Yes, absolutely it makes sense to have such laws even though criminals won't obey them, because if and when they're stopped or caught they deserve to pay for the damage they've done. No one argues otherwise about guns.
But he wants to expand infringements and punishments to be applied to prior restraints that have nothing to do with harmful actions. That's bait and switch, and a very disingenuous form of argument.
As for his (Alinsky Rule 5) ridicule that "nobody has ever complained that the government is trying to take our cars away," the same can't be said about guns.
As for making laws being "literally the only job" of lawmakers, yes, of course -- within the confines of "the supreme Law of the Land" and delegated authority. It doesn't matter how many "lying or deluded" Americans ignorant of that are "begging" for usurpations -- the Bill of Rights is there to keep a majority from disenfranchising the individual.
2 comments:
Except that those same authoritarians actually do want to "take your cars away".
www.buzzfeed.com/jessesinger/ban-cars?utm_term=.eyBWvpJvk7#.rrZ3MnRMV4
www.theblaze.com/news/2017/11/03/we-should-ban-cars-from-every-us-city-in-wake-of-truck-terror-attack-op-ed-writer-says
1973... 1973... I remember that year. That was the year OPEC decided to squeeze the West by jumping oil prices and restricting pumping. When prices at the pump went from 35 cents/gallon to $1.35/gallon people drove 70% less. Dang! And this guy says traffic fatalities fell by only 17 percent?? Maniac drivers!
That was also the era when seat belts were becoming standard equipment along with crumple zones and side-impact reinforcement. 17 percent, you say?
Oddly, when Congress repealed the NMSL in 1993, Montana changed its daytime speed limit from "55 saves lives" to "reasonable and prudent" and got a 29% fall off in highway fatalities in just nine months of 1994.
I suspect his crude analysis could use a little refining.
Post a Comment