I just purchased my very first gun, a lovely 12 gauge pump-action shot gun. This may concern some of you. There is nothing worse than a eeeevil right-wing extremist who is armed.
I'm not a gun type person, never even fired one. I held one once as a kid, my uncle had a pistol that my mom hated. That moment was seminal. I never forgot what it felt like, cold and heavy. It was a dull gray color, and smelled of oil and gunpowder. He had a peculiar smirk as he handed it to me, a smile that seemed to say, "Here, take it kid, be a man."
Now I am 51 years old. I have lived in Montana nearly 30 years. Although Montana has a reputation as a fiercely rugged, individualistic place, somehow it took me this long to embrace this rite of passage towards becoming a real Montanan, dare I say, a real man.
On one hand I was reluctant to buy a gun, because a firearm is quintessential lethal force. The power of life and death is not one to assume lightly. On the other hand, standing at that gun counter in the store was as exciting as when I asked my wife out on our very first date.
The salesman knew. Obviously he had trod these paths many times. He had that somehow-familiar smirk on his face, one that reminded me of my uncle. "So you wanna buy a gun, huh?" he said with a wink. Hmm, did he say that, or did he really say, "Here, take it kid, be a man"?
I almost said that I was not some teenager buying condoms, but thought the better of it. After all, buying a gun might be like boarding an airplane. You just don't joke with the TSA.
My son had come along for his expertise. It needs to be a moment that is shared with your first-born. He already owns several firearms, and suggested a shotgun for "personal defense." He coolly informed me that in the heat of the moment, you don't have to be as accurate with your aim with a shotgun in order to stop an intruder.
On the back wall there was a rack with dozens of guns laid out in neat rows, some of which were unexpectedly expensive. This is certainly one reason I haven't owned a gun. I have other bad habits to waste my money on. My 67 Camaro convertible has received my financial devotion up to this point, so buying a gun (or a snowmobile, or a 4 wheeler) had never been in the cards.
So why the change of heart? Well, the world isn't as safe as it once was, and some big city problems seem to have made their way to Montana. Couple this with my belief in and admiration of the Constitution, I almost felt obligated.
I was surprised to discover how good it feels to exercise a constitutional right. You know, if the second amendment was treated the same way as other, more popular rights, not only would we acknowledge it - yes, celebrate it - we would be entitled to government funding.
Like my uncle's pistol, the shotgun I settled on was cold and gray. Fitting, I suppose, for an instrument of destruction. I didn't even know how to hold it, kind of like a new father with his infant child. I didn't want to drop it. The salesman indulgently showed me what to do.
I was surprised to find out that in Montana there is no waiting period. I walked in, filled out a form, they made a phone call, and I walked out. I thought that I would have to give a fingerprint, or a blood sample or maybe show a permission slip from Max Baucus or something.
So now I am proud gun owner, in the finest of Montana traditions. Or alternately, I am now a danger to myself and others.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Planning in Gallatin County - editorial for 6/16/10
Land use regulations. Growth policies. Long range planning. These all sound like good and desirable things. After all, planning ahead is what prudent people do.
However, government always seems to take things off the deep end. After all, if a little planning is a good thing, then a lot of planning ought to be a lot better. Even the minutiae, like a dog poster in a window, are regulated. Before long there are whole branches of government dedicated to controlling what you do with your property.
And it certainly is about control. Leftists love to tell other people what to do. These same people, who would scream loud and long if government was regulating what happens in their bedrooms, seem to have not problem at all with the idea of telling people what color to paint their houses.
Montana is going down this central planning road. I think it is a dangerous trend. These planners are no more intelligent than you or I, but they have power. Their use of this power, like all government intervention, has unintended consequences, consequences that are almost always negative.
For example, take my home state of Washington. Washington has a marvelously extensive tax base, including Boeing, Microsoft, and Weyerhauser. It has experienced an economic expansion of massive proportions in recent years. Yet last year they had a $2.8 Billion deficit. Rather than cut spending, they raised taxes and set themselves up for a projected $5.8 Billion deficit this year.
