Above -- Why I didn't write yesterday. (Did you know a dog can double as a pillow? My wife greatly enjoyed snapping this shot.)
- So I reluctantly head back to the horror of Newtown for a couple of more thoughts. It seems to me that the focus of most of the discussions has been on legal restrictions on types of gun and ammunition ownership and how these can be squared with political reality and the federal courts' expanding notions of Second Amendment rights. I am thinking along the lines of a more market driven solution, i.e. the use of civil remedies against manufacturers of weapons and ammunition may be the most effective way to curb the proliferation of these inherently dangerous instruments. In other words, impose a legal regime of strict liability on the manufacturers of guns and ammunition as well as those who sell them. If your weapon or your bullets -- as manufacturer or importer or retailer -- are used in the commission of a violent act, you will be civilly liable in tort to the victims. Under such a regime, it is not difficult to imagine a large number of makers of guns and ammunition, along with sellers, being put out of business in short order. And it avoids all of the pesky Second Amendment issues.
- Well my idea may not be perfect, but in comparison to that idiot Megan McArdle's take on things, it looks like pure genius. The list of things about which Megan knows nothing is a dauntingly long one, but good God, matters like these are just completely outside of her frame of reference. Clearly here is a woman who knows nothing about 1) small children; 2) semiautomatic assault weapons; and 3) what it is to be in mortal danger -- but hey, I think having 5 and 6 year-olds try and swarm a madman wielding a Bushmaster is genius.
- Like Josh Marshall, I find the notion that gun ownership is the basis for our freedom as Americans to be offensive and laughable. I would be hard pressed to think of a single instance in American history where arms wielded by civilians have advanced the cause of freedom. (Please enlighten me if I've overlooked something.) I find it similarly preposterous when people make the same claim for military veterans . I say that not to disparage military service but as a reflection on what most of our veterans have been asked to do in recent times. Were American civil liberties really at stake in the outcome of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again? WWII was against an enemy so powerful and vicious that I suppose one can make the case. Other than that, what are we looking at? WWI? The war to end wars was hardly a boon to American freedom. The Spanish American War? Promoted the freedom to exploit and colonize. Ditto the Mexican American War. The Civil War is the only American war I can think of that directly brought about enhanced American freedoms. Anyone else see it differently?
Alright, must grab the dog pillow and head for bed. Got an early train to Philly to catch. What else say ye?
