"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Were you expecting at least a few long paragraphs and probably a bunch of numbered sections, subsections
and articles? I was. But no - that's The 2nd Amendment in it's entirety. There is nothing more to it.
As crude and simple as the guns of the era in which it was written.
Also as unreliable and dangerous. It has literally blown up in our faces, killing us instead of
protecting us from tyranny and foriegn adversaries.
To the rest of the civilized world, we look like insane idiots. The US has more annual fire arm
related fatalities than All the other civilized nations combined. All the nations that are comparable
or worse than us are war zones of one kind or another so can't really be counted as civilized.
The only real life 2nd Amendment freedom fighters are drug merchants shooting at cops while trying to
escape. They WILL lose their freedom if they get caught! In their minds, they are only trying to conduct
free trade and the government is overstepping, violating their rights.
And seriously, the only time gun advocates rise up in protest is when they fear their 'gun rights' are under
consideration for even the mildest new regulation. They do not utter a peep on any other issue that
involves the limits of the government, let alone show up en masse armed for war.
Even if they did, the idea that a bunch of guys with pistols and rifles would scare Uncle Sam into changing
his mind about a new law or that they could prevail if The Military decided to take over is ludicrous.
Whatever the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment, (it is rather vague
and contradictory) they failed to consider how much technological advancements could increase the
power and deadly efficiency of fire arms in the future. They weren't crazy, so if they'd been given
a hint, I'm sure they would have emphisized the part about well regulated and put a few
stipulations on shall not be infringed.
The main factor driving the gun problem is proliferation - too many guns everywhere. Anybody who wants one
can get one quickly and cheaply. Guns are left in easy reach of toddlers. Depressed teenagers can take the
easy way out using the 'emergency self defense' device their parents bought to protect the family. Burglars
cheerfully add them to the bounty, supplying their fellow bad boys with the prefered tool of their trade.
America is at a level of saturation that makes it impossible for a city or even a state to effectively
regulate them. The violence in Chicago is proof of that, not that the laws themselves are bad.
During fierce debates in The Skeptic's Society and Marylin Vos Savant Forums (see below) I realized that
guns are not an essential component of our society, unlike cars, which gun proponents often compare
them to due to the similar annual fatality numbers. Every gun in the country could dissappear tonite
and tomorrow morning the rest of our society would roll right along as usual. If all the cars and
trucks in America disappeared, the entire country and much of the rest of the world stops moving.
What I realized on July 20th 2012 is that guns are effectively a HOBBY! And everybody in America, even
those of us who are against guns, are subsidizing the major cost of that hobby. Some estimates put the
annual cost of fire arm fatalities, injuries, property damage and law enforsement at over 250 billion
dollars, dwarfing the value of the entire industry, which is around 15 billion.
Since it is extreemly difficult to amend the Constitution, even if the National Rifle Association allowed
their pet senators and congressmen touch the 2nd Amendment, some way of balancing it out is needed.
In a nut shell, the GIT moves the entire monetary cost of fire arms to the owners, lobbying organizations
and manufacturers - anybody and everybody with a stake in the hobby of private citizens owning guns gets
to help pay for all the resulting death, injury and destruction. No more freeloading!
Adding a function to an existing agency, or even starting a whole new one is a much lower hurdle to clear
than amending the Constitution. In addition, framing it as a matter of not freeloading will make it
harder for the supposedly self sufficient quazi-Libertarian minded Republicans to object.
The GIT would work alot like insurance. All legal gun owners, manufacturers and proponent organizations
would recieve a quarterly bill that would reflect the cost incurred during the preceding period caused by
guns. The more deaths, robberies, injuries and property damage, the higher their bill will be. Because
proliferation is the problem being addressed, the more guns and gun related stuff someone owns, the bigger
their bill. Manufacturers and proponent organizations would be billed relative to their size.
Most of the money would be used to pay for the expenses created by gun incidents. Families of the
deceased would be compensated something like 5,000,000$, (with adjustments for the circumstances
of each case, of course) and similarly hefty payments to injured victims on top of paying their
medical expenses. All emergency medical servicers would be paid by the GIT system for treating
victims. Police and fire departments would be paid for their time and expenses.
People who's property is damaged by a gun would not have to worry about finding the perpetrator.
For example, simply report the bullet hole in your windshield to the police and the repair will be
covered by the GIT system. No need to try to track down where the bullet came from.
Keep in mind that this is not an alternative to the existing legal system. Crimes will still be prosecuted
in the courts. Murderers will still go to prison. Assailants can still be sued by the victims.
Additionally, there will be legal penalties for attempts to scam the system. It would obviously be
very tempting for terminally ill patients to give their families a parting gift.
One of the claims made by advocates is that guns deter crime. So to help pass the GIT, it will include
compensation for when that actually happens. Somebody chases away a crook, the value of whatever he
would have gotten away with is credited to the system. Prevent a murder or scare off a rapist and a big
standard credit is added. Maybe some bonus could also be payed to the gun wielding 'good guy' in the
incident. Now how could the NRA possibly be against the GIT if guns are doing so much crime prevention?
From what they say, The government will actually have to tax us to help pay all the good guys with guns!
The practical effect on the gun lobby will be that they will do a 180 and favor laws that tend to
reduce gun proliferation and usage. This reveals one of the fundamental problems with the current
situation - the motivation is backwards! The more mayhem there is, the more guns they sell!
To speed up the reduction in proliferation a generous buy back program could be instituted. Full retail,
with a 100$ minimum paid for voluntary turn ins, no questions asked. This will work particularly well
for illegal guns in drug infested areas.
Just like cars, all guns will need to be registered by their owners. Owners will be licensed and tested
and will need to notify the government whenever they buy or sell a gun, including who from or to. They
will need to check the license of the buyer with an online registry. Any suspicion of illegal intent
must be reported wether the sale is completed or not. Failure to do so could result in a fine or jail.
Unregistered guns will be confiscated when found. Unless they have reported them as lost or stolen
owners will be fined if their guns are found in anybody else's possession anywhere except at their own
residence or while they are present to supervise it's use. Owners will have authority over how their gun
is used and some fraction of responsibilty for all consequenses of it's use.
Confiscated or turned-in guns will be stored indefinitely in a secure armory. Owners will also be able to
store guns there for free and retain ownership. This will be a good option for when they go on vacation
or are otherwise not at home for an extended period to prevent unauthorized use, accidents and theft.
All guns in the armory will be subject to inspection and analysis at any time if they are suspected
of being used in the commission of a crime.
The 2nd amendment may have been a good idea when the new nation was struggling against existing
threats and those that were within the memory of living people and guns were relatively weak, but the
many advances of technology, radical differences in the structures of society and the realities of
the relation between the government and the citizenry and America's position in the world, it serves no
purpose. And, thanks mostly to the efforts of the NRA and other lobbying organizations exploiting it to
bend gun laws to their benefit, it is a severe detriment.
The NRA poses as a representative of America's gun owners, but they are really all about the money.
More guns = more violence = more fear = more gun sales.
Like a giant leech, they are literally living off our blood.
Their favorite catch phrase is "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
You'd think that someone in the NRA or amongst the millions of gun enthusiasts could have come up with
something less moronic by now. Maybe it's because they want to believe it so avoid thinking it over.
I will list 4 reasons why it is a foolish perspective and the basis of bad policy.
1. A good guy with a gun is 1 second away from becoming the bad guy. How many stories of accidental
firings killing a family member do we hear every year? How many bad decisions by gun toting citizens and
cops killing the wrong guy or a bystander? How many stories of momentary anger taking over and the
previously clean record punctuated by a murder/suicide?
2. The bad guy has the advantage of surprise. He knows when and where he is going to strike.
The good guy can usually only start shooting after the bad guy has already started his attack. Before that,
he is often just another face in the crowd. And thanks to the hi rate of fire, he can get off many
shots before the good guy has even figured out where the bullets are coming from. And if he knows who
the good guy with a gun is, guess who gets the first bullet to the head.
