Chances are good that within the next month or two the US Supreme Court will come down with a ruling on the McDonald vs Chicago case, and probably will rule that the Chicago gun ban is illegal and that the Second Amendment actually does apply to all US citizens. Since the 2nd states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, what will follow will almost certainly be decades of lawsuits, as citizens try to obtain their rights and the most despotic urban hellholes try to maintain their power. Arguements will come down to such things as “what does ‘arms’ mean, does that mean private citizens will be allowed to own nuclear bombs” and that sort of thing.
There is of course a logical and important case to be made for limitations *somewhere.* Obviously, private ownership of nukes and bioweapons is a bit undesirable. However, the Constitution simply does not make any such distinction; in the late 18th/early 19th century, the military did not have weapons that private citizens could not own, if they had enough money. Remember, this was the era of the privateer, when ship owners would outfit their commercial vessels with cannons and go unload some black-powder-and-chain-shot-whoopass on the enemies of the nation.
So, there are two approaches to take:
1) Amend the Constitution further to make *explicit* just what is and is not allowed. This is the “best” option, and one that just ain’t gonna happen.
2) Pass a simple rule. Let’s call it the “Lowther Rule,” since I dreamed the damned thing up some years back. The rule is this: “The citizens of the United States shall be allowed to keep and bear any class of weapon, without regulatory burden or infringement, that is or has been used or posessed by any government internal policing system in the United States.”
The result? If the US does not want the citizens to have the class of weapon known as “Atomic Friggen’ Bomb,” then no police force, from Podunk Junction PD to the FBI to the IRS to who-the-hell-ever can be allowed to have A-Bombs. Same obviously goes for anthrax weapons, flame throwers or Sarin bombs.
I would imagine most people, including government drones, would see that as being a good thing. However, where it’ll get sticky is when someone marches to the gun store and demands to buy an actual assault rifle (a *real* assault rifle, select fire and everything), and shows a photo of some SWAT guy with an M-16. But you know what? Tough. If you are going to arm the cops – any cops – with assault rifles, there’s no logical or ethical arguement that you can make to ban them from private ownership. The last century showd quite clearly that agents of governments are far more deadly to innocent civilians than are armed civilians.
This makes gun control regualations real easy. Don’t want the citizens to wield rocket launchers? Then don’t arm the FBI with ’em. Don’t want folks to have access to full-auto machine pistols? Then better make sure the Presidents Secret Service detachment doesn’t have ’em. Microwave “pain rays?” Tear gas grenades? Sonic LRADs? Fighter jets? Attack helicopters? Armored cars? Tanks? Tasers? Phasers?
A further possible complication is the use of the National Guard for internal policing, such as was done after Huricane Katrina. My solution for this is a compromise: whatever class of weapons the National Guard wields or uses while beng deployed in an American state becomes legal *in* *that* *state.* I’m looking at you, Mr. Main Battle Tank With Fully Loaded Cannon. This would tend to cause the National Guard to back off on the use of certain military implements. The arguement that this would open the door for all kinds of chicanery in a time of crisis is of course foolish, as if it suddenly became legal and paperwork-free to own, say, a fully loaded Russian T-72 tank in the state of New York after the next series of Obamaconomy food riots causes the Governor to bust open with the National Guard, it’s not like Amazon.com will suddenly have a warehouse of the things ready for next-day delivery.
There. I’ve just solved one of the more vexing political questions of the day.
20 Responses to “Gun control: a modest proposal”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The idea has my vote. The only thing I’d change is restriction of fully-automatic firearms. I live in an old and mostly non-European city, and the ghetto rats don’t need extra firepower.
My weapon of choice for years was the longbow. One summer night long ago someone seemed to be trying to get into my car. I went outside to protect my property, fully expecting to have to explain to the cops that, yes, officer, I did indeed put an arrow the fool’s ass.
> the ghetto rats don’t need extra firepower.
The simple fact is that its not the criminals who are weapons-restricted. They can *already* obtain whatever weaposn they want. Fortunately they tend to be ill-trained and poorly disciplined, and thus *relatively* useless with weapons of modest firepower
Michael, using your M 60 to clear out the ghetto rats is EXACTLY what the 2nd A is about! And those claymores are perfectly legal as long as they are command detonated, can’t be setting them up on trip wires or pressure switches.
