Gun Control

A Modest Gun-Safety Proposal

Congress should pass a law forthwith requiring every gun buyer to declare whether or not he intends to commit a crime with the gun.

|

The problem with the advocates of "gun-safety" laws is that they don't think big enough. They favor expanded background checks, greater monitoring of those stigmatized as "mentally ill," and a ban on the manufacture of scary-looking semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. But we know these measures would not have prevented the horrible shootings that have occurred in recent years.

The 1999 Columbine massacre took place while bans on "assault weapons" and high-cap magazines were in place. The killer at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Adam Lanza, wouldn't haven't been stopped by a background check because he used his mother's lawfully purchased guns. The shooter at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater last year, James Eagan Holmes, had no criminal record and bought his weapons legally. He reportedly had contact with so-called "mental-health professionals," and some acquaintances thought he was weird, but this hardly sounds like grounds to take his guns away or detain him as likely to commit a massacre. Had he been unable to buy guns legally, he would have obtained them in the black market, which people have been doing since guns were invented. Same with Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson shooter who killed six people and wounded, among others, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

So, what are we to do? It's not enough to make gun buyers undergo background checks. A would-be killer's background may be spotless, and those whose backgrounds aren't will findother ways to get firearms, including theft. Banning the manufacture of certain firearms and magazines won't work either, because millions of them already exist, and no one proposes confiscation — if for no other reason than that it would be a mission impossible.

Here's where I think the "gun-safety" crowd — they seem not to like the term "gun control" anymore — need to think bigger. Enough with the roundabout measures. Let's get to the heart of the problem: the intention to commit crimes with a gun.

Congress should pass a law forthwith requiring every gun buyer to declare whether or not he intends to commit a crime with the gun. If a would-be buyer says yes, he would be denied a gun and his declaration should be publicized far and wide so that no one else will sell him a gun. The government could even set up a website with the names of all would-be buyers who declared their intention to commit a crime with a gun. This would ensure that even black-market dealers would refuse to sell guns to these people. Knowledge is power. And if a gun dealer sells a gun to a self-declared criminal, he would be charged as an accessory. That would deter even black-market dealers.

But what if a would-be buyer lies about his intentions? Let's have stiff penalties for lying on the declaration form. I'm sure that anyone planning to commit murder or armed robbery would be stopped by the threat of jail time for lying about that intention.

This, of course, doesn't address the full problem. What about the Adam Lanzas who take their parents' guns? Since they don't present themselves to a gun seller, how would they be required to declare their intentions?

Here's the solution: All gun owners should be required to keep their guns under lock and key at the local police station. Whenever they, or members of their families, want to use a gun — say, in self-defense against an armed home invader — they would have to sign a declaration of intent. Guns would be issued only to those who declared they have no criminal designs.

This seems a far more effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands than mere background checks and weapons bans. Since that's what the "gun-safety" lobby says it wants, let's see if they go for this modest proposal. It would target only the criminally minded, not the law-abiding among us, so the lobby should have no problem with these measures. Gun-safety advocates certainly cannot claim these requirements would not work, because then they would have to admit that the proposals they favor also would not work.

If we can't count on gun buyers to declare honestly if they have criminal intentions, how can we count on them not to buy guns in background-check-free zones?

This column originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Was Thomas Szasz a Conservative?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Whenever they, or members of their families, want to use a gun ? say, in self-defense

    All police should have to keep their guns under lock and key at my home and have to come and get past my dogs before getting a gun.

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, Mojo50.com

      1. Pimpin’ aint easy.

    2. I can do Sheldon Richman one better? Not only can I solve the problems of gun violence, but all of war, suicide, hunger, and human-inflicted suffering everywhere! All we need to do, is to have Government Almighty pass but ONE law: “Everyone, everywhere, must LOVE everyone, everywhere.” All babies, the day they are born, must answer the question, “Are you going to love everyone everywhere?” All babies who answer the question wrong, or refuse to answer, will be imprisoned, till they get it right. After that, all violators will be shot at the next dawn? In a LOVING manner, though! By Government-Almighty-sanctioned, professionally trained, degreed, credentialed, and board-certified Expertologists of Lovingly Executing the Non-Lovers! ? These, and more, solutions can be found in the newest Religious Breakthroughs, as Revealed by Scienfoology. Come and WORSHIP with us Scienfoologists! See http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ ?

