The Week– Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (This guy lives in France, by the way. – bfh) (He needs fisking.)
There’s an obvious answer to America’s gun problem. There is no gun problem. We have a problem with people. That they choose a gun to carry out their evil is irrelevant. It should please both aggressive gun control reformers and gun rights loyalists. And it would prevent a lot of deaths. No it wouldn’t.
It’s simple. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the Bill of Rights gives Americans a personal, individual right to bear arms. Nope. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give us the right to bear arms. That right is given to us by God. 2A says that no man can take that right away. However, exercise of that right can and should be regulated. Shall not be infringed. Want to own a gun? Go right ahead: But it should be contingent on not only preliminary, but continuous training and background checking requirements. Shall not be infringed.
Such requirements would naturally vary by state. But they should include serious background checks, including a psychiatric evaluation. Whereby everyone will be deemed too unstable to own a gun. The left says Trump is unstable. He would not be able to own a gun. To buy a gun, you would have to go through rigorous training in shooting, firearm security, and perhaps first aid and crisis response Sounds costly. How will poor people, who can’t even afford to get voter ID, accomplish this? — in other words, something like a driver’s license for guns. I can’t afford it. More importantly, you would have to pass a basic proficiency test at least once a year. I thought you said this would be like a driver’s license? My mother is 89 and can’t open a bottle of water, yet she gets behind the wheel of a car.
America should also consider mandating that gun owners obtain membership in a properly licensed gun club. What about the poor people? What about the people who live nowhere near a gun club? The idea isn’t just that it would ensure better training and proficiency, but also that somebody in danger of going off the rails might be noticed by a fellow shooter, who might report something. Does being a conservative count as going off the rails? I think a leftist thinks so. No thanks.
The model here would be Switzerland The nation of 8 million white people. where around two million firearms — more than one for every three residents —are privately owned, and yet gun violence is practically nonexistent. Just like America 70 years ago. Reservists can keep their service weapon— that is, fully-automatic assault rifles which rifles are not assault rifles? We have to get rid of them. They are ineffectual. of the kind that are absolutely illegal in the U.S.— in their home, provided they keep up with their reserve requirements, which includes yearly training. Most reservists also belong to gun clubs, which are often subsidized by the army.
The total silence about Switzerland in the American public debate is quite telling. Progressives don’t like to admit that there might not be such a direct correlation between the number of guns and violence, whereas conservatives don’t like to admit that the way to square that circle would be requirements that would make Second Amendment absolutists scream.
If everyone could see past their own ideological blindspots, however, they might be able to recognize that this is a good compromise, Compromise on a God given right? Who are you? and provides something for everyone. Progressives would have real limitations that would prevent violence. How so? Will the criminals be joining gun clubs? Conservatives would have real recognition of the individual right to bear arms We already have real recognition. It’s called our founding documents. that is part of the American social contract (and they should like a reduction in violence too!).
This vision is also very much in line with the Founders’ intentions. I’m done with you.