Things like that always make me begin doubting the "conclusions" in such pieces ~ not necessarily the "facts" or "factoids", but the secondary results of too-casual analysis of the situation.
Frankly, once you've missed being "bombed" you develop a clear-cut aversion to the idea that bombers should be allowed to run loose.
The Democrats, on the other hand, think nothing of mad bombers getting Presidential pardons or commutations of sentence. We even have a case where one convicted bomber became a serious campaign advisor to the highest levels of the Democratic party (SEE: Brent Kimberlin for example).
Very good article. It applies far beyond the narrow scope of knives. Many people on this forum would agree with its narrow scope but contradict themselves on it's wider application to issues such as the war on drugs, anti-smoking laws, pornography and other inalienable rights.
"-- puritanism's unbroken record of failure will not stop people from trying again and again.
Every new generation is born with faith in the power of magic words -- written laws -- to prevent sin.
And every American generation for the past century and a half has produced its own new wave of oppressive and futile [prohibitive] laws. --"
As you note Zon, great essay..
Lets see what some of FR's foremost prohibitionists have to say about the war on knives..
28 tpaine
muawiyah:
The writer certainly put together a lot of stuff on knives, but he attributed the anti-knife legislation of the early part of the 20th century to "bombings".
The 'anarchist threat' of that era is much akin to the mad bomber threat of today. -- Both can be used to effect repressive 'laws' on carrying arms.
Things like that always make me begin doubting the "conclusions" in such pieces ~ not necessarily the "facts" or "factoids", but the secondary results of too-casual analysis of the situation.
Whats "too-casual" about the fact that we are losing the right to carry arms without licensing laws? Why would you doubt that conclusion?
Frankly, once you've missed being "bombed" you develop a clear-cut aversion to the idea that bombers should be allowed to run loose.
How do you develop a clear cut test to separate potential bombers from ordinary citizens and prevent them from "running loose"? Lord forbid that in allowing citizens to 'run loose' we encourage mad bombers to do so.
The Democrats, on the other hand, think nothing of mad bombers getting Presidential pardons or commutations of sentence. We even have a case where one convicted bomber became a serious campaign advisor to the highest levels of the Democratic party (SEE: Brent Kimberlin for example).
Thus we conservatives should institute repressive laws on concealed weapons in order to insure that mad bombers can't run loose carrying? -- [or am I making a too-casual analysis of your ideas about the situation?]