    3. All gun owners should be required to keep their guns under lock and key at the local police station.

      Isn’t this how Puerto Rico does it? There, a model for the mainland Left.

  2. You could also create a tax on illegally using guns, and then get the criminals for tax evasion. Or you could pray to God to stop the gun violence.

    None of that will work, of course.

    Personally, I think the cause of the problem is elsewhere: the US culture approves of violence and other radical approaches as means to address disagreements. In other countries, violence of any kind is considered a last resort that can only be applied under exceptional circumstances.

    1. In other countries, people are conditioned to wait for The State to solve problems. It seldom does, but they don’t take the initiative themselves.

      1. And progs desperately want us to be like those other countries.

        1. Because they are cowardly pussies who not only couldn’t, but don’t even want to think about the possibility of needing to defend themselves.

    2. In other countries, violence of any kind is considered a last resort that can only be applied under exceptional circumstances.

      So your saying that in other countries, violence is kind of a final solution?

      1. No, he’s saying you should only use it after a final countdown.

        1. God, I miss the 80s. We were so much cooler than kids are today.

          /your dad

    3. Are there any sort of facts backing up the feeling that US culture is more tolerant of violence to settle disagreements? That sounds more like a silly stereotype to me.

      Are gangs in other Western countries less likely to use violence to settle problems? Because when talking about normal people and their disagreements, it’d be nice to see some evidence that Americans are statistically more likely to go for a radical solution. For instance, consider another popular image of Americans being overly litigious.

      1. Are there any sort of facts backing up the feeling that US culture is more tolerant of violence to settle disagreements?

        More tolerant than whom?

        Indeed, let’s have this discussion when Americans start exploding bombs at polling centers on Election Day or when our inner-city police organize death squads to murder homeless street children.

        1. Agreed, but I imagine the point of comparison is other ‘Western’ countries, mostly meaning Europe.

          Of course, considering how sports fans in Europe can sometimes settle their ‘disagreements,’ I’m very skeptical of this pretty common assertion. “We’re so much more civilized than those American cowboys!”

          1. I think that is the key example.

            At American sporting events, you dont need fences to separate fans.

            Every football game I have ever been to, there have been people wearing the color of opponents in the “wrong” sections. And Ive seen a few fights, but its very rare.

            In fact, they are usually treated friendly. Especially if they are road fans.

            1. Shockingly enough, my friend and I were treated well in Baltimore when we, as 49ers fans, came to see them and the Ravens play (Thanksgiving 2011).

              Baltimore!

            2. I did not say that there is no violence in other countries. I said that using violence as a means of addressing disagreements is more accepted in the US.

              The behavior of those hooligans and Ultras in European football is not considered acceptable by society there.
              It is violent, and it happens, but it is not accepted, and there is a wide consensus that this violence should be stopped.

              The Late P Brooks’ example of the welfare rioters in Greece is an actual example where some violence is more accepted in some other countries – civil unrest as a response to unwelcome government decisions is to some extend accepted in at least Greece and France.

              1. The behavior of those hooligans and Ultras in European football is not considered acceptable by society there.
                It is violent, and it happens, but it is not accepted, and there is a wide consensus that this violence should be stopped.

                Fuck you, you mendacious twat. Ask your average European (West or East) about the Gypsies and see how “peaceful” their suggestions are.

                1. 50 generations of thieves and imbeciles are enough.

              2. That’s funny. Europe has much higher rates of violent crime than the U.S.

                But I suppose the non-violent EU people frown at the violent ones, so that’s alright jack rrabbit.

              3. OK, but Americans also don’t think it’s a good idea to shoot each other over turf… or whatever the hell it is you have in your head. Just what ‘disagreements’ do you see Americans settling with violence?

                I can see bar patrons settling issues over a friendly fight, but you see the exact same shit in other English-speaking countries. Don’t know about continental Europe.

                1. The bar fight is a good example of how Americans are less tolerant of inter-personal violence than europeans – you almost never see bar fights here while they’re quite common in the UK, Canadian, and Australian bar scene.

                  I did a military cruise down the west coast of South America – every damn port we went to that the Brit navy pulled into also, they started fights with us – we had as many fights on that one deployment as I’ve seen in the rest of my 2 decades.

              4. Uh, your mistake is in considering a whole country *one* culture. The smallest european country has as many cultural divisions as the US.

                There is definately a set of cultures within the countries of europe that consider hooliganism to be normal behavior. I think you’ll find a majority of europeans even consider it acceptable as long as it doesn’t get too out of hand.

      2. Are there any sort of facts backing up the feeling that US culture is more tolerant of violence to settle disagreements?

        The roughly $850 billion a year of total US military expenses, and the multiple wars in which the US engage in parallel. Bomb them, send boots there, and spend a ridiculous amount of money doing that. No matter how stupid the military adventure, it will get good overall support, and opposing it publicly might be political suicide.

        1. Whereas France is not in Mali at all; what kind of silly person would say that?

          Russia also never sends troops anywhere to do anything.

          Now, it’s piling on to continue to refute what you said along different lines, but I’m feeling cruel today.

          1. How much war does the US really engage in with that defense budget? Isn’t it spent more as a deterrent so that the US won’t have to go to war, but will be prepared if necessary?

          2. Other countries don’t spent as much on defense not because they’re peaceful, but they know the US is a pack of suckers and will go to war on their behalf. Having a buddy who will knock the teeth out of anyone who offends you isn’t more peaceful than just doing it yourself.

          3. War as a tool of diplomacy is different from violence at home. Americans aren’t going to foreign places and roughing people up; the government does that. So why would people rough up their own citizens (especially when, by happy analogy, the police are quite willing to do that)?

          1. We are also pretty much the first hegemonic power in world history that chose not to try and take land permanently. People need to look at us compared to other historic super powers. Super powers tend to go to war more frequently for the simple fact that they have a larger and more powerful military.

            But if you compare us to pretty much every historic super power, we’re comparatively peaceful and, at least for the last century, aren’t prone to empire building.

        2. 1. The US government is not US culture
          2. Compare our record to, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
          3. Or the UN – at least we don’t start child-prostitution rings serviceing our bases.

    4. In other countries, violence of any kind is considered a last resort that can only be applied under exceptional circumstances.

      Several Tutsis were unavailable for comment.

      Or perhaps you meant European countries?

      1. Buried in the second article is this gem:

        The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609

        Which, if the statistics reflect reality, means the U.S. has the second lowest rate of all the countries mentioned in that article.

        1. And as I’m sure you know, it’s difficult to compare statistics across many different countries due to different reporting methods.

          1. Indeed. As someone who looks at international education stats in his research, I know this first-hand. Noting that places like South Korea don’t even let their poor students and special ed students even near their standardized educational assessments (like TIMSS) don’t fit the narrative of “AMERICAN SCHOOLS IN TROUBLE: NEED MORE MONEY!!!”…so it’s ignored.

    5. In other countries, violence of any kind is considered a last resort that can only be applied under exceptional circumstances.

      What other countries?

    6. You could also create a tax on illegally using guns, and then get the criminals for tax evasion. Or you could pray to God to stop the gun violence.

      Something like the 1934 NFA? Heavy fines and jail time just for having certain guns without paying the proper taxes.

      Sometime around then there came a bigger fine and more jail time for robbing federal insured banks. Other banks were apparently not quite as important and carried lower penalties.

  3. If rounding up the children and putting them in concentration camps where the Adam Lanzas of the world can’t get at them would save the life of even one child, don’t we have an obligation to try it?

    1. And once they’re in concentration camps they’ll be able to focus better, so it will solve our school problems too!

      1. That thingy you did there, was observed ocularly by myself.

    2. Yes lets put them in jail at the local police station and we can check them out when we want to spend time with them. Actually, this is probably coming.

      1. Well, you think your children belong to you alone?

  4. BUT NOT DOING ANYTHING DOESN’T MAKE ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF.

    1. Awesome

  5. Rand Paul ventures into black helicopter land.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..stitution/

    1. **By Ezra Klein

      1. It truly is shameful when Ezra Klein lays out a solid argument connecting you with Alex Jones nutters.

        1. “lays out a solid argument”

          Read it again. Klein didn’t argue anything. He simply posted an NRA email and declared it was black helicopter land. You’re so full of shit.

          1. You can’t reason then.

            Klein-

            1- quoted Rand Paul
            2- verified the quote via a link
            3- debunked it as nuttery using Snopes and Politifact.

            1. Snopes and Politifact debunked straw arguments. You’re sick. Go fuck yourself.

              1. They debunked the notion that the UN Small Arms Treaty is an “unconstitutional gun grab” aimed at the USA.

                That Treaty merely prevents the sale of arms to terrorist states.

                1. That Treaty merely prevents the sale of arms to terrorist states.

                  HOW?

            2. What a hack piece. You couldn’t find some better troll material than this? The only thing linking “black helicopter land” to Rand Paul is Ezra Klein. So, Rand Paul is against the treaty, the NRA is against the treaty, thus Paul must endorse everything in the newsletter? See if you can guess the logical fallacy that Klein is depending on in this hit piece. If I didn’t already know better I’d assume that the Post made a mistake and published this by mistake.

              As an aside PB, it’s Drones now, not Black Helicopters. Going there is so 90s. Move On with the times, and all.

              1. “See if you can guess the logical fallacy that Klein is depending on in this hit piece.”

                Uh, this is shreek; “logic” is a magic word to him.

              2. Fucking Ezra Klein is just using his vaunted spot at Washington Post do declare from on high the boundaries of “respectable argument.”

                Of course, he is documented as a practiced liar. He helped seduced the soi-disant intelligentsia into believing that Obamacare was flawless and unarguably moral, sensible, economic, constitution, a thing of beauty that may be the most solid evidence yet of God’s existence in the form of Barack Obama’s Magnificent Presidential Cock (which he will graciously allow you to see after he completes the remainder of his 8-year blowjob).

        2. Yeah, the idea that Obama would try to subvert constitutional liberties is just plain crazy.

        3. It’s truly shameful when you:

          Try to blame violence on a move and call off forces to defend a foreign diplomat and other American lives

          Specifically break federal law and order the ATF to run guns to drug lords in Mexico, then go to Mexico and blame the violence perpetrated with those guns you gave them on a right you swore an oath to protect.

          Order drone strikes on a wedding.

          Order follow up bombing of the wedding targeting rescuers.

          Pretend to care for the well being of the poor, then drive up used car prices through cash for clunkers.

          Try to blame everyone but yourself for your failures.

          Etc.

          At this point, what difference does it make?

          1. Movie*

    2. Tell us again Shriek how obama is an ardent defender of the second amendment, and soros is a free market fanatic.

    3. I got this email, and I’m pretty sure Klein’s full of shit. The email address it’s from uses Rand’s name, but there is no indication he approved of it. When I got this, I thought it was a scam, since it’s modeled to look like the Rand emails, but it’s not from that source. and EVERY SINGLE LINK in the email goes to some website called “paracom.paramountcommunication.com”, which I’ve never heard of. I figured the address was a spoof and it was a phishing scam or something like it. I’ve been trying to get a hold of the Rand 2016 group that I DO get emails from regularly, but I can’t seem to forward the message directly to them.

      1. So Klein got spoofed, and shreek buys it. Sounds about right.

        1. A spoof of Rand, maybe. Not a spoof of NAGR, though. An identical text appears on their website. I’ll wait until I hear word from the Rand Paul people or Rand himself before I’ll believe this is from him.

          http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx

  6. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

    I don’t intend to break laws with my guns, I hope I don’t have to break laws with my guns, but I have guns specifically because I fear the day may come when I am forced to break laws with my guns.

    Of course, I believe my having guns helps deter those laws I fear I may be forced to break from being passed in the first place.

  7. There’s so many flaws in this line of thinking it’s absurd. Ok, so you blast someone who hit an ‘x’ in a check box. Then forever these people are black balled as horrible human beings unable to ever have a valid job in society again. Doing this therefore adds to the massive amount on public assistance. There’s also the fact any person with an IQ over a rock would never mark that box.

    I’m also sorry, locking your guns up at a police station? How silly is that? What good is that gun going to do you there? Want to go hunting? Hit the police station at 3:30 am before you have to get to your hunting spot at 4:00 am and then hike in before dawn and hope you didn’t scare the game. That sounds absolutely reasonable, #sarcasm.

    1. Then there’s the fact if your firearms are locked up at the cop shop what do you do when someone breaks into your home with intent to do harm? Hope that you can call 911 and then pray they show up in a timely fashion? Maybe this could work in a highly populated city but it ain’t gonna work out in rural America.

      Then there’s the added tax money needed to store these firearms at a police station. There’s going to have to be some sort of registry, and the government does not need to know what anyone owns, meaning computers and an extensive database. Huge violations of privacy. Plus you’re going to have to staff the spot at all hours of the day and night so people can utilize property owned by them? That sounds like a police state or we’re all being forced into the military.

