Yesterday there was a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rivkin and Grossman on "Gun Control and the Constitution." I didn't think it was particularly good, but it did remind me that constitutional protections of all kinds have repeatedly been infringed by the government. The authors say of abridging constitutionality that "Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important."
There has been a lot of silly talk by not-very-bright people of the kind that think it's somehow an argument to call people "idiots" and "bitches" who don't seem to get at any part of the real arguments. I find that frustrating, because this is quite an important issue, but there is little clear thinking about it.
Stupid argument 1: The government can't and doesn't infringe our gun rights ever ever ever ever and if they ever did this would be the end of the world world world!!!!!
Not so: the government has infringed this Constitutional right all along: no grenades, no submachine guns, no sawed off shotguns, no nukes. Could we please dispense with this sort of non-think?
Stupid argument 2: It's a slippery slope greased with Crisco! Butter! No. 30 motor oil!! If they take away Bubba Boy's 14 assault rifles and his 26 100-round high-capacity magazines, or even just make it illegal for the poor guy to buy the other 17 he wants, that means they'll come after the pistol everyone else keeps in their sock drawer for home defense and the burglars will kill us all!!!!!
Not so: weapons confiscation hasn't happened ever, and they banned the assault rifles for ten years already and none of that happened.
The government "infringes" on constitutional liberties all the time: speech and religion as well as the many prohibition on weapons ownership already in place.
So does anyone who is able to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?
There has been a lot of silly talk by not-very-bright people of the kind that think it's somehow an argument to call people "idiots" and "bitches" who don't seem to get at any part of the real arguments. I find that frustrating, because this is quite an important issue, but there is little clear thinking about it.
Stupid argument 1: The government can't and doesn't infringe our gun rights ever ever ever ever and if they ever did this would be the end of the world world world!!!!!
Not so: the government has infringed this Constitutional right all along: no grenades, no submachine guns, no sawed off shotguns, no nukes. Could we please dispense with this sort of non-think?
Stupid argument 2: It's a slippery slope greased with Crisco! Butter! No. 30 motor oil!! If they take away Bubba Boy's 14 assault rifles and his 26 100-round high-capacity magazines, or even just make it illegal for the poor guy to buy the other 17 he wants, that means they'll come after the pistol everyone else keeps in their sock drawer for home defense and the burglars will kill us all!!!!!
Not so: weapons confiscation hasn't happened ever, and they banned the assault rifles for ten years already and none of that happened.
The government "infringes" on constitutional liberties all the time: speech and religion as well as the many prohibition on weapons ownership already in place.
So does anyone who is able to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?