But Ron, without an individual right holding, there isn't much slippery slope to argue about. Why not just directly prohibit all firearms in private hands? Why not just let everybody build a suitcase nuke?
Are these questions answered democratically, in the legislatures, or are the answers to be found in what the scriveners of the Constitution took to be enduring principles that might grow or shrink over time but are, in their essence, placed beyond the majoritarian will? If there is not an individual right, then it seems to me that people who just hate guns and people who just love guns are entitled to their emotions and people who want to critique the latest econometric gee-gaw can do that or the voters can divine the future from steaming goat entrails but the only thing that really matters is how people vote, not why. If there is an individual right, then there must be some principled exposition of what that right means in law that can at least pretend to stand superior to steaming goat entrails, Bush v. Gore notwithstanding. Hence my remark that I'm almost more interested in the Supremes saying something about the individual right theory than I am in what they say. Steve Russell > And, yes it would be nice if the SC would make a definitive ruling that the > individual right prevails subject to reasonable regulation. But, there is > where the whole idea comes a cropper. > > Stingers in the closet not permissable? Probably most would agree. But, > here in CA and on the federal level we have seen virtual bans put on > semi0-auto copies of military rifles even though there is no appreciable > difference between those rifles and 30-odd million more "traditionally" > styled semiauto rifles. And, there is an ongoing move to outlaw even bolt > action rifles if they fire a cartridge that some people feel is "too > big"...the .50 BMG. You can see the slippery slope problem....if a > bolt-action .50 BMG can be outlawed as too powerful, what about the .500 > Nitro or the .505 Gibbs or the .600 Nitro. The devil is in the details it > seems and I wonder if there can ever be agreement between the two factions. > >