How can this happen? There are lots of reasons, many of which come from the faulty government-as-a-problem-solver mentality. Certainly oppressive land use regulation and its attendant bureaucracy is a contributing factor. All day long, planners sit in their cubicles and dream up new regulations. They monitor and dictate what can and can’t be done someone else’s property.
In Washington, zoning led to the 1990 Growth Management Act, which led to Comprehensive Plans, which lead to Uniform Development Codes, which lead to Critical Areas Ordinances, which lead to Shoreline Acts… you get the idea. These noble causes are all for the “greater good,” while simultaneously leading to the erosion of individual property rights. You see, when someone else can tell you what to do with your own property, you have ceded control, and therefore, ownership of it.
It was only a matter of time that creeping bureaucracy would come to Montana. Counties & cities all seem to have planning staffs that never seem to stop planning. They just keep planning and we keep paying.
Gallatin country has growth policy, a trails plan, a recreation plan, and something called the “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community Demonstration Project.” In addition, there are all sorts of committees, districts, and regulations, which you can see yourself at http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/planning.
Good intentions do not necessarily yield good results. And someone always has to pay. Open spaces, walking trails, and neighborhood beautification all sound wonderful, at least while prosperity is funding it, but when the economy takes a downturn, people start realizing how expensive these things are. Like other government programs, taxpayers always end up being stuck with the check.
You know, I am not opposed to reasonable zoning for things like ensuring public safety. Other things, like property values, appearance, or home density can be dealt with by neighborhood associations and covenants.
Ironically, the influence of planners spreads in exactly the same way as the growth they seek to control. Maybe we need a planning board to control the spread of central-planning government.
However, government always seems to take things off the deep end. After all, if a little planning is a good thing, then a lot of planning ought to be a lot better. Even the minutiae, like a dog poster in a window, are regulated. Before long there are whole branches of government dedicated to controlling what you do with your property.
And it certainly is about control. Leftists love to tell other people what to do. These same people, who would scream loud and long if government was regulating what happens in their bedrooms, seem to have not problem at all with the idea of telling people what color to paint their houses.
Montana is going down this central planning road. I think it is a dangerous trend. These planners are no more intelligent than you or I, but they have power. Their use of this power, like all government intervention, has unintended consequences, consequences that are almost always negative.
For example, take my home state of Washington. Washington has a marvelously extensive tax base, including Boeing, Microsoft, and Weyerhauser. It has experienced an economic expansion of massive proportions in recent years. Yet last year they had a $2.8 Billion deficit. Rather than cut spending, they raised taxes and set themselves up for a projected $5.8 Billion deficit this year.
How can this happen? There are lots of reasons, many of which come from the faulty government-as-a-problem-solver mentality. Certainly oppressive land use regulation and its attendant bureaucracy is a contributing factor. All day long, planners sit in their cubicles and dream up new regulations. They monitor and dictate what can and can’t be done someone else’s property.
In Washington, zoning led to the 1990 Growth Management Act, which led to Comprehensive Plans, which lead to Uniform Development Codes, which lead to Critical Areas Ordinances, which lead to Shoreline Acts… you get the idea. These noble causes are all for the “greater good,” while simultaneously leading to the erosion of individual property rights. You see, when someone else can tell you what to do with your own property, you have ceded control, and therefore, ownership of it.
It was only a matter of time that creeping bureaucracy would come to Montana. Counties & cities all seem to have planning staffs that never seem to stop planning. They just keep planning and we keep paying.
Gallatin country has growth policy, a trails plan, a recreation plan, and something called the “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community Demonstration Project.” In addition, there are all sorts of committees, districts, and regulations, which you can see yourself at http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/planning.
Good intentions do not necessarily yield good results. And someone always has to pay. Open spaces, walking trails, and neighborhood beautification all sound wonderful, at least while prosperity is funding it, but when the economy takes a downturn, people start realizing how expensive these things are. Like other government programs, taxpayers always end up being stuck with the check.
You know, I am not opposed to reasonable zoning for things like ensuring public safety. Other things, like property values, appearance, or home density can be dealt with by neighborhood associations and covenants.
Ironically, the influence of planners spreads in exactly the same way as the growth they seek to control. Maybe we need a planning board to control the spread of central-planning government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)