In a good way, to be sure.
I'm gonna guess it was sometime in 2004 I first heard somebody say state-level activists would now start going for "Vermont Carry," and I thought, "Right. As soon as we've got vest-pocket fusion plants, flying cars, and anarcho-syndicalist orbital habitats at war with each other. With Amazon chicks in stretchy, form-fitting silver space suits. And rayguns. Then I'll start looking for the license requirements to go away. Til then, here's Joel not holding his breath."
Which is why you should never look to Uncle Joel for predictions about the future. I was a skeptic long before I was a believer. I only sort of became a believer because I could see it: It's right there. And I'm still not sure I believe it. Even though, like I said, it's right there.
The government conceding a right to carry arms is not the same as freedom. In fact, it says something to me about the government's attitude toward "citizens" carrying arms that I'm not sure I find comforting. But it's still pretty strange, to a guy who came of shooting age right around GCA '68. And pretty cool, in a "I still don't trust them" kind of way.
Hey, how 'bout we get some of those tireless activists to work on getting rid of the license requirement to drive a car? 'Cause that'd be really cool.
Tortured Poet
1 hour ago
1 comment:
Gun rights are easy because they are pretty narrow focus.
The problem is that "Freedom" itself is a nebulous concept; what the gun rights movement has done is to pick a slice of it with broad sales appeal, round up some like-minded folks (at least on that topic), and get to work.
(Incidentally, Indiana's state gun organization lobbyists are three retired guys who get an apartment in Indy during legislating season on their own dime and pester legislators and show 'em pictures of their grandkids until they say "Uncle". The mental picture of three part-time WalMart greeters badgering government into submission just brings a smile to my face...)
Post a Comment