|
Well, JimDandy, this may bring us back to the issue of preemption, and whether that is either truly a) attainable or b) desirable.
On the face of it, preventing homicides is an admirable goal.
The question is whether it is still admirable, if in order to attain any semblance of it we have to trample all over people's rights, or empower government to a degree which some find unacceptable.
The further question, if we decide we can accept trampling of rights and empowered government - which some of us can't, becomes how effective must preemption be in order for us to accept it?
So, if I were on the fence - and I am not, but we are speaking theoretically - I would still insist that in order for me to accept ANY infringement, I would want the government to have to prove how effective their program would actually be.
Instead, we get a lot of "Well, common sense says..."
We have not yet received the "In order to know what's in it, we have to pass it," argument, but I would not be surprised if that were trotted out.
Most of the debate, though, has revolved around the "feelings" of people, instead of the facts of what they want to do.
|