In Which We Wait to Hear a Reasonable Reply

So President Obama made an emotional speech about guns yesterday, and Republicans predictably lost their minds.  From what I can see, the president's proposals essentially amounted to making sure that current laws are properly enforced--which, by the way, is exactly what gun enthusiasts say should be done any time there is a suggestion that the country needs stronger gun regulation: "We don't need no more laws!  We just need to enforce the ones we've already got!"  I guess that sounds good until Obama says it, at which point it becomes an unconscionable power grab.  Of course, enforcing the laws also requires resources that Republicans in Congress are unwilling to provide, but let's not quibble.  Still, in response to yesterday's speech, the Republican presidential candidates are screaming about a "gun grab" and that Obama's a-comin' for your guns!

I live in hope of one day hearing a cogent, reasonable argument against ANY of the standard suggestions put forward by gun-control advocates,  For example, one of the most popular proposals put forward is to close the gun-show loophole, which allows people to purchase firearms at gun shows without going through the same background checks they would need to go through if they bought guns at a store.  The NRA and others would have you believe that this is some sort of insane left-wing proposal that must be resisted at all costs.  And I would truly like to understand why--why should anyone have a problem with this?

Before you reply, let me say that the following are not valid arguments:

"This is the first step down the road to tyranny!"  No, it's really not.  This is an example of a "slippery-slope" argument, a well-known logical fallacy: "If A happens, then it's only a matter of time before B happens."  This argument seems to rest on the premise that a crypto-fascist government will become so giddy at its success in passing modest gun legislation that it will quickly move to seize all weapons and throw us all into concentration camps.  Anyone who truly believes this (as opposed to just saying it to score political points with the likes of the Birdbath Liberation Army) is suffering from acute paranoia and/or delusions and should probably not be armed.  And at any rate, this response fails to address the merits of the proposal.

"Forcing people to go through background checks at gun shows wouldn't do anything to stop crime."  Again, not a valid argument, for the simple reason that there is no way to know this unless and until we try it.  I can acknowledge that those who make this argument may be right: It is possible that we could impose these new regulations and see no decline whatsoever in the numbers of people killed by guns.  But we won't know unless we try, right?

I'm seriously looking for a reasonable argument--I would really like to understand.  I suppose some would say that requiring background checks at gun shows places unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens, but I truly don't see that.  I mean, if I want to buy a gun, I could presumably do so with no trouble: I am a law-abiding citizen, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, etc.  If I went to a gun store, I am certain I would pass any background check, so the only inconvenience would be that I would need to wait a little while to complete my purchase and take home my shiny new gun.  I honestly have no idea how long a background check takes.  Let's say it takes a week, though--and I suspect it takes less time than that (and could, theoretically, be completed instantaneously with the proper technology)--well, so what?  If I buy a suit, I need to wait to take it home until alterations are done.  I can wait.  And minimal safeguards designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them are, frankly, worth a little inconvenience.  The only people who would truly be inconvenienced by requiring background checks at gun shows would be the people who would fail a background check outside of a gun show.  And guess what?  I don't care if those people are inconvenienced.  They should be!

So, to conclude: No one is coming to take away your guns.  And based on what President Obama suggested yesterday, largely nothing will change.  Now, can someone offer me a reasonable, logical answer as to why things shouldn't?

In Which We Apostrophize about Apostrophes

I've noticed a curious, not to say disturbing, trend in the recent online behavior of several correspondents.  When discussing activities conducted on a regular, weekly basis, many people now include apostrophes where, as far as I can tell, none are required.  For example, someone writes, "On Monday's I take my sloths to the sloth-washing facility for their weekly sloth-wash."  There's no reason for that apostrophe 's': The writer is not saying "On Monday is I take. . .," nor is she describing something in the possession of Monday.  The right word is "Mondays."

(I note, by the way, that when I typed "Mondays" above, I was not even chastised by Microsoft's famous red squiggle, further proof that the pluralization is perfectly acceptable.  Although, "pluralization" is apparently not, but that's another story.)

I hasten to point out that the people engaging in this random apostrophizing are generally well-educated and, indeed, skillful writers.  Whence, therefore, this unnecessary punctuation?  Answers are welcome.  Write me any time.  I can be reached on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays. . . .

In Which We Ponder What Is and Isn't Tyranny

In Oregon, a group of armed militiamen have occupied some federal buildings at what is essentially a birdwatching venue.  They are doing this in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond, local ranchers who have been ordered to report to federal prison to complete sentences they received for setting fires on federal land.  Interestingly, from what I've read about the Hammond case, the protesters have a point: It sounds like the fires were set by accident, and the Hammonds have, in fact, already served jail time--they are being ordered back to prison because "a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served were not long enough under federal law"--which I must admit sounds a little sketchy.  That being said, the Hammonds have apparently agreed to surrender as ordered, which makes the actions of the Birdbath Liberation Army seem somewhat disproportionate.

People like this often claim to be resisting the overreaching authority of a tyrannical federal government.  To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word [tyranny].  I do not think it means what you think it means."  Because despite what may well be a miscarriage of justice in the Hammonds' case, there is ample evidence that the federal government is not, in fact, a tyrannical dictatorship. For one thing, under a dictatorship, I suspect the BLA would find themselves bombed out of their enclave long before they could speak to the news media about how they are being repressed.

I'm reminded of a little throwaway gag George Carlin did on one of his concert albums.  Carlin, in the voice of an earnest reporter, informed us that someone had barricaded himself inside his home.  He went on to say that the person "is unarmed and nobody is paying any attention to him."  Of course, the BLA is armed, which makes this situation significantly less funny.