let the gun ban games begin

[larvatus]

I deny any predictability in politics, but there are many hurdles on the way to enacting any new Federal gun control laws:

1. Economics: we have enough guns to arm each American citizen, resident alien, and illegal immigrant. Confiscation without compensation is politically impossible, whereas confiscation with compensation would be economically ruinous. Besides, the state of global economy leaves little room for compounding the Congressional constipation that hold captive any possible means of its resuscitation, by yet another polemical bottleneck.
2. History: though I am far from the absurdity of their right wing anarchism, I admire the panache with which the Tea Party has commandeered the House of Representatives in the wake of the enactment of Obamacare. Moreover, our elected officials are by law old enough to remember the Republican Revolution ushered in by the 1994 AWB, and preponderantly most mindful of remaining in office. Any other motives they might have would be trumped by concerns for reëlection.
3. Law: the SCOTUS rulings of the last four years imply that keeping and bearing effective small arms in common use is Constitutionally protected, and their regulation cannot be upheld but by passing at least the intermediate scrutiny test, through showing that it furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. Black rifles and handguns, the most likely targets of gun banners, are especially unlikely to pass this test in virtue of their utility and ubiquity. (Ironically, the former ascended to their status of the most popular long guns in the U.S. as a result of the 1994 AWB.) Update: Moreover, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), appears to leave as little room for the Congress to debar Americans from owning certain goods, as it does for it to require their purchase of broccoli.
4. Stupidity: no idea is so sensible that our political debate cannot dumb it down fatally, and will not do so inevitably. Ideas most likely to elicit a consensus, such as criminal liability for unsafe storage of firearms, can and will be reduced to prospective measures repugnant to most gun owners, even as they remain inadequate to most nanny staters.

That said, the Gun Ban Games will be loads of fun to live through.

Comments

My perspective on RKBA #2

[hyok-kim.livejournal.com]

"4.Stupidity: no idea is so sensible that our political

debate cannot dumb it down fatally, and will not do so

inevitably."

Dear Zeleny, arn't you the person who said, "Never get close enough to Goats to test their logic."?

You've been to enough gun forums. What do you think of the quality of the debate overall? Btw. Calguns is not even the worst of the lot. At least one gun forum eliminated political, even RKBA stuff discussion, because of they were patently embarrassed of the quality of the discussion.

Others try very hard to steer clear of political discussions. These are the people supposedly on the 'right' side of a 'good' fight.



"Ideas most likely to elicit a consensus, such as criminal

liability for unsafe storage of firearms, can and will be

reduced to prospective measures repugnant to most gun

owners, even as they remain inadequate to most nanny

staters."


Well, as far as I see, Anti-RKBA are going for semi-auto guns descended from Assault rifles, and mag with more than 10 shot capacity.

Re: My perspective on RKBA #2

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

I mean stupidity in a technical sense: “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.” It’s not clear to me that a large fraction of online debates qualifies as such.

Re: My perspective on RKBA #2

[hyok-kim.livejournal.com]

"I mean stupidity in a technical sense: “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.”"

So you do agree with Pareto. What you just described above is basically 'Paretian Optimal'.



"It’s not clear to me that a large fraction of online debates qualifies as such."

Another way of saying the same thing is it is clear to me that only a small fraction of online debates doesn't qualify clearly as stupid in a technical sense.