Scott, sorry, this was put forth before. Robert Heinlein pretty much made your proposal in the 1960s. And I still agree with you both today!
This is great! I laughed for nearly 30 seconds at the sheer brilliant awesomeness of it. I’d vote for it just to see the look on the liberals’ faces when it passed. I disagree that the secret service should be included in the rule though, since one of their functions is to guard the President, and in order to do that you sometimes might need access to special tools that the FBI wouldn’t when doing police work. Including the FBI and the National Guard in it will probably give the citizenry quite enough weaponry to choose from, anyway.
I also disagree with the idea that the Constitution should be used to make explicit what is and is not allowed. What is and is not allowed is dependent upon what does and does not exist. That is a question of technology, which as you pointed out, changes. Rules that change over time is not something the Constitution is designed to deal with, which in turn is a good way to give fodder to those who say the Constitution is “obsolete” and needs to be rewritten (preferably to the tune of the old Soviet constitution, in their minds). Since I enjoy the Constitution we have and really do not want it replaced with a bleeding-heart liberal version designed to drag us all down to the Stone Age in the name of brother-love and the “social contract,” I’d prefer to leave the Constitution itself alone.
For the record, National Guard weapons used for tasks like riot control are equipped with a metal bit which prevents you from moving the selector switch to full auto or burst fire, even military police units used in Katerina were paired with local police units so they were supporting, rather than initiating police efforts. Also, our armored units left their tanks, just as the mech infantry left behind their IFVs, we didn’t bring any mortars, GPMGs, ATGW, etc.
It isn’t unusual for Guard units to get into war zones without ever removing those riot attachments, but nobody really should be firing anything but single shot out of an M-16 anyway.
> since one of their functions is to guard the President, and in order to do that you sometimes might need access to special tools that the FBI wouldn’t when doing police work.
What special tools might the Secret Service use that would be appropriate for them, but not for the law abiding citizenry? What weapons or defensive technologies are good enough for Obama… but too good for *you*?
>I also disagree with the idea that the Constitution should be used to make explicit what is and is not allowed.
As far as the government goes, IMO the Constitution is the very last, very final and very definite word on what they are or are not allowed to do. If the Constituion doesn’t say “The Government can do X,” then the government can’t do X. *Especially* when X involves reducing the freedoms of the people.
> Robert Heinlein pretty much made your proposal in the 1960s.
Where? I’ve read all of Heinlein, and don’t remember that. Was it some offhand remark, perhaps in TMiaHM?
> Also, our armored units left their tanks, just as the mech infantry left behind their IFVs, we didn’t bring any mortars, GPMGs, ATGW, etc.
Maybe so, but main battle tanks *have* been used in “crime fighting.” I seem to recall a minor incident in Waco, Texas a few years back. It seemed a tad excessive to me.
“What special tools might the Secret Service use that would be appropriate for them, but not for the law abiding citizenry? What weapons or defensive technologies are good enough for Obama… but too good for *you*?”
I don’t know what they use, but I could conceivably see it as being something that would not be used in any form of policing or peacekeeping. I’m saying that their job really isn’t police work (or at least, their job as bodyguards is not), so they shouldn’t be counted in the tally when working in that capacity.
“As far as the government goes, IMO the Constitution is the very last, very final and very definite word on what they are or are not allowed to do. If the Constituion doesn’t say “The Government can do X,” then the government can’t do X. *Especially* when X involves reducing the freedoms of the people.”
I think you misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that the specific pieces of technology shouldn’t be outlined in the Constitution. No lines about sniper rifles or M-16s, because they could become technologically obsolescent and the Constitution is not meant to deal with issues that change over time. A rule such as “the people may bear any weapon that those who are meant to keep the peace are allowed to bring to bear against them in that effort” would be fine… though come to think of it, police are not allowed to have guns in Britain, so it’d actually be quite easy for someone to just say, “no guns for anyone,” and then it really would only be the criminals who had guns.
> their job as bodyguards …
I can assure you, my body is as important to me as the Presidents is to the President.
> so it’d actually be quite easy for someone to just say, “no guns for anyone,” and then it really would only be the criminals who had guns.
Ah, but that’s why I snuck in the caveat about “that is or has been used or posessed.” This would bypass some dumbass politician who decides to disarm the cops in order to disarm the citizens. Any politician who would try such a thing… I would not put it past him/her to, once the cops and the citizenry have been disarmed, to reverse that ruling and turna good chunk of the military over to a civilian policing system. Oh, sure, you might still be allowed to own a gun, but you won’t be able to find one… not before the police state is firmly in place.
