A Modest Proposal

posted at 8:41 am on June 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Now that the Roberts Court has affirmed that the government has the power to mandate purchases of private goods and services as long as it’s structured as a tax, I propose that we put this new-found authority in the service of an explicit Constitutional right.  For far too long, too many Americans have suffered from an inequal distribution of firearms, despite the Second Amendment’s express exhortation to “keep and bear arms,” in large part because income inequality in this nation has kept the poor and working classes from having the proper protection for themselves and their loved ones.  We need to end this disparity now by applying the ObamaCare model immediately.

First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want.  It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own.  Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines.  Which agency would do the best job?  Hmmmm … I know!  How about TSA?  With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.

Don’t want to own a gun?  Hey, no worries.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates.  The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all.  Isn’t choice great?  Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own.  Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway.  Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t.  Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership.

Now, I’m not naive; this kind of mandate system will be difficult to get through Congress.  Even gun manufacturers might have some reservations about forcing everyone to buy their product, especially since we’ll also be imposing massive price controls on their products.  Only 7% of their revenues can be spent on administrative costs and “profit,” whatever we decide that means.  How else to make sure that we keep prices fair?  We have an ace in the hole, though. We plan to get the ammunition industry on our side, running a $200 million ad campaign on behalf of the bill.  They stand to make billions in the huge increase of target practice — which gun ranges will have to provide for free on at least one occasion a year per person, and for which the government will cover the range costs at, say, $5 per hour.  (That’s a loss for gun ranges, but they’ll make it up in volume.)

We need to act now.  Too many poor and working-class families face injury and death from lack of self-protection in areas of high rates of violent crime, so if you oppose this, you must hate the poor and hope they die.  Since no one does that, we should expect to see everyone celebrating this effort to realize the vision of our Founders, which was obviously a top-down federal government that can order its citizens to do anything it wants.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

“If you like your banana clip, you can keep your banana clip.” – Firearms expert Barack “Right now . . . if a family care physician gun shop owner works with his or her patient customer to help them lose weight gain accuracy, modify diet their loads, monitors whether they’re taking their medications range practice in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic gun owner ends up getting their foot amputated barrel all corroded up, that’s 30,000, 40, 50,000 dollars immediately the surgeon gun shop owner is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation corrosion. Right? That will save us money.” Obama

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM

gryphon202 on June 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM

:)

chemman on June 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

..clever, but quite apart from this proposal, check this article out:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/percussion-pistols-a-handgun-when-you-cant-buy-a-handgun/

The War Planner on June 29, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Because health care is just like gun ownership. OK Ed.

lexhamfox on June 29, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Ed
This is the best idea since sliced bread………….I’m all in……… what about a tax credit on say an M1A, to protect us from tyranny of the federal government ……….;-)

angrymike on June 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Brilliant.

MTF on June 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Instead we get this invitation to masturbation.

rayra on June 29, 2012 at 9:13 AM

..when you get such invites, do you bring your own jar of Vaseline or do you share?

The War Planner on June 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Alas, some folks just aren’t that Swift.

Nicely done, BTW, Ed!

Noocyte on June 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syV2LkGpQB0

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Also, Ed, so long as you broached the subject of “..gun ownership, ease thereof..”, here is another link worthy of inspection about an organization CHARTERED BY THE FEDERAL GUMMINT:

http://www.odcmp.com/sales.htm

The War Planner on June 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Okay that’s enough. You’ve had your day for doomsaying and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Boo hoo. The Supreme court didn’t fix our legislative debacle for us. Quit crying and fix it the old fashioned way. SCOTUS is not your “get out of bad legislation free” card.

Pick up the pieces and rebuild. That’s what makes a conservative strong. I’m surprised you aren’t more stoic about this Ed.

Immolate on June 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

It’s sad when you have to explain that.

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Because health care is just like gun ownership. OK Ed.

lexhamfox on June 29, 2012 at 9:51 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Thought we’d have to go off-site for this. Guess not.

IT’S SATIRE, lexy.

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I heartily agree!

Lawrence on June 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Okay that’s enough. You’ve had your day for doomsaying and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Boo hoo. The Supreme court didn’t fix our legislative debacle for us. Quit crying and fix it the old fashioned way. SCOTUS is not your “get out of bad legislation free” card.

Pick up the pieces and rebuild. That’s what makes a conservative strong. I’m surprised you aren’t more stoic about this Ed.

Immolate on June 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I think you misunderstand Ed’s intentions.

gryphon202 on June 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Because health care is just like gun ownership. OK Ed.

lexhamfox on June 29, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Note the time stamps. Nice to see you’re paying attention, Lex. Moron.

gryphon202 on June 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM

ED
Satire……Nooooooo, we really need to do this, could you see piglosi’s and Feinstein’s heads EXPLODE……..Please Ed, lets do this…..;-)

angrymike on June 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Holy cow, how did I miss this one?

Gun ownership is not “actually mentioned in the Constitution”.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Neither is ‘healthcare’.

However, a “Right to keep and bear arms” is mentioned – unlike your imagined ‘right to healthcare’.

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM
It’s sad when you have to explain that.
Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 9:57

AM

Just so. I knew it was coming just from the title.
See lexhamfox above. Went right past it.

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM

While I would generally support such an idea Ed, there are people who are so stupid, I’d prefer that they NOT own a firearm.

Like the 52%+ who voted for Obama in 2008.

GarandFan on June 29, 2012 at 8:46 AM

There are also people so stupid they don’t deserve to have their life preserved by the (formerly) greatest healthcare system in the world. Except the Constitution explicitly talks about weapon ownership, not healthcare.

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I know that a lot of comments are running emotional, but I’d like to point out a rational argument… What Ed is suggesting is COMPLETELY Constitutional, even without yesterday’s ruling.

The clear language of the Constitution states that Congress is responsible for arming and training militias.

Article I Section 8 Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now what is the militia? Most liberals assume that it refers to the National Guard. But that would be wrong. The answer to this question, lies with the States. Each state defines of whom their militia consists… usually within their State Constitution.

I live in the state of Ohio, which declares in section 9.01 of the Ohio Constitution

Ohio Constitution 9.01: All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the United States Congress to see to the arming and training of Ohio citizens 17-67 years old.

Ed’s proposal, while made as an emotional response, is ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL!

I urge all other conservatives to read the US Constitution and state constitution to understand the ramifications of an argument that has been ignored for far too long in this country!

dominigan on June 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM

lexhamfox on June 29, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Hook, line and sinker. You’ve been rolled buddy.

chemman on June 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The only mandate, oops, tax, with a constitutional basis, grounded in the Bill of Rights:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .

tkmcp on June 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

The fact that Ed had to point this out does not bode well for the intelligence of voters come November.

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Why? Do you not understand that you just discovered a fundamental truth about the founding of our government. Surely you don’t think liberty should only be talked about in satire…

dominigan on June 29, 2012 at 10:05 AM

However, a “Right to keep and bear arms” is mentioned – unlike your imagined ‘right to healthcare’.

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM

You don’t read very well.

And my right to health care? You need to drop the assumptions and expand your tiny world view.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

And excellent satire it was, Ed, but may I suggest that your SEO guys track direct links from email and other sources?

You will probably see more direct linking for this post than most others IMO.

VibrioCocci on June 29, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

The fact that Ed had to point this out does not bode well for the intelligence of voters come November.

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The fact that you don’t understand that this a founding principle indicates a profound failure in our educational system.

dominigan on June 29, 2012 at 10:06 AM

For far too long, too many Americans have suffered from an inequal distribution of firearms, despite the Second Amendment’s express exhortation to “keep and bear arms,” in large part because income inequality in this nation has kept the poor and working classes from having the proper protection for themselves and their loved ones.

I would also add, a la Pelosi, “…for far too long public safety departments have been stretched to the limit by freeloaders who wait until the last minute to use the 911 center for protection, and for far too long fat-cat alarm companies have been making ridiculous profits off of our right to protection.”

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

As soon as the decision came down yesterday, I wrote my congressman, demanding swift action on this very thing.

CurtZHP on June 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Sure thing Ed.

More likely they will tax women who don’t abort Down Syndrome babies, or women who have exceeded their limit of one live birth. This is a profoundly totalitarian precedent; and just where the Progressive-left, such as Soros and Ayers, want the American public: under their knife when it comes to life and death issues.

Mike OMalley on June 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t.

Holy cow, how did I miss this one?

Gun ownership is not “actually mentioned in the Constitution”.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

The fact that some consider the word arms to not be inclusive of firearms does not bode well for the intelligence of liberal voters come November.

shuzilla on June 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The fact that you don’t understand that this a founding principle indicates a profound failure in our educational system.

dominigan on June 29, 2012 at 10:06 AM

What in blazes are you talking about man? Of course the right to bear arms is a founding principle, that’s what makes the satire so great. We are being mandated to buy insurance–without that explicit right in the Constitution–but if we did the same thing for guns–which happen to be “arms” and is an explicit right in the Constitution–the Left would be in an uproar.

