Esteves
04-20-2007, 09:53 PM
A lengthy read, but worth it.
http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/blr/blr71ii_johnson.pdf
...
There is a final practical point. It is obvious that many
of us weight the costs of guns differently. Some people
viscerally hate guns, see no utility in them and think it is
insane to talk about balancing factors like the benefits of
defensive gun use and the political value of an armed citizenry.
These benefits though are for a second group, core points in a
thoughtful approach to the gun question. And there is a third
group that is just as visceral about gun rights as the first is
about gun control.
The single thing all three groups agree on is that there
are some people who should not have guns—criminals, the
insane, etc. Beyond that there seems little common ground.
Because many in the first group have acknowledged that their
ultimate aim is prohibition but also have said it will have to be
achieved incrementally, those in the second and third group
tend to view many gun control proposals as another scoot down
the slippery slope. If the Court finally takes prohibition off the
table by affirming that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right, the central barrier to consensus on measures
that would further restrict the untrustworthy from accessing
guns would dissolve. That would be good for all of us.
http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/blr/blr71ii_johnson.pdf
...
There is a final practical point. It is obvious that many
of us weight the costs of guns differently. Some people
viscerally hate guns, see no utility in them and think it is
insane to talk about balancing factors like the benefits of
defensive gun use and the political value of an armed citizenry.
These benefits though are for a second group, core points in a
thoughtful approach to the gun question. And there is a third
group that is just as visceral about gun rights as the first is
about gun control.
The single thing all three groups agree on is that there
are some people who should not have guns—criminals, the
insane, etc. Beyond that there seems little common ground.
Because many in the first group have acknowledged that their
ultimate aim is prohibition but also have said it will have to be
achieved incrementally, those in the second and third group
tend to view many gun control proposals as another scoot down
the slippery slope. If the Court finally takes prohibition off the
table by affirming that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right, the central barrier to consensus on measures
that would further restrict the untrustworthy from accessing
guns would dissolve. That would be good for all of us.