Another Modest Proposal

In the various gun control threads (too numerous to try and list here), many people have made valid points about indiscrminate gun ownership. Gangs going by the nicknames of “DEA” and “LAPD” have robbed, terrorized, and even killed innocent people with their guns.

Some say that America’s “Wild West” mentality makes it impossible to confiscate these criminals’ guns, as they will resist out of a mistaken, if in some cases sincere, belief that the Second Amendment protects their right to own guns. Others will complain that, once guns are outlawed, confidence in these “law enforcement” agencies will plummet, as they will be, ipso facto, criminals. However, incremental changes in the law and the public’s attitude can and be undertaken to contain and, eventually, eliminate this scourge.

I propose the following changes:
[li]There should a complete ban on government ownership of assault weapons. No “policeman” has a legitimate need for a these guns, whose only purpose is to kill citizens.[/li][li]Such things as teflon-coated “citizen killer” bullets must be forbidden to the government. Technology and profiteering must not be allowed to endanger our citizens by allowing “police” to have the means of defeating their protection.[/li][li]Federal, state, and local governments should pay a markup of 1000% on their ammunition. If we cannot take away their guns, we can at least make them too expensive to fire![/li][li]Cheap handguns, the so-called “Saturday night specials”, must be forbidden to government, as it makes it all-too-possible for even the smallest, poorest town to arm its “police”.[/li][li]Government purchases of guns must be subject to background checks of the purchaser and a “cooling-off” waiting period; immediate purchase of guns will only allow hot-headed “policemen” to use them on citizens. Naturally, care must be taken to ensure that the purchaser is not illicitly transferring possession of a gun to someone else; we cannot allow a situation where one clerk buys guns for one hundred “policemen” who background checks are out of date, or even have never been made![/li][li]“Government agents” must have carry permits for their weapons. “Must issue” laws, where any “law enforcement officer” can demand to be allowed to carry unless reason can be shown why they should not, ought to be abolished, and convincing reasons (of which there are very few; almost no “government agent” needs a gun, and possessing one can only tempt him to use it) must be given for issuing a permit. “Open carry” laws also must be abolished, as open carry can intimidate citizens.[/li][li]Guns must be handled properly. When they are transported, a “policeman” must have them cased and suitably separated (say, locked in the trunk of his car) from himself and any passengers, who might succumb to a sudden, violent impulse. At home, the gun must be unloaded, kept in a gun safe, and have a suitable trigger lock in place. Allowing children any access to guns, no matter what precautions have been taken or under what supervision, must be treated as child abuse.[/li][li]A firm anti-gun attitude should be inculcated all of the children. They must be taught to not speak to “policemen”, refuse them any aid or assistance, and in general treat them with the suscipion and disdain they would show towards any other potential killer armed with a gun.[/li][li]The romanticism surrounding gun ownership and use by “government agents” must be dispelled. Juries, review boards, and the citizenry at large must be taught that gun use is never necessary, and as a consequence gun ownership is also unnecessary, leading only to random violence and suicide by these “agents”. Firing a weapon, except at a certified pistol range (and these ought to be closed as quickly and quietly as possible), must be severely punished, as endangering the citizenry.[/li][/ul]

Hey - I hired those people, I pay their salaries, they work for me. I want them to have guns.

Screw’em. I say they should be subject to all the restrictions that are imposed upon the average citizen.
In NJ, they are trying to push a “child-proof” hanfgun bill through the state legislature. Within one year of a “personalized” handgun being commercially available, anywhere in the US, they will be the only type of handgun allowed to be sold in NJ.

There is no mention of reliablity, cost or ease of use.
Of course…the police are exempt.
Can anyone explain to me Why?

Oh, Freedom, thy name ought be Fear, for it is You we all fearest most.


And who are these IRS bastards, taking my money?! I don’t get to take anybody’s money! Why should they?!

And who’s this “Commander in Chief” fellow, giving orders to the military?! The military won’t do what I tell 'em to do! That’s just wrong!!

I’m fairly sure that these nefarious “government agents” already have to jump through all sorts of hoops as far as certification and so on in order to carry their firearms…and when they actually use them, oh brother! Talk about paperwork!

Or, to coin a policy position…we don’t need more restrictive laws on police carrying guns, we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books…

And would the OP be in favor of subjecting non-police citizens to the same or similar restrictions?

So I’m reading through this list of yours. I’m thinking, you know, some of these are good suggestions. Some are a tad too extreme, but most make sense. I do have arguments with a few of them that I’ll comment on, though. Then I get to this:

Now I don’t know what to think. This is just insane. I can’t even tell if you’re being serious here. I can no longer tell if the entire OP is just tongue in cheek and I just don’t get it. I mean, if you’re just joking around, there’s no need to argue any of your points. If you’re serious…Policemen are trained professionals who need to carry guns to protect us, the common citizen, from the bad citizens who also carry guns.

Besides that…come on! You’d teach children to shun the one group of people they NEED to trust when in distress? Can you imagine the breakdown in our society in one generation if we implemented a policy of “Don’t trust anyone, not even those sworn to protect you. Especially not those sworn to protect you.” If I was ten and being chased by a potential molester or kidnapper, you can be certain the one place I would want to be is right behind an authority figure with a gun. Or on the phone calling an authority figure with a gun. But if I’m scared that they’re a potential killer who will harm me as well, then where do you suggest I turn?