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

You need to drop the assumptions and expand your tiny world view.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:05 AM

As I said before………….
LIGHTEN UP, FRANCIS.

You take yourself much too seriously, kid. Unlike others here…..who don’t take you seriously at all.

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I like this idea as I would be receiving a giant tax rebate.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Gun ownership is not “actually mentioned in the Constitution”.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

You do know “arms” doesn’t actually mean the hairy things hanging off your shoulders?

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The scenario in this post will never happen… but I personally think this power will be used against the leisure choices of the leisure class. If you’re income is $200k a year and you don’t own a car that gets 50mpg, then you pay a tax.

ninjapirate on June 29, 2012 at 8:59 AM

After yesterday it’s impossible for anyone to honestly deny that the tax code is more about controlling behavior than it is about raising revenue.

gwelf on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM

A Carbon Tax from the Warmists is much more likely, given that the spaghetti-spined Republicans shrink from any honest discussion of the fraud of manmade global warming.

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2012 at 10:15 AM

What in blazes are you talking about man? Of course the right to bear arms is a founding principle, that’s what makes the satire so great. We are being mandated to buy insurance–without that explicit right in the Constitution–but if we did the same thing for guns–which happen to be “arms” and is an explicit right in the Constitution–the Left would be in an uproar.

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Good satire has a grain of truth to it, as does this example. In Swift’s original “modest proposal,” his purpose was to poke fun at the philosophes and intellectuals of his age who were, in the early 18th century, already fearful of “overpopulation” and holding up the working-class Irish poor as an example of what could happen to the rest of the European continent.

gryphon202 on June 29, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I like this idea as I would be receiving a giant tax rebate.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Gun owner! Terrorist! Violent Extremist! Weeoo weeoo weeoo the feds are coming for you!

(And for those of you still reeling from Ed’s use of satire, the above is, wait for it…SARCASM.)

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM

It was obvious satire and I got it right away, ut I have been none too Swift at times and not picked up that something was satire, so I can”t fault others for not getting this at first. Sometimes we read things quickly and react emotionally. It happens.

As for those who are criticizing Ed for writing this and saying he should be talking about what to do next… Uh, huh? Most of Ed’s posts are about the November election. That is what is next.

This was one of your better pieces, Ed. Thanks for it.

McDuck on June 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM

And the next time I hear a liberal crying about “corporate influence in our politics” I’m going to point out the fact to them that Democrats ushered in the age of tax farming here in America.

ButterflyDragon on June 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You do know “arms” doesn’t actually mean the hairy things hanging off your shoulders?

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

You do know firearms is a subset of arms, right? You do know that contrary to Ed’s claim, the Constitution does not actually mention gun ownership, right?

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Gun owner! Terrorist! Violent Extremist! Weeoo weeoo weeoo the feds are coming for you!

(And for those of you still reeling from Ed’s use of satire, the above is, wait for it…SARCASM.)

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Get with the program, rube. The demorats changed the nomenclature, just as terrorists are now referred to as man-caused disaster causers, guns are to be known as “high speed-projectile dispensers”.

Wake up, hick.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM

You do know firearms is a subset of arms, right? You do know that contrary to Ed’s claim, the Constitution does not actually mention gun ownership, right?

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

You do know that Dr. Paul lost, don’t you?

kingsjester on June 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

You do know that contrary to Ed’s claim, the Constitution does not actually mention gun ownership, right?

Gosh darn you’re right! I knew the colonists fought off the British with their handy-dandy bubble gum and slingshot kits issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Good satire has a grain of truth to it, as does this example.
gryphon202 on June 29, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Limbaugh understands this. That is why I listen. Not for his opinions, but the satire. He’s good at it.

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Bishop
Ya me two, I think if you build your own they should double the rebate……..

angrymike on June 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I like it!

While we’re at it, since the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution (unlike the ‘right‘ to abortion), firearms should be provide free of charge to those that want one but can’t afford it. Also, if you’re a minor and want a firearm, you should be able to get one without parental notification.

Dexter_Alarius on June 29, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM

You do nothing on this site but nit-pick at others and claim they’re not conservative.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You do know firearms is a subset of arms, right? You do know that contrary to Ed’s claim, the Constitution does not actually mention gun ownership, right?

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM

It must suck being you.

