The incremental approach, where the individual's constitutional guarantee is weighed against some alleged governmental or societal need, inevitably leads to the loss of rights, sometimes to their total destruction.Seattle Times:
Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said Saturday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.What's the matter, Chris, this isn't "incremental" enough for you?
My question always is: who gets to decide if you are mentally defective? A raging hoplophobic psychiatrist who believes that the desire to own a gun is a sign of mental instability? (They're only good for killing, therefore if you want one you obviously plan to kill someone). How about an atheist who thinks you shouldn't have a gun because if you believe in God you're obviously too stupid to own such a thing. What about someone in "authority" who claims to believe in God, but decides "godless heathens" or homosexuals are mentally defective and shouldn't own guns?
The NRA is in the business of perpetuating a certain level of freedom control. If they allow too many freedoms, their justification for existence would end.
But don't take my word for it.
"Good politics." That phrase makes my stomach churn.
Via The Liberty Zone.
UPDATE: More good points at Joe Huffman's blog.
UPDATE 2: More info at Gun Law News.
