As seen in today's WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1
---------
A modest proposal

By Al Horne
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

With Congress tied up over health reform -- legislation whose initial, much-discussed goal was to extend health insurance to as many as 47 million uninsured Americans -- this may be as good a time as any to propose another, less divisive reform.

The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimated in 2008 that more than 250 million guns were owned by U.S. citizens. Since President Obama's election last November, newspapers and electronic media have reported a sharp increase in U.S. gun sales, spurred by rumors that the new administration had secret plans to block gun sales to law-abiding Americans. Normally, about 4.5 million guns are sold in the United States each year, so this surge in sales means that Americans own roughly 260 million guns, in a population of nearly 309 million.

Surveys indicate that gun ownership is not spread evenly across U.S. households. In fact, chances are that a substantial proportion of U.S. gun owners have more than one weapon, so it's quite possible that fewer than 200 million Americans own those 260 million guns. That means there may be more than 100 million citizens left unprotected against their gun-owning fellow citizens.

Surely everyone can agree that this is an outrage. Moreover, it is an outrage that Congress can easily fix, without months of committee meetings, town halls or tea parties. All that is required is a bipartisan, pro-constitutional bill to extend the Second Amendment's protection of gun ownership to all Americans, whether they like it or not.

Under such legislation -- let's call it the Gun Insurance Act of 2009 -- every American would be required to buy some kind of gun. Those who cannot afford even the simplest weapon -- say, those whose 2009 annual income is less than twice the federal poverty level -- could be issued $500 vouchers that would be valid only at gun shops or gun shows, and would have to be used before the 2010 Census. (Just think: What a stimulus to private enterprise all these gun sales would provide, and how many new gun-selling jobs would be created!)

How would the law be enforced? Census takers could verify that everyone they count has a weapon in working condition, and those census takers who survive could report all non-complying Americans to the FBI so it could notify local police departments, which would issue citations for whatever fines Congress chooses to impose. (Note that this proposed legislation would not require creating any new bureaucracy, public option or death panels.) Of course, illegal immigrants would not receive vouchers, would not be required to buy guns and would not be counted in the Census.

So there it is: a modest proposal even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can agree on. If we're willing to require people to buy health insurance, why not require them to buy guns? Sure, maybe the Congressional Budget Office could overestimate its cost, and some wimpy liberals could file a court challenge, but the Supreme Court would slap it down on a clear 5-to-4 vote. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, here's one issue where you can count on at least a couple of Republican votes.
-------
The writer, a former Post reporter and editor, lives in Alexandria.

Amusing read, but the last thing I would want to see are firearms in the hands of those who don't want, need, know how to use & or store safely.

re: "the last thing I would want to see are firearms in the hands of those who don't want, need, know how to use & or store safely"....

well then....why do we tolerate leaving the Constitution in the hands of Congress....who demonstrate daily they "don't want, need, know how to use & or store safely".....

__________________
Dum vivimus Vivamas

Excellent point, although I agree that those who don't want a firearm, or who aren't properly trained in firearm safety, shouldn't own a firearm.

Isn't there a town in Georgia that "requires" every household to have a firearm? I seem to remember that they have lower rates of violent crime than surrounding towns, even though the requirement isn't enforced.

__________________
Insert short witty words here

Quite an amusing read. Suspect Al Horne forgot to activate the sarcasm font or had had a few too many pops before setting pen to paper, figuratively.

Be safe.

PS:

Some people should NOT be permitted to own, possess, and certainly not carry a firearm. Similarly, one should never be required to do so.

Get ready, Mods and Mr. Ejector...this thread is sure to be a good one...

Be safe.

I wouldn't want anyone voting who isn't properly trained in voter responsibility and safety but we get id10ts who do it anyway...

__________________
You are what you learn.

IMO the entire difference is whether the Government has, or should have, the responsibility to force the individual citizen from whom it derives its power to perform some action which government alleges would be of benefit. Clearly most of us would not support the idea that the government should force a healthy diet upon us. (See Pelosi-care)
However, the idea that common firearm ownership and training would benefit the common defense was obvious to the founders. Whether it is still a good idea is at least arguable.
If we the people decide that mandatory firearm ownership is a good idea (Swissman where are you?) then we the people need to provide the training as well.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

Within this "excellent" piece of legislation, there would have to be a requirement for every gun owner to have at lease eight (8) hours of training on how to use a firearm safely.

Pete

__________________
NRA, GOA Lifer

I think many, perhaps intentionally, are missing the point.

That is if health care is a right, then government should provide it.

Firearm ownership is a right so why not make sure everyone is provided.

Free speech is a right but what good is it if everyone doesn't have a their own newspaper, radio station, TV station and cable channel?

We have freedom of religion. Why aren't we given our own church?

The point is to illustrate the ridiculousness of health care as a right.

You have a right to seek health care. Not a right to make others pay for it.

The Georgia city mentioned above is Kennesaw. Even with the expansion of metro Atlanta crime is virtually nil. And Georgia has no training requirement to exersize the Right.

__________________
John

Bravo!
In less than ten trys, the essence was explained.
Well done.

We keep sliding ever closer to that principle of-
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Some old hairy guy said that a long time ago.....

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Mea culpa!

If that is the point, I missed it...

Back in a bit...

Be safe.

Excellent analysis, sjmjax; missed it first reading of column.

Just checked Washington Post website. 344 comments on the piece; about half were as dumb as I was (am?) and some moderate outrage among those who "didn't get it."

Be safe.

Our constitution is one which describes negative rights. “Congress shall make no law....” “the right to ....shall not be abridged” Etc. Etc.
We assume that we have a positive right to self defense, and that it is so basic that it did not need to be specifically spelled out.
In establishing the constitution we used the words; “to provide for the common defense” While there is no provision except in the “emanations” and “penumbras” for much of what congress does, extraordinary things can be legitimately be done in providing for the common defense. For example: the draft and you can probably think of many things done “for the duration”.

Probably congress could legitimately set-up a militia, provide training, and require that you keep arms at home, as the Swiss do.This would be considered a responsibility not a right.
Far different IMO from health care or medical care or running GM.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus