It seems some law makers with Swiss cheese for brains actually believe that reducing the number of guns law-abiding citizens can purchase is a reasonable and effective way to reduce crime.
“One gun a month” is their mantra. California, Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey still have such laws on the books. South Carolina adopted one in 1976 but repealed it in 2004. Virginia is now poised to kill their law, but the lawmakers in New Jersey are so misinformed that they actually put their law into effect a couple months back. So much for New Jersey leading the way with sound thinking.
Apparently to be a politician in New Jersey you have to look at what DOESN’T work in other states then adopt those policies. But enough jokes about New Jersey.
The reality of the one-gun-a-month program is that it does nothing but restrict good citizens from buying guns and in the long run will force gun shops into bankruptcy.
The Washington Times recently wrote an editorial about how one-gun-a-month programs don’t work. It is a great story about how these laws are ineffective but continue to draw attention. It seems lawmakers are just grabbing at anything to show they are “doing something.” But these feel-good measures never work. You and I, as gun owners, already know that. Still, there seems to be a sizeable portion of the population that’s willing to believe anything. They panic when someone is killed or injured and demand more controls on law-abiding citizens. I want to head in the other direction today.
I’m here to tell you about my one-gun-a-month plan.
I’ve hinted at such a plan in the past, but I think I have been able to refine it somewhat in an effort to keep gun sales brisk.
Here’s the deal: Law-abiding citizens who participate in the program are REQUIRED to buy one gun each month. Then, at the end of the calendar year participants receive a free gun of their choice.
IT’S A CHRISTMAS MIRACLE!
Of course there are some details that need to be worked out, but let’s look at this realistically. If the program was run through a distributor that handles multiple brands, the buyer could be required to buy his or her 12 guns through that distributor at regular price, then at the end of the year the buyer could select a firearm of equal or lesser value than the most expensive gun purchased during the year.
This would allow buyers to embrace diversity as they amassed firearms.
Or perhaps there should be an ammunition component to this plan? Perhaps the buyer could buy 12 guns throughout the year and then be granted a couple cases of ammunition after the final purchase. Or maybe the person could be given a certificate to a shooting school?
There are plenty of options. They are limited only by our imagination.
The point I’m trying to make is that good people need to buy guns. They need to be able to buy guns without silly government interference that has nothing to do with reducing crime. Unless we speak up, politicians are going to continue to hit us with silly schemes that take our freedom and do nothing to stop criminals.
I’m a firm believer that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.