(ADDED: Thanks to the Perfessor, as always, for the link. Note that if you comment, if it’s your first time I’ll have to approve it. I will do so ASAP. And thanks for the terrific comments already made. I am not an attorney, but would love to see the proposal actually hit the House or Senate and drive all the right people insane. Er, insaner. If any reader wants to go ahead and submit this idea to their favorite candidate/Rep./Sen., feel free.)
Why do we argue about gun control when we could easily make it about gun control? Here’s what I want to hear from the best current Presidential candidate:
Sen. Cruz: “It is an outrage…it is an abomination…that millions of Americans cannot obtain weapons with which to defend their families, while wealthy Americans can hire armed guards for themselves. And so I submit the Fairness in Firearms Act: in any jurisdiction in which law-abiding Americans are not guaranteed their 2nd Amendment rights, no private bodyguards or security firms can be so armed while defending their clients.”
“This also applies to off-duty LEOs and military personnel. Of course, as they may be called to duty at any time, their weapons can be present but peace-bonded, kept in trunks, etc.”
And how will the Celebutard and Bloombergtard Communities react? Will they give up their security details? HahahaHA. Nope. There are only two arguments possible, and they cannot offer the true one. They will go with, “that’s different! Our guards are professionals! Skills, training, equipment!”
“Ah,” replies Cruz. “You’re absolutely right. We must provide the millions of poor private bodyguards the resources necessary to bring them up to your standards. Perhaps a $2,000 per year subsidy solely for firearm training and equipment? Or more? Whatever you wealthy employers are comfortable with. Oh, and I agree that putting firing ranges in schools and offering security training to students is a fabulous idea!”
Cruz, relentlessly, “What’s wrong? This will only lower the cost of your security expenses, what with creating millions more highly trained bodyguards. And even if you don’t directly employ them, you’ll indirectly benefit. All law-abiding Americans will benefit from more law-abiding, highly competent armsmen. And armswomen, of course.”
Almost none of these wealthy hypocrites are sufficiently self-aware to know the reason for their continued objection. And of the few that are, those evil tyrants can’t offer it either. For it is: “Guns for Me but not for Thee! Power to Us and powerlessness to You! We held to no standards and you to ever-changing and contradictory ones! WE HATE YOU!”
Please please please let’s do this to them. If this idea finds its way to Cruz, isn’t there a chance he might actually do it? I intend to send it first to his campaign, as he’s my choice among the remaining field. But prior feedback from you would be great.
Technical Note: while it would be hilarious to slowly back the gun grabbers off the logical cliff, as above, it practice it would be sub-optimal. Wouldn’t it? Better would be an Either/Or proposal. Either we arrange things so that even poor Chicago citizens can defend themselves with arms, or we take such defense away from the wealthy.
Fairness in Firearms.
UPDATE: upon reflection, I’ve already seen how to improve the proposal. Obviously states and municipalities with No License Required or Shall Issue laws are exempt from the Fairness in Firearms Act. They already are fair. The only states or affected are those that allow the wealthy to be protected by firearms, while denying that to the poor.
And, in case it wasn’t obvious, this in no way infringes on bodyguards’ or security firms’ right to do commerce. They just don’t get to tote guns wherever other private citizens don’t. They have 2nd Amendment rights, not advantages.