But the opposite could easily be true. After requiring background checks, the government may be more reluctant to impose other restrictions on gun ownership. [More]Then again, maybe if you domestic enemies hadn't time and again let slip your end game, this latest bit of slippery diversion might catch more with their guard down. And it's not a slope this subversive would lead us down, it's a precipice.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Greasing the Incline
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Oh! Cass Sunstein told me not to worry about more victim disarmament if we let them impose a little victim disarmament. It must be right then.
Holy [#######] $h1t.
No slippery slope?
1. 1967: I could mail order rifles and shotguns. Post-1968: I couldn't.
2. 1985: I could (and almost did) buy an Uzi submachinegun. Post-1986, I couldn't (the relatively few still legal for me were now priced out of my range).
3. 1989: I could walk past a school with my handgun. Post 1990, I couldn't, until the courts threw out the restriction.
4. 1991: I could buy a handgun at a gun show and leave with it. Post-1993, I couldn't, until the instant checks finally became effective.
5. Post-1993, the .22 plinker I could have easily bought in a gun store a few years before required a background check, despite being an honorably discharged militray veteran, former sworn peace officer, and private security officer.
6. 1993: I could buy a new SKS. Post-1994, I couldn't for a decade.
1994: I could walk past a school with my handgun. Post 1995, I couldn't.
7. 1994: I can lawfully posses my SKS. In 1995 in Columbus I could not thanks to an NRA-drafted compromise.
8. 1996: I could give my brother a defensive handgun. Post-1997, I couldn't (and then my unarmed brother was beaten to death in peaceful, pacifistic San Francisco; so now I really can't).
9. 2013: I was allowed to defend myself against violent aggression. In 2013 the state legislature voted to require me to run away faster than a speeding bullet.
10. 2013: I could repay a friend with a clean record by giving him a rifle. If Gottlieb-Toomey-Manchin had passed, post-2013, I wouldn't because I wouldn't have the money to cover the PPYI background check (if I had the money, I wouldn't have given away the rifle).
11. 2013: To become a "prohibited person" due to mental illness, a court would have to adjudicate me a danger. If Gottlieb-Toomey-Manchin had passed, the adjudication could be _assumed_ if I didn't challenge a bureaucrat's finding within 30 days even if I didn't know about the finding.
12. 2013: I can buy or sell a firearm privately without government permission. If Gottlieb-Toomey-Manchin had passed, I wouldn't.
Post a Comment