Comments on: Untitled Gun Control Post

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:02:58 +0000

I agree with Jazz overall in the sense that I think the 2nd amendment clearly does give individuals the right to own guns, and so from that perspective it's the right legal decision.

However, I couldn't help but notice the prescription drug satire doesn't quite work as the government actively controls prescription drug use. We can't get many drugs without a government-licensed agent (a doc) giving us temporary permission to buy the drug from another government-licensed agent (a pharmacist) who then will only give us the amount instructed by agent one. In the world of weapon ownership, it would be like checking out a rifle from a government dealer to use for our hunting trip and then returning it when done. If we don't return it, we could face government-imposed fines or jail.

Actually, this does make me wonder. What if we had a 2.5 amendment that read, "In order to ensure the health and well-being of the populace, the people shall retain the right to seek medical counsel and practice." Or something similar. Would such an amendment make the FDA unconstitutional? Very interesting question actually, which makes me think more about the real Second again.

By: runasim

runasim — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:42:04 +0000

Oh, yes, let's have unrestricted weapons ownership.
Since life begins at conception, according to some, a little revolver should be part of every love encounter. At least, one should be provided in every delivery room.

Just think of the benefits in reducing unruly behavior in classrooms. and playgrounds Instead of time-outs, we could have shoot outs.

No more need for the police or prisons. A good gun fight would settle it all, at minimum cost and eliminating intervention by that nasty governemnt in the processs.
, .
For that matter,, why have a government? Pass out the weapons, and let the best shot win. .

C.Stanley , too, wouldn't need to worry about income resdistribution by progressives and lib'uls. That would be accomplished at gunpoint.

Are we having fun yet?

By: CStanley

CStanley — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:29:58 +0000

Actually, Jazz, the income redistribution that is promoted by liberal/progressive policies is doing exactly what you suggest: when the free market doesn't meet its benchmarks of a bell curve of income distribution, the govt does confiscate and redistribute.

Those fines that you speak of are also known as progressive taxation.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:12:55 +0000

Jazz,

I guess that why the plan exempts the government from its own policies. Maybe state governments should fine local government when they fail to reach benchmarks. Then the federal government can fine state governments for failure to reach certain benchmarks.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:06:47 +0000

No, no, no, SD. You're missing part of the real beauty of this plan. See, nobody is allowed to bring a law suit against any of them. This is Congress directly imposing benchmarks, and if society doesn't deliver on the goals, then fines are imposed which are collected directly by the government. If you let people sue, all you can do is tax them on the income and they keep part of it. Under this plan… whoosh! Cash straight into the congressional coffers and you cut out the middle man!

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:38:18 +0000

You did not take the satire far enough. Maybe local law enforcement, public schools, public transportation, and social welfare agencies should also be subject to performance-based regulation.

If a school graduates someone who cannot function at the 12th grade level, the former student should be able to sue the school. Crime victims should be allow to sue local law enforcement. If the bus is late, riders should be able to sue.