So it’s better to cut off such types before they even get the chance.
No, main battle tanks have not been used. Armored engineer vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles have been used, with a difference between them and MBTs as profound as that between shotguns and rifles.
It is also worth noting that it wasn’t Guard personnel using those at the Branch Davidian compound. Thus complaining about what Guard units use for such missions is barking up the wrong tree.
Graves? Main Battle Tanks HAVE been used by governments for civil law enforcement, repeatedly, since their very creation. If you believe otherwise you are seriously, dangerously mentally ill, and I pray God you have never voted. Anywhere. Ever.
>main battle tanks have not been used. Armored engineer vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles have been used
WRT to Waco, seems you are correct. The engineering vehicles were *M-60* engineering vehicles, which stuck in my memory.
> it wasn’t Guard personnel using those at the Branch Davidian compound.
It was FBI, wasn’t it? Thus by the “Lowther Rule,” the FBI using National Guard equipment would make that equipment legal not only in that state… but *all* states. So armored personel carriers would be legal… which they pretty much are anyway.
> Main Battle Tanks HAVE been used by governments for civil law enforcement…
Yes, but by the *US* government? The only incident that I could think of was Waco, and in that case the M-60’s were modified non-main battle tank versions.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about using othe governments as a basis for US law.
Scott? Throughout his writings, and in personal comments and interviews, again, throughout his life. He was one of the earliest popular “youth” novelists to expound on the rights of individual liberty AND responsibility in the ’30s and ’40s. And your reading of Heinlein, and Andre, and Asimov, et al, has positively shaped your world view. Hence, your ability to understand that the Constitution means WHAT IT SAYS. A basic fact that Democrats and lawyers can not grasp.
> Throughout his writings, and in personal comments and interviews, again, throughout his life.
Heinlein’s writings indicate a substantially “libertarian” outlook on such things, but generally placed within the context of overturning the social order or starting a whole new civilization. What I’m suggesting is how to deal with *this* civilization, within the established Constitutional order.
A Heinleinian approach would seem to involve a civil war and a complete re-write… something I’d prefer to avoid for the moment.
>though come to think of it, police are not allowed to have guns in Britain,
think it’s been a while since you were here…
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23759786-armed-police-to-patrol-britains-streets-to-fight-gun-gangs.do
I generally like the standard of the 2nd applying to any implements suited to self defense. The “internal policing equivalence” standard is roughly equivalent, at least as long as internal policing is sane, and has the advantage of being far less subject to interpretation.
“think it’s been a while since you were here…”
It has been. I was there in spring ’06 for a study abroad; I remember laughing behind my hand at the cops because they had no arms.
The ironic thing is that, more than any words ever could, this article you point out is graphic proof that the “guns kill people” method of crime prevention is completely ineffective. But Europe has become so highly socialized in the last 50 or so years that I highly doubt any Brits will become so radical (not to mention sane) as to repeal their bans on gun ownership in response.
M-60 “engineering vehicles” have a 165mm “demolition gun”.
“The M728 CEV is a full-tracked armored vehicle which consists of a basic M60A1 tank with a hydraulically operated debris blade, a 165mm turret mounted demolition gun, a retractable boom and a winch. The demolition gun may be elevated or depressed for use at various ranges up to 925 meters and is coaxial mounted with a 7.62mm machine gun. A .50 caliber machine gun is cupola mounted.”
May not fire APFSDS but it’s close enough to “tank” to me.
Somebody, we’ll let everyone figure out who, said “A further possible complication is the use of the National Guard for internal policing, such as was done after Huricane Katrina.” This led me to say that we didn’t use heavy weapons for that role, and mention of Guard units doing police roles was barking up the wrong tree.
I also said, with complete accuracy, that the CEV and IFV are as different from MBTs as shotguns are from rifles. If I said that airsoft guns made to look like M-4s were dangerous weapons and should be blocked from importation into the US, I’d be laughed out of the building, for good reason. Likewise saying that because it has tracks and a big gun it must be pretty much a tank should have the same effect.
I’ve been in for more than 20 years, a decorated senior NCO intel analyst and former infantryman. I daresay I know more about other nations using police armies than just about anyone else here. So 2H9? Buy the clue.