A reader reminds me that Mark Kleiman and I talked about possible compromises on gun rights a while back; possibly worth watching again.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
After listening to the divalog, I have a different suggestion. Since the only thing Kleiman was offering was “shall-issue” carry permits that gun rights proponents have already gotten in 38 States and what he wanted in return was mandatory gun registration (which is many gun right proponents will see as a prelude to gun confiscation) and new regulations that will make firearms even more expensive (no doubt a feature rather than a bug in the eyes of the proponents), why don’t we just tell him “no thanks*” and just work on changing the laws in the remaining 12 States?
* Or something more colorful if the mood suits you.
Or to put it another way, Mark Kleiman’s proposal is like someone who wants to raise your taxes and as a “compromise” says that if you agree to give the government half of your money, they’ll agree to let you keep the other half.
Except that he offers you the “compromise” right after a round of tax cuts and when the political momentum shows that not only do a majority of your fellow citizens oppose a tax increase but that the politicians on his side are scared to death of even suggesting it.
Your comments in the clip comparing gun licensing to driver's licenses reminds me of an article I read in Reason magazine in 1999 regarding that issue. I highly recommend reading it.
Checking out the archives, I've found the link:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31170.html