How To Argue Against Yourself, On Guns

From an op-ed in this paper yesterday on guns, arguing for universal background checks:

One is that it would lead to a registry of who owns what type of gun, and that could lead to someone coming for your firearms. Well, let’s see. We have car registries. You can own any number of cars of any caliber. I have heard of no one coming for your cars because you might use them to commit mayhem.

First of all, the gun-car comparison is bunk, because there’s no right to drive in the Constitution. Automobiles aren’t mentioned. Second of all, there’s no registry of all cars – cars only have to be registered in order to be operated on the public way. That’d be more like requiring that guns be registered in order to be used on public lands than it would be like requiring a universal registration.

Finally, though, even if you discount the absurdity of the comparison, there is no background check when you buy a car. There’s no waiting period. That comparison is actually an argument against your overall point, not for it. So fine, go ahead, make that ridiculous comparison that completely undermines your entire op-ed. Feel free.

Jim Fossel

About Jim Fossel

Originally from Alna, Jim Fossel has volunteered with a number of campaigns over the years, including for Peter Mills for Governor in 2006. He previously worked for U.S. Senator Susan Collins and House Republican Leader Josh Tardy.