Spliff Menendez on June 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Hmmmm…

Does Ed finally understand the gravity of the situation? OR… has he understood all along, and been shackled by the responsibility of being “Ed Morrisey” at HotAir, unable to fully express his alarm?

Guns for all! Huzzah!

IronDioPriest on June 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You do know firearms is a subset of arms, right? You do know that contrary to Ed’s claim, the Constitution does not actually mention gun ownership, right?Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Going all ” strict constructionist” on us, are ya ?

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I thought the Jonathan Swift reference in the title would have been clue enough. Not to mention the extremely sardonic tone.

massrighty on June 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM

A minimum of a 45ACP pistol, a three line rifle and a 12ga. shotgun for every man or woman over the age of 17 save those who have had felony convictions. Enough of expecting police and military to defend you: it is time to pick up your end of the social contract and relieve the pressures of bureaucracy by taking care of yourself.

Or pay a tax if you can’t be bothered to do that.

The tax list will be made public.

As a service to all.

ajacksonian on June 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You do know firearms is a subset of arms, right? You do know that contrary to Ed’s claim, the Constitution does not actually mention gun ownership, right?

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM

So you’re saying the Constitution protects our rights to own what – cannons? Grenades? Swords? Please explain to me your interpretation of the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

hawksruleva on June 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM

This kind of post coming out at this point does NOTHING – expect emit the annoying sound of an empty trash can barrelling down an asphalt hill.

It is a sound and fury signifying NOTHING!

The opportunity to influence things in this way has passed. WHAT are you going to DO about Obamacare?

williamg on June 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Now that the Roberts Court has affirmed that the government has the power to mandate purchases of private goods and services as long as it’s structured as a tax, I propose that we put this new-found authority in the service of an explicit Constitutional right.

Totally lame. Totally yesterday. And unlike Ed, whose Totally pissing in his pants at the thought of offending the Gun hating crowd, when I proposed this yesterday, it wasn’t “mental satire”.

SWalker on June 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM

You do know that contrary to Ed’s claim, the Constitution does not actually mention gun ownership, right?Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Right, because “keep and bear” can’t possibly mean the same thing as “own,” right?
And “gun” can’t be the same as “arms,” can it?

massrighty on June 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Engaging in this kind of bathrrom-mirror self-shetoric is NOT HELPFUL AT ALL!!

williamg on June 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM

So you’re saying the Constitution protects our rights to own what – cannons? Grenades? Swords? Please explain to me your interpretation of the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

Firearms is included in the category arms; however, to say “gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution” is a complete falsehood. It’s one reason why the satire falls way short. Ed is mistakenly believing that arms = firearms and nothing else. Since arms is a larger category, Congress could mandate clubs or bows or knives instead of mandating firearms.

Do you understand? This isn’t a criticism of the Constitution or firearms; it is a criticism of a very flawed argument, even one made in jest.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Going all ” strict constructionist” on us, are ya ?

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM

No, correcting misinformation and falsehoods.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM

It must suck being you.

Spliff Menendez on June 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

No, he loves it. It’s no one else that can stand him.

CurtZHP on June 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM

ajacksonian on June 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM

hehehehehe

The public list is a really fine idea, it could be called “Places to Burglarize” list.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM

It is a sound and fury signifying NOTHING!

williamg on June 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Is this supposed to be super ironic?

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM

No, correcting misinformation and falsehoods.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You do nothing on this site but nit-pick at others and claim they’re not conservative.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Madison Conservative is exactly right.

kingsjester on June 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM

This kind of post coming out at this point does NOTHING – expect emit the annoying sound of an empty trash can barrelling down an asphalt hill.
It is a sound and fury signifying NOTHING!

The opportunity to influence things in this way has passed. WHAT are you going to DO about Obamcare

Gee, I don’t know, williamg, I don’t know what Ed could possibly think should be done about Obamacare. It is not like he has written many posts on the the topic over the years.

SHEESH.

McDuck on June 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I like this idea as I would be receiving a giant tax rebate.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

..I knew I’d seen a picture of your living room somewhere!

The War Planner on June 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Can’t you just go with it a little bit instead of dissecting every word and screaming “GOTCHA!” when you find something? It’s been a tough 24 hours for everyone and this sort of thing is what is needed to help inject some humor back into the wretched mess we find ourselves in.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM

We need to act now. Too many poor and working-class families face injury and death …

… because they lack affordable health insurance, dum-dum.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Obnoxious smugness has no off switch.

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

So you’re saying the Constitution protects our rights to own what – cannons? Grenades? Swords? Please explain to me your interpretation of the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

hawksruleva on June 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM

The Constitution protects access to arms that can be borne. Cannons? No. Swords? Grenades? The argument could be made.

applebutter on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I think you misunderstand Ed’s intentions.

gryphon202 on June 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

So the Captain’s intent was not to use snarky satire to satisfy his disappointment with yesterday’s decision? My bad. All of the right-o-sphere is locked in this endless cycle of self-loathing over Robert’s betrayal. Sure, let’s fixate on the one conservative on the planet that we can’t influence in the middle of an election cycle. His decision either will or won’t prove to be some kind of wise rabbit epiphany in the long haul, but regardless, it’s done and we have to live with it. Move on.

Immolate on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

No, correcting misinformation and falsehoods.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM

So are you this much of a literalist on the term “natural-born citizen” too?

Nutstuyu on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

It’s been a tough 24 hours for everyone and this sort of thing is what is needed to help inject some humor back into the wretched mess we find ourselves in.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

..I knew I’d seen a picture of your living room somewhere!

The War Planner on June 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Brother, I’ve got more than that in my bathroom.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.
Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

FAIL!

Never conceded that satire is at play. It diminishes the effect to be irrelevant. Those that do not understand the satire do not deserve to know the difference.

Well, at least that’s how I like it when the satire is meant to entertain those who “get it”. But I understand you have folks you don’t want to offend, and others to coax along.

My only real objection is how short the piece is. I’m not into that whole brevity thing. Someone get Iowahawk on this, stat!

connertown on June 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

No, Lib. Americans are upset because your co-horts are taking away our FREEDOM incrementally and taxing us to death while they are doing it.

kingsjester on June 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Firearms is included in the category arms; however, to say “gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution” is a complete falsehood. It’s one reason why the satire falls way short. Ed is mistakenly believing that arms = firearms and nothing else. Since arms is a larger category, Congress could mandate clubs or bows or knives instead of mandating firearms.

Do you understand? This isn’t a criticism of the Constitution or firearms; it is a criticism of a very flawed argument, even one made in jest.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

So, you’re saying that Obamacare is the only way to provide healthcare?

The argument is no more flawed than the stupid, stupid law.

applebutter on June 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Not only that but Republicans also want to bring back slavery, throw all liberals into a Cheney-designed gulag system, and ethnically cleanse Mexico so it can be populated by Texans.

Is there no evil the GOP won’t commit?

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM

So, you’re saying that Obamacare is the only way to provide healthcare?

applebutter on June 29, 2012 at 10:47

What??? Where did I say anything about Obamacare or health care for that matter???

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Stupid and disingenuous. This is health care, a function of our society that every single one of us relies on at one point or another and to which it is mandated that hospitals must treat all people regardless of circumstance.

Grasping at straws. The people can buy, accept, and understand that health care is a unique industry.

They will not for guns. But by all means give it a shot. Just agitating for agitations sake will help out our chances in November tremendously. /

Boomer_Sooner on June 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

This could be flipped around the other way too: All gun owners will be required to carry $1 million of liability insurance, or else pay a penalty tax.

ZenDraken on June 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Firearms is included in the category arms; however, to say “gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution” is a complete falsehood. It’s one reason why the satire falls way short. Ed is mistakenly believing that arms = firearms and nothing else. Since arms is a larger category, Congress could mandate clubs or bows or knives instead of mandating firearms.

Do you understand? This isn’t a criticism of the Constitution or firearms; it is a criticism of a very flawed argument, even one made in jest.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

The mention of “arms” is in the same sentence as “Militia”.
To construe this to mean anything BUT guns is incorrect.
Don’t think we wanted a Mititia of bare knuckle brawlers.
The argument, in jest, is NOT flawed. And it is funny.

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Now, I’m not naive; this kind of mandate system will be difficult to get through Congress.

Addendum to the modest proposal:

We could call it a tax from the outset. Then, we could pass it through reconciliation, making it a much easier lift legislatively.

rogaineguy on June 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You don’t know what the SC is. Or does.
It does not WANT things.

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

AMERICA! — F**K YEAH!
Comin’ through, to save the motherf**kin’ day yeah,
AMERICA! — F**K YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah!

FlatFoot on June 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/25/bill-clinton-warns-about-supreme-court-ruling-against-obamacare.html

Clinton drew laughter with anecdotes about individual mandates that go back to the founding of the nation. In 1797, when John Adams was president, he signed a bill that required all seamen to be covered by hospitalization insurance through their employer.

