SCOTUS is deciding how few cake crumbs they have to let fall off the table to prevent the peasants coming at them with pitchforks and torches. Government can ignore constitutional language like "shall not be infringed" each and every time they see it. Perhaps you fans of written constitutions could explain how your proposed magic-spell words will be more effective than "shall not be infringed".
Would you describe your own personal position as having some appreciation of the evils of government, but you do not see how to get rid of them? A negative result is also scientific progress. You do not have to have a better alternative in hand before you declare the current alternative to have failed. Nor do you have to be convinced by current ideas about anarchy. The historical record shows anarchy failing to liberate people from governments even more often than government enslaving them. Every government is a failure of anarchy.
I like the idea of expanding the self-defense weapon. A handgun gives a senior citizen in a wheelchair a chance against a robber. What self-defense balance of power effects would be created by a weapon that gives that senior citizen a chance against a team of home invaders? A large team? A small Golden Horde? If one could defend against twenty, might most of the twenty find honest jobs? Compare the improvements in automobiles in a hundred years vs. the improvement in handguns. Has the true purpose of gun control been preventing the conception and invention of a personal defensive weapon that makes politics uneconomic?
Codrea's Examiner column has it.
SCOTUS is deciding how few cake crumbs they have to let fall off the table to prevent the peasants coming at them with pitchforks and torches. Government can ignore constitutional language like "shall not be infringed" each and every time they see it. Perhaps you fans of written constitutions could explain how your proposed magic-spell words will be more effective than "shall not be infringed".
ReplyDeleteSpooner seems to have called it right.
ReplyDeleteOuch! Thanks, I didn't know of that quote.
ReplyDeleteWould you describe your own personal position as having some appreciation of the evils of government, but you do not see how to get rid of them? A negative result is also scientific progress. You do not have to have a better alternative in hand before you declare the current alternative to have failed. Nor do you have to be convinced by current ideas about anarchy. The historical record shows anarchy failing to liberate people from governments even more often than government enslaving them. Every government is a failure of anarchy.
I like the idea of expanding the self-defense weapon. A handgun gives a senior citizen in a wheelchair a chance against a robber. What self-defense balance of power effects would be created by a weapon that gives that senior citizen a chance against a team of home invaders? A large team? A small Golden Horde? If one could defend against twenty, might most of the twenty find honest jobs? Compare the improvements in automobiles in a hundred years vs. the improvement in handguns. Has the true purpose of gun control been preventing the conception and invention of a personal defensive weapon that makes politics uneconomic?