For so many years I was regularly confused about The Nation and the National Review. I knew one was a William F. Buckley conservative magazine and the other was more liberal and less dogmatic. Well, I finally straightened this confusion out by dating a young woman who worked at the National Review, thus relating The National Review with an over-heated studio apartment and a yeast infection; I also subscribed to The Nation and have been a fairly loyal reader for years.
This morning I pulled up an article from the National Review via the Daily Kos and without reading a single word I knew that it would be ideologically driven and probably not based firmly in reality … I was right! What I didn’t expect is that it would be so funny (although much of the humor came from the Daily Kos responding to the absurdity of the National Review).
Listening to the radio today I heard a reasonable suggestion for the control of guns in this country which removes the problem of being associated with government control. Furthermore, the capitalists should greatly benefit from the suggestion since it will open up a new revenue stream for the insurance industry.
It’s reasonably simple: do not restrict guns but make it a requirement to maintain liability insurance on each gun. This would be controlled by the insurance industry. Costs would, like all insurance, be based on the liability being insured; in other words, if you are a certified gun enthusiast, the insurance will be inexpensive, but if you have instances of domestic violence on your police record, the insurance might be so expensive that it makes gun ownership prohibitive. It is reasonable to assume the insurance companies will need to maintain a complete database to identify the guns they insure but since the government will not provide this function, there will be no objection (after all, the most comprehensive database of gun owners is at the NRA and no one complains about that).