James Rogers wrote:
> Of course, a total "buyback" in the U.S. would be an extraordinarily
> expensive endeavor, considering the number of guns in circulation
> (hundreds of millions); I'm not sure that people would be willing to pay
> $100+ Billion in taxes to allow the government to buy/take everyone's
> Legislating a total ban without compensation on something that most
> everyone owns and that was expensive to purchase is a stupid and assinine
> policy. This isn't even about guns; it is flawed in principle applied to
> any material item with a similar profile.
Firstly, I concede that what I teased you with is probably unworkable in a
society like the USA. But it's not stupid; it's just unworkable.
Beyond that, your argument is a bit funny in its own right. You say that
"everyone has firearms". So if there was a buyback, the government should
pay for these firearms. But who pays the government to do it? The people do,
obviously. The same people who have guns would pay themselves the price to
let go of the guns. :-) On a larger scale, this scheme is economically
equivalent to just taking the guns away at no compensation.
You see, the problem your society seems to have is that you are in love with
firearms, 100 years after there shouldn't be any rational use for them
anymore. At the time your founding fathers set up the constitution, America
was a cowboy land. Sure, you definitely needed a shotgun at that time, as
many of them as possible. But that time has passed, has it? You now have
gun-wielding cowboys passing through New York and San Francisco, and I think
that's just a little bit misplaced.
One day when you get around to it you might want to rethink that part of
your constitution. [As well as the electoral college part, I might add.]
No offense intended - it's just that a society's rules need to develop along
with the society. Although a conservative pace of development is usually
beneficial as far as the law is concerned, you seem to be stuck in a hole
with no way out: Johnny grow up with guns, Johnny emotionally attached to
Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe guns are good. But I sure don't want to
live in a neighbourhood where every lunatic has one; I prefer a
neighbourhood where the most they can do is punch you in the face.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT