An Obamacare Approach to Gun Ownership

[FiremanBob]

This is an idea I can get behind:

A Modest Proposal

With Congress tied up over health reform -- legislation whose initial, much-discussed goal was to extend health insurance to as many as 47 million uninsured Americans -- this may be as good a time as any to propose another, less divisive reform.
This Story

*
A modest proposal
*
What D.C. Needs Least: More Guns on the Streets
*
The State of Guns

The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimated in 2008 that more than 250 million guns were owned by U.S. citizens. Since President Obama's election last November, newspapers and electronic media have reported a sharp increase in U.S. gun sales, spurred by rumors that the new administration had secret plans to block gun sales to law-abiding Americans. Normally, about 4.5 million guns are sold in the United States each year, so this surge in sales means that Americans own roughly 260 million guns, in a population of nearly 309 million.

Surveys indicate that gun ownership is not spread evenly across U.S. households. In fact, chances are that a substantial proportion of U.S. gun owners have more than one weapon, so it's quite possible that fewer than 200 million Americans own those 260 million guns. That means there may be more than 100 million citizens left unprotected against their gun-owning fellow citizens.

Surely everyone can agree that this is an outrage. Moreover, it is an outrage that Congress can easily fix, without months of committee meetings, town halls or tea parties. All that is required is a bipartisan, pro-constitutional bill to extend the Second Amendment's protection of gun ownership to all Americans, whether they like it or not.

Under such legislation -- let's call it the Gun Insurance Act of 2009 -- every American would be required to buy some kind of gun. Those who cannot afford even the simplest weapon -- say, those whose 2009 annual income is less than twice the federal poverty level -- could be issued $500 vouchers that would be valid only at gun shops or gun shows, and would have to be used before the 2010 Census. (Just think: What a stimulus to private enterprise all these gun sales would provide, and how many new gun-selling jobs would be created!)

How would the law be enforced? Census takers could verify that everyone they count has a weapon in working condition, and those census takers who survive could report all non-complying Americans to the FBI so it could notify local police departments, which would issue citations for whatever fines Congress chooses to impose. (Note that this proposed legislation would not require creating any new bureaucracy, public option or death panels.) Of course, illegal immigrants would not receive vouchers, would not be required to buy guns and would not be counted in the Census.

So there it is: a modest proposal even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can agree on. If we're willing to require people to buy health insurance, why not require them to buy guns? Sure, maybe the Congressional Budget Office could overestimate its cost, and some wimpy liberals could file a court challenge, but the Supreme Court would slap it down on a clear 5-to-4 vote. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, here's one issue where you can count on at least a couple of Republican votes.

 

[Horrible]

This is an idea I can get behind:

A Modest Proposal

Interesting idea. It should go both ways. Still, I think that the .gov shouldn't force anyone to do anything. If you don't like guns, don't own one. If you don't want health insurance, don't buy it. And don't tax/penalize me for not doing what you want me to do.

 

[joehaus]

Interesting idea. It should go both ways. Still, I think that the .gov shouldn't force anyone to do anything. If you don't like guns, don't own one. If you don't want health insurance, don't buy it. And don't tax/penalize me for not doing what you want me to do.

It's just a parody.

 

[hietpasr]

I find this plan flawed on a couple of levels.

Firstly, the second amendment establishes a right, not a requirement. I do realize this op-ed would not 'force' people to buy guns, but encourage it by giving tax credits or vouchers. As a libertarian I would ask, why would we subsidize yet another government program with taxpayer money streched so thin already?

Secondly. Why would you want people who have improper experience/training to own firearms? If you truly own firearms to be used as the second amendment intended (for the people to defend themselves against government), wouldn't you want people who believe in the second amendemnt, and are willing to defend their country using these rights? Not just every joe off the street who thinks it's 'neat' to own a firearm?

I see no point in this proposal other than to spend my tax money to give people who would not normally be interested in owning a firearm, the means to do so.

Also, why would you want to be part of the slippery-slope of huge government programs? I would be more apt to keeping the moral highground on this particular issue.

 

[sleeplessknight]

Satire, man. Satire. Look up Jonathan Swift I think Penn & Teller had a similar idea, wherein every Federally eligible woman aged 18 or older was issued a bright pink .45 handgun. The choice to carry it, sell it, whatever, was theirs. But the idea was that every 'bad guy' wouldn't know 100% whether their female target was one of those who decided to keep it, or sell it. The bright pink color was to prevent it from falling into the hands of gangbangers because, really, its difficult to look "hardcore" rockin' a Pepto-Bismol colored 'gat.

 

[joehaus]

Secondly. Why would you want people who have improper experience/training to own firearms? If you truly own firearms to be used as the second amendment intended (for the people to defend themselves against government), wouldn't you want people who believe in the second amendemnt, and are willing to defend their country using these rights? Not just every joe off the street who thinks it's 'neat' to own a firearm?

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

I don't believe in establishing classes of who is or isn't qualified to own a gun.

 

[MasterShinken]

Census takers could verify that everyone they count has a weapon in working condition, and those census takers who survive could report all non-complying Americans

...