The producer of the FPS Russia show (see the Kriss link above) was murdered a few years ago. Shot
down in spite of being a world class fire arms expert with access to all the finest weapons in the world.
The bad guy gave no warning to make it a fair fight. The gun in the good guy's hand can not defend him
against The bullet headed for his heart. There is no strategy to defend against this.
3. The bad guy needs a gun to perform the duties of his profession - coersion, property damage,
pain, injury, murder - a gun is vastly superior to all other weapons. He knows when he is going to need
it so can leave it at home when he isn't working. His 'carry-to-use efficiency' can easily exceed 90%.
The good guy must have it with him whenever he goes out if he wants to have any chance of ever
being THE good guy with a gun. We aren't in a state of total mayhem yet, so his carry-to-use
efficiency is depressingly, utterly dismal. Perhaps .00000001%? Hard to calculate, based on
news reports of citizens shooting bad guys commiting crimes divided by non-existant statistics of
how many other good guys were carrying guns divided again by how many years they had been
doing so without scoring.
The bad guy can thank the NRA for making it so easy for him to acquire the main tool of his trade.
The good guy can thank the NRA for burdening him with a virtually worthless weight on his hip, not
to mention the expense, daily chore and awesome risk.
4. The bad guy without a gun has the opportunity to grab the good guy's gun. The bad guy
with a crummy gun can shoot the good guy and take his expensive nice gun. The more good guys
there are walking around with guns, the more opportunities there are.
As proven by Japan and other countries with bans or near bans on private ownership of guns, the
thing that really stops a bad guy with a gun is to keep him form getting it in the first place.
The NRA's crusade to put a gun in every hand has proven that doing the opposite of a ban has the
opposite effect on the bad guys - they are empowered. A DUH! level of predictability.
The fundamental function of government is to create and enforce laws that benefit the citizens; to
increase the level of civilization. Our government is failing miserably in this case, for the
2nd Amendment and all the laws dependent on it are doing the opposite.
The NRA will see the Gun Incident Tax as an existential threat, so will fight like never before.
It will take the power of the office I am running for to defeat them.
Paul Ryan said "an. attack. on. one. of. us. is. an. attack. on. all. of. us.", addressing Congress
about the attack on Republican Congressmen on Wednesday during their baseball practice by
James Hodgkinson, a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter.
I don't know why, but his attempt to emphasize by stopping after every word just sounded bad.
It sounded kind of stupid rignt off the bat, but something about it left a bad taste that's still
lingering 2 days later.
Probably just the obvious fact that he was essentially stating that Congress doesn't care about
90 or so citizens who die every day, just don't shoot at them.
2 weeks ago a disturbed 19 year old killed 14 students and 3 adults at Stoneman Douglas High
in Florida. There was the usual thoughts and prayers bleating from politicians and finger
pointing in every direction away from guns by the NRA.
As empty as it sounds considering the Sandy Hook massacre, maybe it is different this time.
The surviving students are raising a sustained rukus. Repealing the 2nd amendment is being brought
up in the media. A dozen big companies have cut ties with the NRA. Republican Senators and
Congressmen are being berated in town hall meetings. Even Trump found himself sitting in a meeting
with the students and other gun control activists in the White House.
Perhaps most telling, the NRA's new spokeswoman, Dana Loesch, is getting consistently bad press
for her Kellyanne Conway style nonsense delivery. She gets tripped up by high school kids in
public debates. The news anchors cut off her desperate conspiracy theory rants. Her demeanor is
even worse than her predecessor and boss, Wayne LaPierre's, which is saying alot.
The idea being bandied about by Trump and the NRA is to arm teachers. It is about as stooopid
as you can get without crossing into outright slapstick comedy, but they can't understand that.
So, I'm thinking this time could be different. If they push that thru, even on a trial basis and
the obvious predictable incidents occur, the backlash could be amplified.
Who is JO 753?
Here are links to my presence on the web:
Websites
Forums & Blogs