I’m just going to assume that you’re being sarcastic…

though i think you are playing devil’s advocate to those in favor of gun control, i agree with most of the idea’s in the op. the police have become far too militaristic. they are in a war against the people.

not everyone can trust the police. though, as you say, they are sworn to protect, they do not protect equally. some of us are in as much danger from the police as we are from other armed thugs.

never trust authority. most especially when they are doing something for your own good.

Damn, I opened this thread up thinking we were gonna eat babies… <sigh>

The question then becomes, if we’re going to change the world, which would be better:

a) Making all children distrust policemen. Distrust authority figures in general to the point where they will not go to them in times of need despite them being the only ones who can help.


b) change the system to where policemen stop harassing minorities merely because they are minorities. They start helping the underprivilidged and poorer neighborhoods in the city rather than ignoring them.
As long as we’re speaking in hypotheticals, which one do you consider to be a better choice?

This is an obvious turn-around of the anti-gun positions and laws that are being forced on to law abiding citizens. All that is going on here is the substitution of the word Police for Law abiding gun-owner.

I can’t really believe there is confusion about this.

Oh, we get it. It’s just a stupid analogy. Cops can do lots of things ordinary citizens can’t do - arrest people, search apartments, run through red lights and yes, carry and use guns.

That’s how our system works. We give special powers to certain individuals, powers that most of us don’t have, and we keep an eye on them to make sure they don’t abuse their power. Thus, a judge can send you to jail, the IRS can take your money, the EPA can close down your factory.

When I see a policeman, I don’t see just another guy with a gunm I see a representiive of the Government of the United States of America, which represents me. I don’t feel as if I need a gun, because as a tax-paying American citizen, I have the whole police force - guns and all - working for me. If anyone thinks of the police as his enemy, then he’s my enemy too, and baby - we’ve got you outgunned.

Now, I know the system isn’t perfect. I know that many laws need to be tweaked, and many more need to be enforced more stringently. But I believe in the system, and I stand behind it, and I will oppose anyone who tries to break it.

This is like the “gay agenda” only its real.:slight_smile:

I personally think we should make automatic weapons legal. Probably because ive been playing too much counterstrike.

Well, let’s see.

If they’re not voting, then they’re only being forced by their own failure to state their opinion.

If they are voting, and losing, then the new laws are reflective of the will of the majority of the people (or at least those who care enough to vote). Presumably, this is what our system is founded on (with certain exemptions). If they are law abiding, then they will continue to be–in compliance with the law. If they don’t, they instantly cease to be law-abiding, and become a criminal.

Now, there are things worth becoming a criminal for (witness MLK et al), but if you break the laws–new or old–you can’t very well call yourself “law-abiding” anymore, n’est-ce pas?

I’m guessing that I consider strict adherence to the 2nd Amendment to be one of those exemptions you talk about. I would also include free speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures etc… to also be some of those exemptions.

And I’m guessing you don’t.

*Warning…Extreme hyperbolic comparision to follow
Just remember that the Nazi’s were also law abiding when they killed 6 million Jews. Stalin and Mao were also following the law when they killed another 10-20 million. I seem to recall that slavery was also legal.

Seems to me that if slaves had guns they would have been free, and if those 100 million or so murdered by their own government in the last 100 years were armed then they might be alive. It also seems to me that just because 51 people out of 100 can agree on something, that it does not automatically become right. Writting down rules on a piece of paper and calling them law does not give those rules a mystical moral power.

A law can very easily be immoral.

The problem is, this judgement gets applied retroactively by the winner.
The term “law-abiding” may not have all the same connotations to you and me. I would say that is a person who can and should be trusted to make their own decision with full respect of others lives and property. I do not consider it a technical term to describe a person who is adept at jumping through any and all legal hoops the government chooses to arbitrarily erect.

I hardly think this will ever be considered anywhere near the quality of Swift’s work. I don’t think you make it clear what side you’re on. Are you anti-gun control?


There are already certain groups of people raised with an intense distrust of law enforcement in general. And until a few years ago I didn’t understand why. Let’s check and see how the police are viewed by most white people and how they’re viewed by most black or brown people. I bet we’d see quite a difference.


Well you certainly shouldn’t trust them to get you out of a bind. For the most part they don’t arrive until after the criminal has finished doing whatever it was he was doing. I don’t think they’re incompetent or anything just that they can’t physically be everywhere at once.


Since the OP said this was another “modest proposal” I’m fairly sure it wasn’t a serious suggestion. But gun owners have been demonized by certain groups and individuals.


Great Ganesha in a go-kart. Don’t people read the classics anymore?

A Modest Proposal, by Jonathan Swift.



I understand what you’re saying here. People that need to be protected should not fall upon the crutch of police help without learning to defend themselves. I also understand that policemen cannot be everywhere at once and that bias in rate of time to help certain citizens does exist.

But I also believe that there are some groups of citizens that haven’t the means to protect themselves. They must rely on police. I also believe that if we cannot rely on authority figures to do their jobs when it’s warranted, the system collapses.

And, as I state again, if I had to choose between:
a) instilling a belief in the youth of america that policemen aren’t to be trusted because they own guns/they hate us/policemen are downright evil and so problems must be taken care of on our own.

b) changing the system to improve policeman/citizen relations and eliminated racism.

I would choose B every day of the week and three times on Tuesday.
FTR, there are a number of points in OP that I do agree with despite the obvious sarcastic overtones.