 

[FiremanBob]

I think that the situation is so bad these days that we sometimes have trouble seeing, much less, taking, a joke. I suffer from it some days myself.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

So you’re OK with criminals fresh out of prison to own firearms?
And or people with a mental problems owning firearms also?

I can understand the difference between a murder and a guy that did time in the pen for possession of a controlled substance and or any other violent felon owning a firearm but the loonys ought not to have firearms IMO.

Or am I missing your POV ?

I don't believe in establishing classes of who is or isn't qualified to own a gun.

 

[joehaus]

If your not institutionalized, why should your civil rights be curtailed?

 

[cekim]

Didn't one of the Mayors in South America issue shotguns recently to all residents to help reduce crime?

This is socialism I can get behind (I'm not proud, I'll take pot-shots from cover )

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Since when is the RTKABA a Civil right?

From my perspective it’s a Constitutional right.

As Constitutional rights are a gift from your creator but Civil rights are derived from Government.

IMO your POV would require that mental patients never get out of the loony bin and Felons never get out of prison.

I would guess we don’t have the budget nor storage facilities for all of these people.

And our corrupt politician’s don’t seen to want to execute these people either.

If your not institutionalized, why should your civil rights be curtailed?

 

[red87930]

If anyone gets the $500 goverment voucher and does not want to endanger the lives of their children or evil intruders PM me. I will dispose of that voucher in a safe manner. I will come pick it up for you so you do not need to be troubled by touching and evil voucher any more than needed.

Just trying to do my part to support the program.

 

[joehaus]

I most certainly consider 2a a civil right. Along with the protection of the 4th, 5th and all the rest of the boys.

Well this is all hypothetical anyway seeing as there is no way a felon is legally getting a firearm in this country. However, it's my opinion once you have served the allotted time for your crime you get to reenter society with all rights and privileges.

As for the mentally ill, your either deemed dangerous or not. We should hope that the ones that are deemed dangerous remain institutionalized. The fact that you once had involuntary treatment for a mental disorder should not be a lifelong qualifier for a firearm. Anyone intent on doing harm will find a way with or without the use of a firearm.

The problem is that when deciding who can and who can't own guns, giving discretion to some arbitrary person or group can lead to blanket policies of denials. Like we see in MA with our police chiefs having discretionary power.

 

[Coyote Whiskey]

Well, its been done in Kennesaw, GA in 1982. The town issued an ordinance that evry hosehold must maintain a firearm. I beleive th ecrime rate in Kennesaw dropped over 50%. And as a sidebar in 2007 Family Circle voted Kennesaw as one of top 10 best towns for families in the country. The Mayor said one thing adding legally owned guns to the town didn't do was increase gun crimes.

 

[JackDaniels]

That is funny. But if it were true I wouldn't be for it. Can't force my views on anyone. If you don't want to own a gun or if you don't want to practice religion, you shouldn't be forced to.

 

[FiremanBob]

I don't see any difference between Constitutional rights and civil rights. Any "civil rights" that are not contained in or predate the Constitution are not actually rights. Any rights contained therein are not given by government.

 

[lupis42]

Since when is the RTKABA a Civil right?

From my perspective it’s a Constitutional right.

As Constitutional rights are a gift from your creator but Civil rights are derived from Government.

Government cannot grant your rights. It can grant privileges, and it can acknowledge natural rights, but the inherent function of the government is to restrict the rights of the individual. (In theory, this is to prevent one individuals rights from encroaching on the rights of others).

IMO your POV would require that mental patients never get out of the loony bin and Felons never get out of prison.

So you're saying that people who are reasonably believed to be dangerous, and have demonstrated that in the past, *should* be released from prison/mental institutions?


This is what I don't get: you're talking about people who are trusted to be functioning members of society, but you don't trust them to own guns.

<sarcasm>Isn't that how the moonbats see everyone (or at least, all non-LEOs?</sarcasm>

Seriously, I don't see where this threat level is that isn't sufficient to justify total curtailing of rights, but is sufficient to justify some curtailing of rights.
<sarcasm>

I most certainly consider 2a a civil right. Along with the protection of the 4th, 5th and all the rest of the boys.

Well this is all hypothetical anyway seeing as there is no way a felon is legally getting a firearm in this country. However, it's my opinion once you have served the allotted time for your crime you get to reenter society with all rights and privileges.

It would probably be easier for people to understand if we used other forms of punishment, like flogging: once you've had the punishment, that's it. Done. Prison time is (in theory) the same deal: you're there as a punishment, not to protect the rest of society. If you were inherently dangerous, you should be in an asylum.

 

[notalib]

This doesnt cover Superman, Batman nor the Justice league of America... A census taker cant get to their door, so I am against this POS law. And how dare you even try to push this Nazi, Comunist agenda on us. You must be one of those whako.......

Did we miss the point of this???

 

[jcr]

So you’re OK with criminals fresh out of prison to own firearms?

You're of the opinion that criminals fresh out of prison don't get firearms whenever they want them?
.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

No, I'm not.

I don't doubt that such criminals can obtain firearms.

I still do not want it to be legal for such criminals to obtain firearms.

You're of the opinion that criminals fresh out of prison don't get firearms whenever they want them?
.