I notice a disconcerting tendency among mainstream liberals* to see restraints that most hurt normal people as legitimate in the name of restraint on the Crazy few.
No. If someone has done nothing wrong, & has not shown legit reason to suspect of such, there is NO such thing as a legitimate reason to restraint them, at all. To preserve liberty requires a presumption of it, to assume otherwise just leads to shackles on those that do not pose a threat.
(* - this is not to say the main impediments to freedom are from liberals. Rather, their ability to argue reasons that don't sound rooted in mere xenophobia & religion based bigotry makes their arguments for restraints more effective. )
Though I obviously disagree with the idea of gun control preventing these things, even in the case of sweeping bans, your bit about the socio-political context of them is spot on, IMO. We seem to love quick fixes to what's obviously more complicated than "let's pass another law!" -- meanwhile, the laws pile up like trash.
I notice a disconcerting tendency among mainstream liberals* to see restraints that most hurt normal people as legitimate in the name of restraint on the Crazy few.
No. If someone has done nothing wrong, & has not shown legit reason to suspect of such, there is NO such thing as a legitimate reason to restraint them, at all. To preserve liberty requires a presumption of it, to assume otherwise just leads to shackles on those that do not pose a threat.
(* - this is not to say the main impediments to freedom are from liberals. Rather, their ability to argue reasons that don't sound rooted in mere xenophobia & religion based bigotry makes their arguments for restraints more effective. )
Though I obviously disagree with the idea of gun control preventing these things, even in the case of sweeping bans, your bit about the socio-political context of them is spot on, IMO. We seem to love quick fixes to what's obviously more complicated than "let's pass another law!" -- meanwhile, the laws pile up like trash.