Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Gun Control and Revolution

In other news, America's favorite groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil (yes, I spelled it right, look it up!) has been frozen in his hole in Pennsylvania. His extraction, encased within a block of ice, means that his usual winter prediction will not happen until zookeepers manage to thaw him out in front of a space-heater...

Okay, seriously, that's a slight exaggeration. But it's nice to not have to deal with the usual Groundhog Day nonsense, at least for another 24 hours.

Anyway, it seems that Mubarek has taken to some dirty tricks to put down the growing revolution in his country, sicking plain-clothes thugs on his own people, while at the same time, the debate about gun control continues to go on as Gabrielle Giffords recovers. As usual, I see things a little bit differently on both issues, and find that the two are actually interlinked.

First, the whole point of having a 2nd amendment in our Constitution was to make sure that occasional revolutions would take place. The blood of revolutionaries was to be the natural manure of freedom's growth, according to Jefferson. And if the government got too big, it was time for the people to revolt. Hence, every household should have a gun.

Reality check: In today's world, we have harrier and tomcat jets, black hawk and apache helicopters, napalm, night vision, satellite surveillance, cruise missile frigates, aircraft carriers, wire-tapping and, of course, nuclear warheads. If our government were faced with a revolt, it could easily put it down within minutes.

Unless the military were either cooperative or ambivalent to the revolt. In which case, we'd have a situation similar to that in Egypt. And in Egypt, were there to be any shots fired by the people, it would only be political fodder internationally for world leaders to oppose the movement.

In short, the age for revolts with guns are O-VER! Jefferson himself would agree. Deal with it.

So do we therefore enact gun laws because we're all screwed anyway? Well, no. I refuse to side with the liberals on the agenda of outlawing ammo clips, as if six shots fired at a Congressperson were somehow better than sixteen shots. The very idea itself is ludicrous. No, I am very much in favor of every citizen owning defensive weaponry. That means that a state which allows handguns and disallows tasers is a hypocritical, upside-down, Micky-Mouse-level insane administration which needs to reverse such nonsense immediately.

No, instead of outlawing guns, I say -- LICENSE their asses!

Think that's too harsh? The NRA would certainly think so. But think about it: Requiring a license is not an "impingement" upon keeping or bearing arms. It is an extra hoop to jump through, yes, but one can do it. And our crackpot, Loughner, would not have even been able to buy his glock, much less a clip for it, were he to have been required to have a license first. Had he applied for a license, his obvious insanity would have barred him. And if someone goes crazy afterward, and allows the license to expire (because those who don't take regular medications seldom do other things that require regular maintenance), then there is an information network which allows authorities to take the guns out of the hands of the insane! Any person without a license to purchase and carry a gun would not be able to do so. Drug lords would have a significantly more difficult time arming themselves (which helps enhance the silly drug war against cannabis, but that's another subject). Sure, the odd sociopath would still get a gun, but that's always been the case. At least obvious nutballs, like Loughner, wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of arming themselves with HVP's.

Here's the cycle we must break: Some insane idiot goes and gets a gun. He shoots someone. There's outrage, and laws try to get passed. The NRA and its cronies block it. The law fails. Then, another insane idiot goes and gets a gun. He shoots someone... etc. etc.

Does anyone else think this is a bit fucked up?

Okay, we want citizens to be armed in order to defend themselves, and us, against assailants who violate the law with guns. I'm down with that! But let's have those law-abiding citizens carry a license to, well, carry. Is a criminal holding up a convenience store really going to be less surprised by a citizen who is licensed to buy, and then carry, a concealed weapon vs. one who isn't?

If you really think this is extremist or far-fetched on my part, let me offer the following list of comparisons. You see, we need licenses for damned near everything else! Yet for buying or using a gun, we require no licenses whatsoever. Bullshit! It's perfectly reasonable to expect a license to buy or carry a gun, given all the other shit we need licenses for. Here's my list, and pay attention, there will be a quiz later:

You need a license to drive. So to propel 2,000 pounds of metal at 60 MPH, you need a license, but to propel .60 ounces of metal at 2,000 MPH, you don't.

You need a license to hunt or fish. So to shoot an animal, you need a license. To buy the gun you shoot the animal with, you don't. Or to shoot a human being, you don't.

You need a license to build a building. So to build the store that sells a gun, or the range you can shoot the gun, you need a license. But not to get and fire the gun itself.

You need a license to get married. So you need a license to lead someone to the altar, but not to fire lead into the altar.

You need a license to sell liquor. You need a license to own a bar. You need a license to be a bartender. In some states, you need a license to drink. So you need licenses to sell or buy Jack Daniels, and you might need a license to do a shot of Jack Daniels, but you don't need a license to shoot a man named Jack Daniels.

You need a license to sell cigarettes. You also need a driver's license to buy them. So you need a license to smoke, essentially. But you don't need a license to smoke someone.

Get this: You need a medical license to practice being a doctor or a nurse. So you need a license to take a bullet out of someone's body. You don't need a license to put one into someone's body in the first place!

You need a license to practice dentistry. In other words, you need licensing to put a cap in someone's tooth. You don't need a license to put a cap in someone's ass!

And finally, my favorite: You need a driver's license, or some other form of I.D. to vote (or you will in Wisconsin, when the Republicans eventually get their way). So you'd need a licence to vote for a Congresswoman. You don't need a license to shoot her!

We need licenses for gun ownership. Enough is enough! And I'm NOT an extremist for saying so!

They can take my gun license when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Go, Egypt!

Eric

P.S., Shame we can't also require licenses for people before they get pregnant so that insane or stupid people can't breed. But that's a subject for a later blog.

No comments: