Reasonable restrictions

Assuming we win the Heller case then if some bigot claims the functions of the ATF in regards to firearms and explosives are reasonable restrictions then shouldn’t we be justified in demanding for the creation of a government agency devoted to the “reasonable restrictions” of speech and religion?


3 thoughts on “Reasonable restrictions

  1. McCain-Feingold and the recent spate of removing religious symbols from public property, including war memorials– those are already considered “reasonable” by some.

    Making these kinds of points can come back to you– as soon as you point out how ridiculous something would be, someone will actually propose it. In this case it’s already been done. It wasn’t more than two months ago that Congress wrote a letter to Rush Limbaugh’s network affiliates in an attempt to intimidate them, and the “Fairness Doctrine” goes back many years.

  2. Actually, I would even say that in the interest of public safety, we should require licensing for having children. Nobody would be “denied” having children, but you’d have to take courses, pass a mental competence test, waive your 4th amendment rights from time to time for surprise inspections and have 20,000 laws which dictate exactly how you may raise your children – laws which differ from county to county, state to state.

    By poorly raising your child, he or she may turn out to be a menace to society. And if it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?

    Tell me, why is this any different?

  3. I proposed this to a friend of mine who didn’t see anything wrong with gun control laws. She agreed that licensing of child bearing was a good idea. She seemed to have some second thoughts when I pointed out that depending on who was in the administration at the time people of color and with a history of homosexuality in their family might not get their permits as easily as others (she is a lesbian with dark skin).

    I still don’t think she got the connection to gun rights.

Comments are closed.