View Single Post
Old January 28, 2009, 10:41 AM   #245
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory.
This is a dubious assertion. We control many things even when there is no reasonbly apprehended danger present. We control what a cookie producer can print on the package about the fat content to protect people too thick (hardly any pun intended) to know that cookies consumed in quantity make people fat. We could make people register to buy cookies, and wait three days to pick them up. That "might put a dent" in the epidemic of obesity.

At different times and places, different restrictions have been imposed for different reasons, and even the same restriction can be suppported by different people for different reasons.

I've little doubt that some people support some restrictions as a matter of perceived safety, while other support restrictions as a matter of uncomplex intolerance.

Quote:
Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by.

The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that.
Given the existence of a specific provision in the COTUS, the position that arms are a special case doesn't seem implausible. Would you agree?

That doesn't force one to conclude that all restrictions are forbidden, but it does support a particularly wide birth for the right.

Quote:
I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.
I don't think you are the only person troubled by the mechanism by which the federal government controls MJ. The specific legislative scheme used seems odious to me; simply by switching a substance from one schedule to another, the federal government can somewhat arbitrarily prohibit a substance.

I am not an enthusiast for MJ legalisation, but the reach of federal regulatory authority and how it has come about is not a peculiarly libertarian concern.

But perhaps MJ and neurotoxins are tangential and not ideally analogous.
zukiphile is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03259 seconds with 8 queries