“Fairness in Firearms Act”, version 2.0

All Americans should agree that gun control is a wonderful thing. The more control over your weaponry, the better. Of course that’s not what the Left seeks. They argue (publicly) for gun control.

It’s obvious to any sane person that gun control is impossible. At least, obviously to anyone aware of the 2nd, 18th, and 21st Amendments.  Even if the 2nd is repealed…which can’t happen…it would only be like passing the 18th.  Which didn’t work.

Fortunately, gun grabbers like Mike Bloomberg don’t practice what they preach. He publicly demands gun control. But privately he insists on gun control. Rich Americans—both corporate and individual—hire armed bodyguards and security firms all the time.

And thus the “Fairness in Firearms Act”:  changing gun control into gun control.  Senator Cruz is my personal choice to offer the following proposal. He would maximize the outrage of all the right…er, Left people.  Trump could reference his wealth to highlight this 2nd Amendment unfairness.  But Cruz could actually submit this legislation.

So, without further ado…Senator Ted Cruz:

It is an outrage…an abomination…that millions of Americans cannot obtain weapons with which to defend their families, while the wealthy can hire armed guards.  And so I offer the Fairness in Firearms Act:  in any jurisdiction in which law-abiding Americans cannot exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, no private bodyguards or security firms can be 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.  Nor can retired military or police carry firearms, if other private citizens cannot.”

This bill anticipates the reaction of the rich who already enjoy armed protection:  “Our hirelings have skills! Training! Equipment!”  That is true. Therefore the FiFA authorizes a $2,000 per annum subsidy to all adult, law-abiding Americans exercising their  2nd Amendment rights. Obviously this subsidy must be spent only on weapons, ammo, armor, and training.

Our wealthy…and safe!…neighbors may think this sum is too low. Obviously we will provide enough resources for poor Americans to meet Michael Bloomberg’s exacting standards for his own safety.

This legislation does require proof that the subsidy is spent solely on 2nd Amendment-related items and training.  And so we must see receipts in order to prevent fraud.  But let me emphasize!  There will be no national firearm registry!  The FiFA is to arm and train the citizenry to make gun grabbing harder, not easier.

There is only one further moral objection Mr. Bloomberg might make to poor Americans defending themselves. “They’re amateurs!  My underlings are pros!” Thus FiFA will pay $1 per year to all armed Americans protecting themselves, their families, and the public.  This makes them all professional bodyguards.

Unlike the subsidy, your dollar salary may be spent however you please.  

The Fairness in Firearms Act should delight the NRA and its allies as well as Michael Bloomberg and his allies.  2nd Amendment “haves” like Bloomberg will no longer be able to enjoy protection denied to the poor “have-nots” of New York and Chicago.  It even benefits Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans.  Their security expenses will go down with an influx of professional bodyguards in the tens of millions. 

You’re welcome, One-Percenters.

Even if wealthy Americans don’t directly employ newly-armed Americans, they will indirectly benefit. All decent Americans benefit from law-abiding, highly competent armsmen.  And armswomen, of course.”

There is a final clause to the FiFA. It regards posted “gun-free” zones. Obviously private homes and businesses have complete freedom to ban whatever they like. Public spaces, however, do not.

This legislation does not ban “gun-free” zones in such areas. But by disarming Americans who could otherwise defend themselves, the controlling authority or authorities take explicit responsibility for the welfare of those present. This means legal and financial responsibility for felonious harm incurred.

And yes, this includes federal property and facilities.

Over the past twenty years, the gun homicide rate in this country has been cut in half. This does not coincide with the liberalization of carry laws in most states. I say it does not “coincide” because it is not a coincidence! They are directly related! Thus anyone opposing the Fairness in Firearms Act is, ignorantly or not, trying to get more innocent Americans killed.

Thank you for your time.

GOP:  are you serious about making political inroads with minority Americans?   This.  Right here.  Do it.  Constantly remind everyone that rich white Democrats (and Bloombergs) enjoy things they deny everyone else.  Including their “allies”.

And when they scream in rage at their hypocrisy being featured…point at the screaming.  Here, I’ll even toss in the perfect hashtag, free of charge:


You’re welcome.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to “Fairness in Firearms Act”, version 2.0

  1. Edohiguma says:

    Austrian laws on “gun control” work. A country doesn’t need more than this.

    Personally, the only “gun control” an individual needs is the one that makes sure one hits the target.

  2. wormme says:

    Yep. Well, have to add, make sure it’s clear downrange in case the bullet passes straight through. I’d feel obligated to take the moment(s) to move even if the active shooter had noticed me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s