Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."
Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...
"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "
Yes, that is the road to tyranny.
"Does that sound reasonable to you?"
No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.
|
If you agreed to my reasoning of what led to the road to tyranny, and then said it was unreasonable because if the government takes that road there is nothing you can do to stop it, then I don't know what reasonable means to you.
Unless . . . oh . . . unless, since reasonableness can't stop the fed from killing you, reasonableness can give the fed power to stop you from killing others. Yeah, I see a sort of symmetry there. Yeah, tyranny is the only reasonable way to stop killings, except of course, it can't stop government from doing so.
I kind of think that's what I sort of said or implied by references to
Brave New World and world wide bans on production of guns which are portrayed as nonsense suggestions.
Threaded Mode