The gun industry should set its sights on a different target: certification.S'cuse me?
It should develop and adopt a private licensing and certification program fashioned on the highly successful scuba diving industry model to provide safety, legal, and marksmanship training to all gun owners and users.
We have it. From many sources.
No diver may fill their tanks or take part in recreational or professional diving trips without first obtaining a certification card from one of these private organizations.
Oh, I see.
No. I don't consent to be ruled by a "private" group, either. But I see you've managed to start a subversive new meme. If nothing else, it ought to make things harder for "those people," at least the ones in poorer, more dangerous communities who try to live by the rules.
And, it'll no doubt discourage many "fence sitters" from buying guns and ammo--possibly people who could have saved their lives--say--you never did say how many deaths you'd find acceptable with your little experiment here, because every benefit does have costs, you know.
I'm assuming you also have plans for those of us who own some of the 200 million guns already in circulation? And you can't forget those who reload.
Hey, have you figured out the economic impact to gun dealers? You may end up shutting more of them down than BATFU!
Y'know what, Mr. Media Conglomerate Mucky-Muck? What if somebody thinks we ought to treat the First Amendment the way you want to treat the Second, and make sure every Beckett subscriber/magazine purchaser has to undergo private certification before they can buy your trivial bread-and-circuses products?
Anything else, "hunter and gun owner" Peter A. Gudmundsson?
17 comments:
I'm not up on how SCUBA related stuff is regulated--does one have to have professional certification to buy diving equipment (tanks, regulators, compressors, etc.)? If not, even if one were willing to subject his right to keep and bear arms to regulation by some "private" entity (and I'm 100% with you in being unwilling to make that concession), Gudmundsson's analogy would seem rather deeply flawed.
I'm just getting into SCUBA diving, and it's a lot more complex than a gun. Plus, it's not a right, like gun ownership is. The analogy does not work, and frankly, just who the hell does Gudmundsson think he is to try to rule over me?
Crotalus, of course it's a right.
Not to mention the fact that this would impose an undue burden on most folks. Last time I checked, several years ago now, PADI certification was running over $300.00 plus expenses. Total cost of certification coming in at over $500.00 conservatively. That kind of cost is equal to a quality weapon. This idea would automatically ban guns to a large segment of society.
I was hinting at that with my "those people" remark, plus the observation that it will discourage others--but here's something else--so I'm certified for my revolver. Now what about my 1911? My Garand? My Mossberg...etc., etc.
And all this for what-- a few incidents of negligence, where such accidents are rare anyway? As if that's where the problem with abuse of guns lies. And as if any of this will stop someone with evil in their heart from getting a weapon and committing an act of savagery.
I have a PADI license...
If I remember right, it cost about $200, and took me a weekend to get.
It's good forever, no expiration date.
It's good everywhere, worldwide.
I did not have to submit to any sort of background check, or have any government or law enforcement involvement at all to obtain the license.
No records are kept of what equipment I purchase.
I can buy, sell, and make scuba equipment of any type to my heart's content.
I can get a license for my 12 year old.
My 18 year old wouldn't need my assistance to obtain a license.
I don't know, guys... doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me. Far less intrusive and restrictive of my rights than what I deal with now!
When the author sneeringly refers to those of us who understand our rights as "absolutists," he has unwittingly stated the truth in a roundabout way and also revealed his own poorly concealed intention to remove the absolute nature of the right to keep and bear arms from public discourse.
The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right. This is obvious on its face to anyone who actually reads the second amendment, especially the part that reads "...shall not be infringed." This little phrase very explicitly states that the right at issue is an "absolute" right. So, in a sense, the author was right, we are absolutists in that we advocate on behalf of a right that is itself an absolute right.
However, the author was also wrong because he uses word-shifting to dishonestly shift the concept of a clearly articulated absolute right to a topic that is about a limited right that is misrepresented by a few "absolutists." Good try, but it was not good enough. Despite the author's clever attempt to hide his real motive of attacking the absolute nature of the right, he utterly fails. The issue of whether or not the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right or not *IS THE ISSUE,* and we will not allow him to sneak around the issue, and we will not allow him or anyone else to subtly change the argument in way that ignores the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right. Additionally, the author has revealed his contempt for both us and our rights by expressing his disdain for the proper reading of the second amendment by those of us he contemptuously calls "absolutists." If it is any consolation to the author, I have "absolute" contempt for his reasoning, writing and lack of intellectual honesty.
