AND, SOMETIMES, one will grow — like Topsy. This is me, in comments to this, at Joe’s.
I should like to insert a small note here.
I do not believe that there can be a truly compelling public interest which morally requires the infringement on the rights of a single individual. I assert that the claim is risible and founded in an abysmal (dare I say, deliberate) misunderstanding of individual rights.
All negative externalities I have heard put forth for, e.g., infringements on RKBA, can be dealt with through a negotiation between two private individuals — even granted albeit the negotiations are conducted under state auspices. Society as a whole has no legitimate interest. The claim that gun control is needed for the maintenance of good social order is a notion that simply cannot pass a horselaugh test. (See Lott’s own studies.)
I understand that the legal folk feel it necessary to pay lip service (at least) to certain collectivist notions, but — really — they don’t stand up to scrutiny. They just don’t. I think even Lott (PBUH) is immune to this, as wise as he appears otherwise. It is not the conventional wisdom, true. But, absent even the smallest push back in favor of individualism, thus will it always remain. Consider me the pebble before the avalanche.
Didn’t start out to be a micro tompaine, but … sometimes, that just happens.