Posted by Eugene Volokh:
A Little Short on Specifics, No?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_30-2008_12_06.shtml#1228287447
The [1]New York Times editorializes in favor of "sound gun-control
laws." Which ones? "Reasonable gun-control laws," which can now be
enacted following the "gun lobby"'s defeat in November. (No word on
the success of the "gay lobby," "abortion lobby," "women's lobby," and
so on.)
I'm all for sound and reasonable gun-control laws. Who wouldn't be? By
definition, they are sound and reasonable, not the unsound and
unreasonable kind that I oppose. (I should note that nearly everyone
supports some gun control laws that they see as sound and reasonable,
if only, say, bans on violent felons' possessing guns, or if you
really insist on minimalism, bans on violent felons' possessing guns
in prison.) Now if only the Times tells us exactly what those laws are
-- all I see in the editorial is a quote from President-Elect Obama
about "keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals," and nothing
beyond that -- then we might have a conversation. I'd prefer a
conversation on the substance, but even a conversation on the
political question on which the Times is focusing would require some
specifics. It's hard to gauge voters' likely reactions to proposals
that aren't identified.
Oh, and here's the closing paragraph:
We hope the trend [of the NRA's supposed political failures]
continues. To fight crime and keep Americans safe, this country
needs sound gun-control laws. To pass those laws as president, Mr.
Obama will need strong Congressional support.
Thanks very much for the enlightening observations!
References
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/opinion/02tue3.html?_r=2
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
