So apparently New York City is proposing new criteria for would-be gun-owners - banning folks from having weapons if they happen to be lousy drivers, been fired from a job due to bad character, or in possession of serious debt.
According to council-member Dan Halloran, these changes give police more power to reject licenses, in order to counter a possible upswing in gun ownership caused by new, lower fees.
Now I'm all for keeping guns out the hands of bad people.
But I'm also for getting guns into the hands of good people.
But I must ask: how does being a bad driver, make you a bad person? And getting fired? I've been canned three times - does that mean I can't have a glock? I mean, I shouldn't have a glock - but not for that reason. There was an incident in Shreveport that ended that dream.
As for being in debt? That eliminates everyone here on this set. And also John Gibson - who still owes me $1300 for that lost weekend in Cancun.
So yeah, these new restrictions seem pretty vague.
But there's something else here that stinks. If the government can link certain good behaviors to gun ownership, who's going to define what's good?
Think about it. Your fitness to own a gun might only be approved as long as you fulfill a strict criteria that appeals only to the modern, annoying civil servant.
Perhaps, to own a gun, you'll have to possess an impeccable recycling history, participate regularly in Take Your Daughter to Work Day, watch The Daily Show religiously, and ban trans-fats from your kids diet. So you didn't run the 5k on Earth Day? And you chose to rent "the expendables" over "Eat Pray Love?"
Sorry, no Smith & Wesson for you.
But worse, if you take guns out of the hands of decent people, you'll never learn how to carve a pumpkin, the fun way:
And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, glockophobe.