Sorry to take so long getting back to you--it's been a busy week. What you say about prior restraint makes sense; I got into a similar conversation with someone recently who brought up the illegality of possessing (not distributing, just possessing) computer virus source code.
You pose a slippery-slope argument: if guns are banned because they're dangerous and certain people don't like them, then so must/will be cars, homosexuality, certain religions . . . . But a complementary slippery slope could be posed: if banning the mere possession of something dangerous is anathema to freedom, and we can ban only the use of dangerous objects, then you and I and my neighbor Clyde have the right to possess all kinds of things: virus code, firearms, anthrax, nerve gas, thermonuclear weapons--as long as we don't use them, and of course if Clyde gets testy one night and nukes Sacramento, then he should be tried and punished harshly.
All of which proves, I think, that slippery-slope arguments lead to silliness.
Common sense keeps us on reasonably level ground. My neighbor and I have a right to possess certain implements, even if they're dangerous, when we agree that the implements have legitimate uses and don't exceed a certain threshold of lethality: as far as I'm concerned, virus code (for study), a car (for transportation, and yes even fifty cars, even though that's excessive in my view), a baseball bat (and we'll just pass over the fact that my neighbor never plays baseball and keeps the bat for self-defense). Once we get into dangerous and/or lethal implements that have no real purpose other than destruction, killing, threatening to kill, and target shooting, some limits become reasonable. Virus code? On a secure box, sure. A shotgun? Sure, if it's locked away from thieves and kids. A handgun? Ditto--but now we're getting into weaponry that's as well suited to offense as to defense. A case of dynamite? A nuke? What in hell does Clyde want with those? At some point--and just where this point is, is what all the shouting's about--Clyde and I have a right to mutually prohibit certain dangerous possessions--to exercise our right as free men to infringe on each other's freedom, if you will.
In related news, I've been reading Bellesiles' Arming America. Pretty interesting. Looks like the "well-regulated militia" that was supposed to be "necessary to the security of a free State" hardly ever existed in the real world of the Colonies. Colonial governments had a hell of a time getting men to show up for militia duty--typically all they could get out of them was one muster per year, just long enough for everyone to see how poorly trained they were, how few of them had guns or ammo, how few of the men and how few of their guns were capable of actually hitting a target, and how much the men liked to drink. If hostile Indians attacked, the militia was generally useless; the colonies got better defense from regular soldiers (which they regularly begged Parliament to send) and friendly Indians.
The exceptions to the rule were (IIRC) South Carolina and Virginia, where the militia had the additional duty of patrolling the slaves, watching for and putting down slave rebellions. This constant motivation and exercise kept the militia fairly competent, though not at the level of professional soldiers. There's little doubt in my mind that some of the impetus for the Second Amendment came from states where slavery and the patrollers were long-standing institutions; the future of state militias was not clear at that time, and the strength of the future federal forces was unknown; slave states would not want to depend on a federal army drawn partly from free states to help keep their slaves down. Could be the free-state delegates felt the same way.
no subject
You pose a slippery-slope argument: if guns are banned because they're dangerous and certain people don't like them, then so must/will be cars, homosexuality, certain religions . . . . But a complementary slippery slope could be posed: if banning the mere possession of something dangerous is anathema to freedom, and we can ban only the use of dangerous objects, then you and I and my neighbor Clyde have the right to possess all kinds of things: virus code, firearms, anthrax, nerve gas, thermonuclear weapons--as long as we don't use them, and of course if Clyde gets testy one night and nukes Sacramento, then he should be tried and punished harshly.
All of which proves, I think, that slippery-slope arguments lead to silliness.
Common sense keeps us on reasonably level ground. My neighbor and I have a right to possess certain implements, even if they're dangerous, when we agree that the implements have legitimate uses and don't exceed a certain threshold of lethality: as far as I'm concerned, virus code (for study), a car (for transportation, and yes even fifty cars, even though that's excessive in my view), a baseball bat (and we'll just pass over the fact that my neighbor never plays baseball and keeps the bat for self-defense). Once we get into dangerous and/or lethal implements that have no real purpose other than destruction, killing, threatening to kill, and target shooting, some limits become reasonable. Virus code? On a secure box, sure. A shotgun? Sure, if it's locked away from thieves and kids. A handgun? Ditto--but now we're getting into weaponry that's as well suited to offense as to defense. A case of dynamite? A nuke? What in hell does Clyde want with those? At some point--and just where this point is, is what all the shouting's about--Clyde and I have a right to mutually prohibit certain dangerous possessions--to exercise our right as free men to infringe on each other's freedom, if you will.
In related news, I've been reading Bellesiles' Arming America. Pretty interesting. Looks like the "well-regulated militia" that was supposed to be "necessary to the security of a free State" hardly ever existed in the real world of the Colonies. Colonial governments had a hell of a time getting men to show up for militia duty--typically all they could get out of them was one muster per year, just long enough for everyone to see how poorly trained they were, how few of them had guns or ammo, how few of the men and how few of their guns were capable of actually hitting a target, and how much the men liked to drink. If hostile Indians attacked, the militia was generally useless; the colonies got better defense from regular soldiers (which they regularly begged Parliament to send) and friendly Indians.
The exceptions to the rule were (IIRC) South Carolina and Virginia, where the militia had the additional duty of patrolling the slaves, watching for and putting down slave rebellions. This constant motivation and exercise kept the militia fairly competent, though not at the level of professional soldiers. There's little doubt in my mind that some of the impetus for the Second Amendment came from states where slavery and the patrollers were long-standing institutions; the future of state militias was not clear at that time, and the strength of the future federal forces was unknown; slave states would not want to depend on a federal army drawn partly from free states to help keep their slaves down. Could be the free-state delegates felt the same way.