Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Would it be thuggish of me to suggest a focus more on the OP's points of our right to life, and self defense, and the govt's decent into preventive laws?
I don't see it as thuggish, but it may not be very controversial.
As a political matter, I imagine there would be a strong consensus here should be free to behave as he pleases until he harms another, in which event he can be prosecuted.
As a legal matter, the ship sailed long ago on the issue of whether the federal government has authority to legislate to prevent putative harm. As much as I respect the libertarian impulse, it is not a measure of constitutionality.
So, the really persuasive point in the article is that the proposed restrictions are not actually preventative of any harm. The proposed restrictions very conspicuously do not bear on any harmful activity.
Beyond Binswanger's conclusion, quite a few here might take exception to his ideas about government, but those would be more broadly political discussions than I understand are sought in this forum.