Even its proponents will often be compelled to admit: This is a strange type of law.
There’s precedent for granting bounties to private citizens, and it’s very probably lawful to use the civil courts instead of criminal for enforcement in this or a similar fashion. Even if it’s not, centering a counter-argument on this point is an error anyway. Those who invented the bill in the first place are attempting to choose the ground for the next fight over what is effectively a “heartbeat law” on abortion.
In the last article, the statement was made that “it’s because of the First Amendment that the Second can be discussed”. The price of freedom is freedom; the ability to discuss a topic makes it inevitable that such topic will be brought up. As such, it well behooves us to be prepared for that conversation when it comes, whether on a personal or a national level.
When there’s a crisis, people tend focus on the present situation and ignore the abstract, regardless of the wisdom of doing so. This is reason enough for us to do the opposite. And so I pose for consideration the following question:
Of what use are property rights to a man who has no property?
You’re going to hear this asked a lot going forward. It’s an important question, and one well-deserving of an answer, but posing it directly risks missing the point of what’s been happening in Minnesota and across the country. Because there are only two reasonable answers immediately apparent, and neither holds up to scrutiny. (more…)
It’s said even Reagan was against every Tom, Dick, and Harry owning an AK-47. And that may well be true; on the other hand, what difference does it make? We should keep this discussion to the essentials, and reduce whatever we can to its core.
There exists a philosophical difficulty with banning “assault rifles”; it can be (more…)