None other than President George Washington signed a bill that required employers to provide hospitalization insurance for sailors. Another of the soldier president’s individual mandates would tickle Republicans today: every free male person between ages 18 and 44 had to keep a musket, a bayonet, and ammunition in his home. Even Quakers were denied exemption.

Another point: a government may guarantee universal health coverage either by creating a government health insurance monopoly such as Medicare (for seniors only in the U.S.). Nobody questions the constitutionality of this approach even in the States and it’s the favored option in most other wealthy democracies. Most Democrats would prefer this approach.

The alternative — endorsed by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and numerous other Republicans until 2009 or so — is to regulate the private insurance market so that all can and must buy insurance. This is how Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Singapore have successfully solved the problem: you have to buy insurance in these countries as well.

Now, can anyone say with a straight phase that Mitt Romney’s/the Heritage Foundation’s plan is more socialist and clearly unconstitutional than single payer would be?

MARCU$

mlindroo on June 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Indeed, and the court is doing that by making me pay for the government plan. If I don’t pay, I pay a penalty or a tax or just a fine. If I don’t pay it, I just might go to jail even if technically I shouldn’t given how the law is written on taxes.

Hey, since we’re on the 2nd amendment satire, remember if you don’t follow the rules prefectly, if its just a mechanical default they’ll put you away for years. See David Olofson:

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/02/08/atf-declaring-war-on-honest-gun-owners/

So remember, if you don’t use that medicine perfectly as prescribed or directed expect a swat raid by the FDA/HHS.

oryguncon on June 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Ed, Allen west just used your exact analogy on foxnews. He has to be a hot gas reader!!

karenhasfreedom on June 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance. without insurance can be taxed.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Fixed

Spliff Menendez on June 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The Swiss mandate that you keep a fully automatic rifle that the government supplies in your house.

So why not?

CorporatePiggy on June 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

The Constitution protects access to arms that can be borne. Cannons? No. Swords? Grenades? The argument could be made.

applebutter on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

No, the Constitution protects the right to bare arms. The term bare does not mean to “Carry”, it means to present in public. Furthermore a careful reading of other references made by the founding fathers makes it explicitly clear that they chose the term “Arms” rather than Firearms because what they were specifically referring to in the Constitution were Military grade weapons.

That fact should have been perfectly clear by the preceding part of the 2nd amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary”. What they meant was, the rights of the citizens to keep and bare any such weapon as required to defend the citizens from a foreign or domestic government attempting to impose a tyrannical oppression of the American People, shall not be infringed upon.

Thomas Jefferson was not joking, kidding or being sarcastic when he said,

The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.” – Thomas Jefferson

SWalker on June 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

No prob brah,
When all suffer lead poisoning (from the lead at the range, not lead-insertion-to-body), we can just use our Obamacare tax, er..penalty, er…mandate – thingy. whatever.

askwhatif on June 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Firearms is included in the category arms; however, to say “gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution” is a complete falsehood. It’s one reason why the satire falls way short. Ed is mistakenly believing that arms = firearms and nothing else. Since arms is a larger category, Congress could mandate clubs or bows or knives instead of mandating firearms.

Do you understand? This isn’t a criticism of the Constitution or firearms; it is a criticism of a very flawed argument, even one made in jest.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

What??? Where did I say anything about Obamacare or health care for that matter???

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The Modest Proposal that Ed suggests is based on the decision released yesterday upholding Obamacare. It seems like you would know this. In fact, his proposal is what’s called an analogy. You criticized Ed for limiting his proposal to firearms. Yet you don’t seem to recognize that Obamacare limits health care to a very specific type of expensive, government approved, economy wrecking insurance policy, ignoring all other valid methods of obtaining health care.

Does that answer your question?

applebutter on June 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

SWalker on June 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I’m okay with the alternate definition, but “to bear” does, in fact, mean “to carry”, just as it did in the late 18th century.

applebutter on June 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

And you aren’t even wearing a clown nose I bet.

Sometimes a thing is so idiotic one doesn’t know where to begin to address the idiocy of it.

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Meant to be bold, not a strike through.

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Of course you could have made the same modest proposal as a critique of FICA taxes.

verbaluce on June 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Just FYI, this is meant as satire.

Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

What’s interesting is that every serious response that says “This isn’t such a good idea.” can likewise be used against the Healthcare mandate.

Very good satirical example.

shick on June 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3