Okay, the example is for “rational management” but I figure that is an attempt to dodge the bullet (figuratively) coming his way with the name “reasonable restrictions” on it:
The high-muckety-media histrionics have been comical. One howler was a clueless-as-usual Washington Post editorial harrumphing that Washington DC may still “devis[e] regulations that can provide for rational management of gun ownership.”
“Rational management?” Snrk …
For the sake of argument, isn’t “rational management” of printing-press ownership a terrific idea, limiting it to those who scrupulously adhere to known facts? Oh, the high dudgeon! Why, people would rise up in ARMS, for heaven’s sake!
Imagine this: Two talking heads, brows furrowed, power ties immaculately knotted, pompously declaiming how to “rationally” destroy (excuse me, MANAGE) the right they disfavor:
Second: “Guns can be dangerous.”
First: “Editorials can be dangerous.”
Second: “Gun owners need a government permit.”
First: “Journalists need government permits.”
Second: “People should be made to wait ten days before buying a gun.”
First: “Reporters and editors should cool off ten days before writing.”
Second: “We must ban guns that fire more than one shot in rapid succession.”
First: “We must ban printing presses that print more than one page in rapid succession. And those Web servers! Millions of hits per hour? Dangerous!”
Second: “Oh, but that’s different! Guns can bring down a government!”
First: “And free speech can’t?”
The question here is, how should Americans respond to those seeking “rational management” of any of our civil liberties?
I would also like to suggest that perhaps even better success could be had by discussing the “rational management” or “reasonable restrictions” of blacks freed by the 13th Amendment.