It's classic "Third Way" smoke and mirrors, anon. They do that with everything.
They are incrementalists in their own right--shifting everything to the left piece by piece. When they get far enough along, they will discard the useful idiots and get about the business of doing what tyrants do. And absolutist tyrants, at that.
"Third Way" is right. No one seems to remember that the fascists invented that concept.
You aren't required to have a dive card to get air in the US.
Shops here ask for a card to avoid getting sued ... no criminal penalties are applied if they sell air to some dumb goof who wants to play chicken with the bends.
I did notice that they have dumped the "driver's license" analogy out with the trash.
Too many gun grabbers ( including Rep. Ron Wyden vs. Lapiere on Fox ) getting blindsided by bringing up the fact that you need no license for a 15 year old to buy a car and turn cookies in his parent's back forty.
Well ... they show ignorance again. The only cert required by law for filling a tank is a DOT approved hydro test for the tank every five years.
This is just another tangent off the "we register cars" BS. So, "we" register cars. That is also a blatantly illegal and inhuman regulation. Just because something is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Limitations on Government Power does not mean it is not an absolute human right.
Kent McManigal said: "Just because something is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Limitations on Government Power does not mean it is not an absolute human right."
Right on! I had actually intended on mailing the following to David rather than using it as a comment, but your comment was so spot on with what I have recently written that I feel I have no choice. It is merely an intellectual exercise that outlines and examines the relationship between Individuals and government, and it tries to identify why Individuals can become frustrated with government. Here it is:
We, as Individuals, who are by our very existence possessed of ALL Rights and Powers, have created government for the sole purpose of protecting ourselves from those who would violate our Rights or deny us our Powers. Rights and Powers do not flow from government but from Individuals. We, as Individuals, and in the name of efficiency, have transferred some of our Powers to government for the sole purpose that it may use those Powers to protect us.
When, in the the course of human events, government has ceased its protective function, and instead, violates the very Rights and Powers of Individuals for whom it is sworn to protect, We, the Individuals, may revoke those Powers originally granted to government. In this case, government has failed of its essential purpose; its sole reason for existence is cast aside, and likewise, government itself may be cast aside.
Government is about as likely to secure our rights (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or anything else) as the KKK and NAACP are likely to foster racial harmony and understanding.
I have a PADI and an SSI certification and can dive all over the world. Will this firearms certification Mr. Gudmundsson purposes allow me to take my firearm into Canada, Mexico, Australia and the UK and anywhere in the world.
Tony G.
Kent McManigal said: "Government is about as likely to secure our rights (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or anything else) as the KKK and NAACP are likely to foster racial harmony and understanding."
History has shown that to be a true statement over and over again. However, I do think that when government fails, it does not fail as some faceless abstraction. It is due to the collective failure of Individuals who make up that government and that society. That is not to say that ALL Individuals in that situation have failed, but enough did fail that the those who did not fail were insufficient in force and numbers to stop the tidal changes that swept everything away. It is so very important to constantly increase our power and our numbers in order to act as a tidal break to stop the tidal surge of destruction that wants to flow through our society and government.
Some might see your statement as hopelessly fatalistic. On the other hand, I think it is just an alternative way to express the second law of thermodynamics that binds us all. The short version is that all things move from a state of order to disorder unless an external source of energy is applied to stop the decay. That is our job. We supply the external source of energy to stop the decay of society and government. It is not a hopeless situation. It is our eternal job as humans to find a way to arrest the decay and bring improvements in our lives.
Codrea, you make my day. It's refreshing to read someone who values freedom.
Rights predate government. Rights, akin to breathing, require neither acceptance nor permission to exist. They exist and are often most evident, while being violated. The anti-federalists believed the above to be true to the extent of refusing to sign the Constitution unless guaranteed a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberties - enumerated and unenumerated - would be included. Thanks Codrea. Keep on truckin'.
Post a Comment