After all, it’s an election year—and the certain alienation
of a large voting block is something the President cannot withstand in what’s
expected to be a tight race.
A guest commentator on MSNBC’c “Morning Joe” had an interesting alternative to traditional gun control this morning, namely:
TAX THE AMMUNITION.
Ok, guns don’t kill people—people do. The tired old argument
of the NRA can therefore be further refined:
BULLETS KILL PEOPLE.
The deranged shooter in Colorado was able to purchase, among
other things, an assault rifle—completely legally. He also purchased over 6,000
rounds of ammo, much of it on the internet, also completely legally.
The commentator, John Heilemann of New York Magazine,
suggested that we drastically increase the tax on ammunition, especially
bullets for assault weapons.
While it stretches the bounds of rational thought to assert
that the typical American gun owner “needs” an AK-47 to protect himself, the
Second Ammendment protects ownership of this high-powered weapon of death.
So, how many bullets do you need to…uh….”protect yourself”?
Will a draconian tax on assault rifle ammo eliminate the
threat of wackos shooting at innocent victims in theatres?
No.
Could such a tax be an economic disincentive to choose that
particular method of killing?
Perhaps.
Would the perpetrator in Aurora have been able to afford
such quantity had there been a 100% (or even higher) tax applied? Who knows?
If the rapid-fire barrage of bullets were reduced to
single-action firing, there still would have been death, but were it YOUR son
or daughter spared because the danger quotient were reduced, you’d be grateful
for the difference.
Maybe a red flag on quantities ordered would…pardon the
pun...trigger an alert to the Feds to investigate. Had this safeguard been in
place, who knows what might have happened? Maybe the good guys win before the
bad guy has a chance to inflict his carnage.
The line-in-the-sand, zero-compromise stance of the National
Rifle Association will likely comeback to bite them. Cracks in the armor won’t
come from their philosophy of “give an inch, they’ll take a mile”. It’s more
likely to come from the increased isolation and irrelevance demonstrated by an
organization whose inflexibility on ANY reasonable discussion of limits will
eventually doom them.
Keep your guns, Americans, but can we not agree on SOME
limit to sheer firepower? Those protecting themselves or hunting and sporting
enthusiasts don’t NEED to own an assault rifle. Merely possessing enriched
uranium is a federal crime—and the human race is safer as a result. If a
specialized handgun could deliver an atomic bomb, would the NRA still fight to
protect its open sale to the public?
In their current posture, I think we all know the answer.
And that is pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment