police---with plenty of loaded guns?
You're an anti-freedom asshole, plain and simple.
You want our guns? Come and TRY and take them.
Post a Comment