Wednesday, April 3, 2013

The NRA wants armed guards in every school? Let's tax guns to pay for it.

Wayne LaPierre is still pushing his absurd idea of armed guards in schools as the NRA answer to Newtown. Aside from the abject stupidity of LaPierre's idea and that it resulted in a New York Daily News front page showing LaPierre and the headline, "The Craziest Man in America,"  it exposes something else. LaPierre's idea has nothing to do with protecting children or anyone for that matter. It's about wanting to do everything possible to avoid new gun laws. And he wants to do it any cost. The problem is he wants the cost to be borne by everyone but gun owners and  the NRA. LaPierre wants everyone else to pay the price for his idea.

But in case LaPierre hasn't noticed, everyone else has been paying the price for the NRA's ability to remain part of the problem and their success in intimidating some spineless members of congress who worry more about their own reelection than in the welfare of the people they represent. 

The general reaction to La Pierre's idea has been contempt and derision. The American Federation of Teachers today called it "an absurd hoax". But it also exposes the selfishness, self centeredness and arrogance of the NRA leadership. To them, and a few lunatics who think like they do like the Montana sheriff who said he'd be willing to die rather than enforce the kind of gun bans being talked about, for these people their guns are more important than anything. And anyone.

But if LaPierre is serious about armed guards in schools as the answer then how about imposing a School Protection Tax on every sale of every gun and box of ammunition in the country?  It could be a 25% surcharge (or more - whatever it takes to pay for it) on every transaction in America related to firearms, the importation, sales to gun shops and retail sales.
Just like the cigarette tax which goes to cancer research and prevention, the tax money would pay for the armed guards in every school that La Pierre says would solve the problem and prevent the kind of mass murder we saw at Newtown that was committed with an assault weapon. So why not make gun owners and NRA members pay for it, since what's behind LaPierre's suggestion is that gun owners should be able to indulge their hobbies, fantasies or their fears unfettered and without restriction, not even the inconvenience of extended background checks,  as a way of trying to curb mass murder committed with assault weapons. So, if that is what matters, then let those who are proposing the idea in their own self interest pay for it.
The fact is, tax payer dollars paying for drug addicts to get their fix from government monitored clinics would do more good and do more to reduce violence, not to mention instantly putting drug dealers everywhere out of business, than Wayne LaPierre's idea of armed guards in every school, paid for by tax payers subsidizing gun owners not having to be inconvenienced by things like extensive background checks or only having ten rounds in a magazine instead of thirty.
But if LaPierre is serious about his idea, then let's put it to the test and see if it works, but let gun owners and the NRA pay for implementing the LaPierre's idea.
In the end there is only one group that would oppose the idea of taxing firearm related sales to pay for LaPierre's idea of armed guards in every school, and that's LaPierre and the NRA themselves.
And that is all anyone needs to know about Wayne LaPierre and what he thinks matters most and what he has defined the NRA as believing is most important - themselves.

NOTE: With Colorado and New York already having passed laws banning assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips, Connecticut has just passed its own tough gun laws banning over 100 assault type rifles and all clips that hold ten rounds or more. It will also require those who already own these clips to register with the state. And Maryland has now joined in and is passing their own assault weapon ban and ban on high capacity magazine clips.

With those ignorant of the true meaning of the second amendment trying but failing to stop this legislation, all of this is exactly what was suggested here months ago -- that states ignore the current Supreme Court's over tuning of 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which ruled the Second Amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and did not confer any such right and pass whatever gun laws they wished. Gun laws have always been a matter for state and local governments, the second amendment has nothing to do with any constitutional right to own a gun, and states are now taking the initiative and passing any laws they wish. The next step is to pass a federal law which makes it a felony for any resident of state which legally allows such weapons to transport them to a state that does not.

No comments: