Saturday, February 9, 2013

We Need a New Financial Responsibility Act

Dr.  Kidglove, who backpedals better than most NBA point guards, seems to have dropped the assault weapon ban from his post-massacre strategy on gun control.  Some self-designated experts on the issue say that's OK because the assault-weapon ban is a red herring anyway.  The important thing, they say, is to ban large-capacity magazines.


Perhaps bans and endless arguments over the original intent of the Second Amendment are all a waste of time.

How about this?

Require that all firearms in private hands -- yes, even genuine hunting weapons -- be licensed, but only after thorough background checks.  We license cars and motorcycles and doctors and fishermen and therapists and all kinds of stuff.  Why not lethal weapons?

And as a precondition for obtaining a license, require that each licensed weapon be insured: liability insurance, a minimum $5 million in compensation to families of victims killed by the insured weapon,  a range of, say,  $100,000 to $1 million in victims' compensation for anyone injured by the insured weapon.

Yes, Mr. NRA Macho Bigshot, you can keep your entire arsenal of military firepower; we'll give you, say, six months to license and buy insurance for each one.  Then go out and play Black Commando to your heart's content -- knowing that if your Navy Seal Sniper Automatic Rifle accidentally kills the farmer down the road, his widow will get $5 million from your insurance company.  (And, no doubt, your insurance will be cancelled, along with your licenses for the rest of your arsenal.)

Under our plan, after the six-month grace period, it would be a felony punishable by two years in jail and a lifetime ban from firearms licensing to carry, possess or use an unlicensed fiirearm of any kind, for any purpose.

As long as you obey the law, your precious "right" to bear arms remains inviolate. But you will be held accountable -- financially, at least -- for whatever damage your bloody guns cause, whether you're using them or someone else is.

Some gun nuts won't pay the costs of licenses and insurance, which should reduce the number of gun owners and the size of their arsenals.  Others will think twice about whether such an expensive phallic symbol really does much in the way of self-defense.  After all, weapons didn't save the self-styled Greatest American Sniper Ever, even at his second home on the shooting range.  And Machine-gun Mamas with such an investment in their guns will be motivated to keep them away from their teen-aged progeny with messed-up heads.

There would be attrition in gun ownership under this plan without the fuss of a constitutional fight over the Second Amendment.  Nobody's taking away your "right" to be Rambo.  They're simply requiring you to prove financial responsibility, just as you have to do to legally drive your pick-up truck.

The financial compensation for the wounded or the families of the slain would be simple justice. No amount of money can adequately  compensate the families of the murdered children of Sandy Hook,  but since money is the great engine of our corrupt society, let's try to make it work for the public good.

Maybe we could even persuade the health insurance companies to write these gun policies, and lower the premiums on regular health care for regular people.

Fat chance!


  1. Brandi, sharpen your canines! If your master, the Pianist does not stop an intruder by throwing his typewriter at them, then it's all up to you.

  2. Watch out for your neighbors drone. According to our government, they are legal.

  3. But how can a thing be legal if it doesn't exist? (With this administration's DOJ, anything's possible, I guess: torture that isn't torture, spying that isn't spying, secrecy that isn't secrecy . . .)

  4. Remember Obama policy 101. Waterboarding bad...drone strikes good.

    Also Justice Department 101. Protect the guilty... remember the FT. HOOD 'alleged'. shooter that is still drawing full pay from the military for 3 years!