April 27, 2007


The disarming of America (Dan Simpson, 4/27/07, Toledo Blade)

LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how." And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm.

Strange, you'd have thought "First" would be followed by, "change the Constitution."

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 27, 2007 1:22 PM

The Constitution is a living document. It doesn't need to be changed becuse our understanding of the narrative of the Constitution changes over time, thus changing the nature of the language constructs which form the Constitution. so 'UnConstitutional' and 'Constitutional' are merely different perceptions or 'truths' of the Constitutuion, whose meaning reacts to the changing dialectic that is American society.

Therefore the crude amendment process envisioned by the drafters gives way to a much simpler and more elegant process where meaning and thus the Consitutionality of any act of Congress lies with the what the citizenry determine to be the intent of the Founders and of Congress.

As for the Fourth Amendment...

Posted by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 27, 2007 1:52 PM

Upon actually reading the article, it is pretty obviously a parody. From claiming that his experience with guns includes playing with "a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun" as a kid, to his bizarre proposal for "on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building," there's just no way that anyone could seriously write this. Is there?

Posted by: b at April 27, 2007 1:59 PM

a 42% plurality said the change in party control had “brought the right kind of change.”

Quarters and SacaDollars?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 27, 2007 2:38 PM

b: I think it is a parody especially the bb gun and aversion to hunting comments. The random wide-scale searches have to be a parody because they are so clearly unconstitutional and silly. However, looking at the totality of the article I think he may be serious.

Posted by: pchuck at April 27, 2007 3:52 PM

Hat tip to the Ace of Spades blog, by the way.

I don't think it's a Swiftian satire. If you look up the guy's old op-ed pieces at the website's archives, he's clearly a whacko.

Constitutionality aside, how would you even enforce this? The size of the police force would be huge.

Posted by: Bryan at April 27, 2007 4:14 PM

Effing moron. He actually thinks that a $1000 fine with a 1-year max sentence is going to faze people bent on committing murder.

It is actually a good thing to have absurdities such as the above aired. Anyone may see how silly the anti-gun side is.

Posted by: Lou Gots at April 27, 2007 4:56 PM

Wouldn't a true humanitarian propose such a policy for Gaza or the West Bank (or even Baghdad) first?

Posted by: ratbert at April 27, 2007 6:54 PM