      1. Also having every firearm locked up in the police station allows the government to have a complete monopoly on force. When this happens you truly lose all ability to be free in the world. Things get a little out of hand because of some freedom or liberty being taken away? Cops are then the only ones with guns and can then mow people down without fear of retribution during the conflict. I’m sorry but I cannot allow any one group or person to have a monopoly on force. Force is required to stay alive when it has been applied to you by another entity.

        Rather than try to regulate in a knee jerk reaction, perhaps we should attempt to look at the true failures in our society that create these issues. Maybe we should actually address issues such as poverty, corporate greed, corrupt politiicans and lobbiests. We should look at redefining what wealth truly is. Wealth is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is not greed for the search of bio survival tickets (read money).

        1. I think, vahtryn, you might want to get your sarcasm detector looked at and then reread the article.

          1. And I should read down-thread before posting.

        2. This article is satire.

    2. Thank you for the 1500 character limit. One cannot truly get out their thoughts in such a few characters. I’ve replied to myself in order to write out my thoughts.

      1. We do pithy around here. Not manifesto-length posts, however well-reasoned they are.

        1. [sniff] I do miss the old days and Hercule’s magnificent Joycean meanderings.

    3. Protip: The words “modest proposal” indicate an attempt at satire.

      1. If this is satire, it should be mentioned as such. When writing an article any person that does journalism or spread how they feel about an issue reading it does not convey the intent of the person. Writing something down does not allude to true feelings other than how another person will read it.

        Therefore I read this article as a valid point of view with the statements provided. I came to my own conclusions and responded in the same manner. Personally I don’t know everyone out there that writes for every possible type of publication so I read it as if it were an honest opinion.

        1. It was. “Modest proposal” is a clear indication of such among moderately educated English speakers.

          1. I didn’t see this before commenting below.

            1. Yeah, I prolly should have read the other comments before commenting below as well. I kind of get out of that habit now that we have so many 500+ comment threads all the time.

          2. I am not a english native speakers, and I did not know that “modest proposal” allusion.

            But it was obvious to me that this article was a satire.

        2. It WAS mentioned as such. “A Modest Proposal” was the title of a Jonathan Swift satirical collation to “The Irish Problem”; it proposed that the Irish raise their children as food animals.

          1. That was satire?

        3. Therefore I read this article as a valid point of view with the statements provided

          It’s entirely appropriate to respond to satire as if it were someone’s honest argument because it is someone’s honest argument which is why it’s being satirized in the first place.

        4. It was satire. But it seemed to get vahtryn to really think through the implications of gun control. So, it worked.

        5. This is very obviously satire. I got a few good laughs out of it.

        6. If this is satire, it should be mentioned as such.

          That would kind of ruin the comedic impact of satire. Writing ‘HEY EVERYBODY, THIS IS GOING TO BE SATIRE!’ would ruin the effect.

        7. If you label it as satire then how are you going to get “legitimate” news sources to report it as a real story and then embarrass the hell out of them later for not fact checking – I’m looking at you Onion.

    4. Protip: The words “modest proposal” indicate an attempt at satire.

      1. That you need to point this out anywhere outside of a middle school/jr high/remedial community college/ESL classroom shows the sorry state of our “educational” system.

        1. I guess he didn’t take that course Professor Dick.

          1. It’s one thing to be ignorant. We’re all ignorant of many things, and there’s no sin in it. But to be pridefully ignorant is something else entirely.

            1. But to be pridefully ignorant is something else entirely.

              As well as getting totally butthurt when you don’t get a joke. Screw a passing familiarity with English Lit., a passing familiarity with Reason would have made the satire plain.

            2. But to be pridefully ignorant is something else entirely

              I hear that but I’m just not seeing prideful ignorance.

              1. When you effectively say “I didn’t get that reference so it’s your fault the joke went over my head,” there is a bit of pride there, as though it’s up to the rest of the world to play down to you. God forbid you should educate yourself.

    5. “All gun owners should be required to keep their guns under lock and key at the local police station.”

      This is obviously satire. No one would write something this retarded and be serious. The giveaway is the use of “modest proposal” in the title. That’s a favorite tactic of statist assholes. Only a statist asshole would write an article this banal. I mean, why ask “whether or not he intends to commit a crime” only of gun buyers? Why not ask everyone old enough to talk? Then lock up all the ones who say yes. Also, you should lock up the ones that say no as well since most people are fuckin’ liars.

    6. This article is an example of Reductio ad Absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum which takes an argument to it’s logical and absurd conclusion. The title of it kind of tip it off that it’s an homage to the original king of Reductio ad Absurdum, Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal.

  8. My take on Fox News Sunday?
    Kimberly Strassel has beady little eyes.

  9. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.Secure-Web.tk

    1. Who would have thought it?

    2. Rand wasn’t much of a fan of anyone other than Ayn Rand.

      1. I think she more-or-less admitted to this. She publicly declared that the thinkers in her league were:

        (1) Aristotle and
        (2) Victor Hugo

        There seems to be some evidence that she harbored an immense ladyboner for the child-murderer William Edward Hickman.

        I’ll let others do the hard working of googling.

        1. A passing fascination = immense ladyboner? Oh right, we’re talking about Ayn Rand.

          1. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented “the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. ? Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.” She called him “a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy,” shimmering with “immense, explicit egotism.” Rand had only one regret: “A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough.”

            This is a woman who tried to convert society to her vision of morality.

          2. Yeah. From what I googled, it seems like Rand was going to use Hickman as the basis for a character in a novel she never wrote. Don’t see ladyboner there. But whatevs.

            Happy Mothers Day!

            Yeah this one right here goes out to all the baby’s mamas, mamas…
            Mamas, mamas, baby mamas, mamas

            1. Great song!

              Oh and Big Boi, I know you’re on here, your twitter feed reads like the AM Links…what’s your handle? You’re already out of the closet, so you might as we tell us. 🙂

            2. Straight from Skeeno, Nevada, here’s 7 Seconds with their tune Mother’s Day!

              1. Yeah, I think this one will go over better with my Mom than shout out to baby mama:)

    3. I credit CS Lewis as one of the primary people for making me a libertarian.

      Rand gets no credit, as I didnt read any of her stuff until much later.

      1. Odd, it was the other way about for me. Rand made me a full blown Libertarian, but I really was at heart all along. She just said explicitly what I had been thinking all of my youth but was too unsure of to say out loud. Remember, I was raised in the rural south where you would get your ass beaten for singing or listening to music when you were working. It is a sin ya know.

        I read Lewis when I was in my early teens and found him abominable, particularly Mere Christianity. It was the most godawful attempt at reason and logic I had been exposed to up to that point. Therefore I dismissed him and was unaware of his Libertarian leanings.

        1. I was the same Suthen. I was a libertarian before I knew what it meant. Seemed natural. Rand put it all into words in AS.

          I’m some sort of half assed objectivist/libertarian hybrid. I don’t buy some of her shit, but I have problems with some libertarian stuff as well.

          1. I’m some sort of half assed objectivist/libertarian hybrid. I don’t buy some of her shit, but I have problems with some libertarian stuff as well.

            Wait, you don’t buy some of Rand’s ideas, even though her beliefs about everything were completely rational and free of bias? You must be one of those savages who listens to collectivist music like Mozart, instead of Music which celebrates the individual and gives rise to personal triumph, like Rachmaninoff.

            I expected better of you.

            1. Objectivism is too intolerant for me. A philosophy that feels it must chastise non-purists doesn’t stand much chance.

              I strongly disagree with the anarchists as well as the republitarians, but I still want them to come to the meetings. Once we convince the other 90% of the world that our way is best we can start fighting each other about which branch provides and keeps liberty best. That would be a great problem to have.

        2. Remember, I was raised in the rural south where you would get your ass beaten for singing or listening to music when you were working. It is a sin ya know.

          I was raised in the suburban south, but spend a lot of time in rural areas, and I have no clue what you are talking about. I think most of your descriptions of the south are bullshit.

          Or, more likely, real events that you have blown up to insane levels.

          1. Hold up! You mean people could be raised in different areas of a large geographic region, and perhaps be from different socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds…and have different perspectives on the place they were raised and live in?

            That’s crazy talk!

        3. I am now picturing Suthenboy driving a vw bug, hauling grain and fighting the town elders to hold a prom for the local high school….Kenny Loggins is playing in the background.

    4. She sticks with her A is A bullshit well after it has been disproven, I see.

      Aristotle at least had an excuse for being wrong.

    5. Rand’s defense of natural rights remains one of our best as well as a useful way of introducing non- or apatheists to libertarianism.

      But then you read more of what she wrote–like her marginalia on Lewis, which is a drop in the bucket–and remember what a pompous, miserable, and tone-deaf narcissist she was. And my God, but the furious abuse of language and rhetoric…

      1. When I need libertarian-ish atheist philosophizing, I tend to go with Rothbard over Rand.

  10. OT

    Supposedly CBS news is about to fire Sharyl Attkisson for ‘over-aggressive’ reporting on Benghazi. Turns out that the president of CBS news David Rhodes is the brother of Obama’s deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes; who was directly involved in pr effort that implicated the Nakoula video.

    Bonus absurdity point – Ben Rhodes has a Masters in Fiction from NYU.

    1. “CBS news is about to fire Sharyl Attkisson”

      They’d be doing her a favor. Working for CBS has to kill your credibility.

  11. Maybe we should actually address issues such as poverty, corporate greed, corrupt politiicans and lobbiests. We should look at redefining what wealth truly is. Wealth is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is not greed for the search of bio survival tickets (read money).

    Maybe. But I suspect your “solution” is even dumber than Richman’s.

  12. In other countries, violence of any kind is considered a last resort that can only be applied under exceptional circumstances.

    Greek welfare rioters approve this message.

    As do Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and that German guy.

  13. I really want to pretend that every team red congressional hearing is just vengeance for attempted gun control and ObamaCare

  14. Yeah, there’s no doubt about it, the so-called “mainstream media” is already moving on in their minds to the next presidential election.

    For the very first time since this vile Alinskyite got into the White House, they’re showing signs of actually doing their jobs properly and scrutinizing him like any other president.

  15. A better modest proposal? Ban guns for Democrats!

    http://therionorteline.files.w…..2759_n.jpg

  16. When will we finally address the bulldozer safety regulation crisis?

    A man in Port Angeles, Wash., went on a rampage with a bulldozer Friday afternoon after quarreling with a neighbor and plowed through four structures, a pickup truck and a power line, cutting electricity to homes as far as 20 miles away.

    One of the homes was swept from its foundation and smashed into another house, Clallam County sheriff’s spokesman Jim Borte told the Los Angeles Times.

    There were no apparent injuries, though a woman was at home in one of the less-damaged structures and managed to escape, he said.

    Authorities said Barry Swegle, 51, who lives next door to the most damaged property, has been arrested on a charge of malicious mischief.

    Borte said Swegle had apparently been involved in a dispute with a neighbor.

    Nobody needs to own a high-capacity bulldozer!

    What if there were children playing in that yard? Poor, sweet, innocent chillllldrun.

    1. Get this. ANYONE can just walk in off the street and buy one! No background checks. No investigation of why they need a dozer. They could even pay cash so there’s no trail.

      1. And the children! Toy versions of those dangerous instruments are marketed to kids of all ages, especially the youngest and most vulnerable. Will no one stop big Tonka? Will no one take away these Weapons of Mass Construction?

      2. We also need heavy penalties for anyone who modifies a bulldozer into a KILLDOZER – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killdozer_(bulldozer)

    2. I’ve been to Port Angeles a couple times. Stayed a few days last time. Love it there.

  17. What if Caterpillar goes after the female market, and introduces a line of pink earth movers? Those poor deluded women; defenseless victims of crass kkkorporate exploitation.

    Who will step forward to end the madness?

    1. It’s not enough that we rape Mother Gaia, Caterpillar has to cut holes in her skin, too.

      Oh, when will they ever learn!

  18. Yes, Sheldon’s proposal is certainly the more effective one if gun grabbers were honest. But since intent is the rationale, it still doesn’t go far enough. We preemptive laws. Forget declaration of intent, we need determination of future intent!

  19. As satiracle as this article is – its the exact same logic behind the airlines asking you if you packed your own bags or immigration asking if you’ve ever planned the overthrow of the US government.

  20. As satire, this isn’t all that good. Particularly the “proposal” that gun owners should have to keep their guns locked up in police stations; I’ve run across plenty of anti-gunners who proposed exactly that, in all seriousness.

    Basically, their argument is based on their (somewhat grudging) acceptance of the idea of owning firearms for “sporting” purposes. (Of course the legitimacy of said sporting purposes to be decided by leftist politicians, so good luck.) In such a case one would only need access to one’s firearm when actually going out to hunt or going to a shooting match, after filling out the proper paperwork of course. And paying the fee of course.

    Yeah, that’s what those fuckers consider a “compromise”.

    1. You are free to ask permission and take orders! What more do you want?!?

  21. I’m going to email this to my buddies. I stumbled on this while googling for something, I’ll be sure to come back. thanks for sharing.

  22. This is sarcasm? Right?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.