Wednesday, January 13, 2016

A Compromise Proposal on Gun Control.

A compromise proposal on gun control.

I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I try. Can't cut a rug, but I'm sharp about other things, ya know, like birthdays.

But what I can't quite figure completely is what exactly is Obama suggesting, or directing, that is at all alarming with his gun control proposals yesterday?

I get that people are really sensitive on this issue, so be it, in fact I'm glad your sensitivity is there, its a bulwark against my insensitivity on this matter. Hey, I don't want government taking our rights away, but I think some of us are a little too paranoid here.

...and probably haven't really read up on the issue, but took the a.m. radio crib notes.

I was lecturing my boy a few weeks ago on traditions and anachronisms. It was one of those flights of philosophy I have every now and then with my children, and in which they really have no choice but to listen.

I was particularly talking about the old live Christmas tree tradition, but that's beside the point.
But I told O. that one should respect traditions, but don't always beholden yourself to them. I reasoned its your life to enjoy and value, and even have your own traditions. Do not hold so sacred ideas and actions just because that's the way someone else before you did it.

Some may call me irreverent, but many times I've failed to see why my thoughts on a matter should take a subservient place behind the ideas of even fifty years ago, let alone 200 and fifty years ago, or more.

I cautioned that traditions, and the past, can close your mind to new ideas too. A tradition can be so revered that it simply doesn't allow for an alternative look. As rare as it is for the past to achieve such majesty, the varying degrees in which it retards the imagination, and indeed prohibits growth is not uncommon at all.

Back in the day a brave new nation endeavored to create a more perfect union, fully realizing of course that the adjective phrase 'more perfect' is the union trying to become, but not there yet.
Are we a 'more perfect' union because we cling to a 1780's concern for sufficient arms in civil defense against an unjust king?

I think not, and considering how little firearms are going to protect you from a tank, I'm fairly certain that my train of thought is more applicable to today's reality. Which is the second amendment isn't going to protect you from government over reach.

Now I got a framework of a compromise here on this controversial issue of gun control. Its not complete, and hardly perfect, but we both give a little and take a little.

Obviously, the first item on the agenda is what merits 'gun control'?

I'll paraphrase the now cliche remark by Justice Stewart on pornography, -- I don't know which guns are exactly what we want to ban, but I know them when I see them.

In light of the scrutiny the sensitive give on this issue, I refrain from even a categorization of the arms, its a framework of a compromise remember and I'm not an arms dealer.

I've heard all the arguments in the past, we've all have, and yet the number of American's who don't consider guns that are specifically designed to kill quickly and often as sacred objects is growing. 

Which suggest my compromise may become irrelevant sometime soon, as those holy guns many find gruesome will be taken without consideration.

Practically speaking it may be very late in the game to really prohibit some of these things as a move to prevent recurrences of what has happened in the past, but then doesn't that argue against the severity of the prohibition anyways? If its not going to make them disappear from corrupt hands, then its feckless to ban them, right? Well, o.k., but lets ban them regardless.

Symbolism is important,of course. Wouldn't it be nice to show some cohesiveness, and civility, as a culture versus the brutal individualism of the terrorists? (Who are really the only civilians putting them to use anymore, anyways and yet we are anxious to preserve their rights?) Which doesn't suggest there aren't legit reasons to use guns that fire bullets early and often, just that there can't be that many reasons to cloud reasoned action to at least attempt to keep them out of the hands of fools.

If the idea is to make a more perfect union, and any proposal would make it harder for even one person to kill lots of people quickly, then why are people so contentious on this? Sit, let's talk.

I get the whole encroachment of government powers concept, I do. But Supreme Court Chief Justice, and conservative, John Roberts judged you do have to buy health insurance, and even Ronald Reagan, another conservative, enacted gun control, we need but to think for ourselves to make the right decision.

Let's prohibit some of these things, and here is the give.

A tax break, dollar for dollar, on your first hand gun purchase as an adult!

The tax code isn't going to change. Its not the topic here today, but the complexity of the code insures it's here to stay. Call it inertia.

Governments use the tax code to influence behavior. Tax something to dissuade use, rebate to encourage. Buy cigarettes and pay an extra tax, buy a house and receive a deduction!

Despite what anyone might assume, I'm not against the gun advocates. I'm not at all impressed with a lot of the soft and cozy notions from the left, like "no gun zones." I don't want a gun control initiative to soften America, not even symbolically.

One of the cries of the NRA is that the government wants your guns. Well lets turn that on its head, lets have government encourage gun ownership!

Make it our new tradition, a positive step to build trust between the government and its people. If in a
hundred years from now, people think we did the wrong thing, they can change it.

If the government encourages you to buy a gun for personal protection, not only does it disarm some of the extreme on one side, but signals to the extreme on another side that America isn't the place to trifle with Americans.

If its hard for some people to accept that their government would be encouraging its people to arm themselves, consider how I feel about my government, which has encouraged seemingly everyone else in the world to arm themselves, but me. I'm surrounded by nuts the world over, many of whom my tax dollar went toward arming.

Its hard to over look the dismal fruition of that policy.

In the end, this is just an idea on my behalf to form a more perfect union, it would require conversation and compromise. Any takers?


  1. Neither extreme is for me. I believe we have the right to bear arms. I believe we have the right to hunt legal game, the right to use them as a sport, and to protect ourselves and property with them. I know GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. You must have a screw loose to believe that. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. I do believe that a sound background check should be in place and used prior to the purchase of ANY firearm from any dealer or individual. I do believe also that the public has the right to be safe, and, that individuals who possess firearms should remain qualified for as long they own said firearms. I would not object to a periodic renewal of the right to own firearms (period of time to be determined by U.S. citizens), or, to take away firearms immediately from those who pose an immediate threat to society. Finally, I am against the possession and use of rapid firearms of any kind (AK47s etc.) by ANYONE except perhaps for law enforcement agencies, armed forces, and the like. My opinion is as of today, subject to modification if better (in my mind), for the public good.

  2. Hey Richard, just got this comment, cause I have some setting I need to adjust.

    I don't get many taking me up on my compromise, I think it would be swell to give up a little in the semi automatic realm to booster hand gun ownership. But I have no emotional dog in the game, and it probably shows.