Gun regulation (because calling it “gun control” is a little too utopian for me) is a huge topic, bigger than a single blog bleat.
But let me bite off a little piece of what passes for the current “debate” and chew on it.
It’s popular right now to suggest that there be a “no-buy” list, like the terror watch and no-fly lists. Further, some people say we need a secret court to rule on your buy/no-buy eligibility. One such advocate,a UCLA law professor, says it would be like the FISA wiretap courts, and if sounds unconstitutional or creepy, that’s OK because we did worse things, like the Japanese internment.
We can do bad stuff, as long as it’s not the worst stuff we’ve ever done?
But back to the Star Chamber idea. Why do I get the feeling that people who would accord the federal government, the Attorney General and these secret justices all this child-like trust are envisioning the current administration with this power? It’d be OK, like, right now.
Many of these same do-gooders, I’ll bet, were the ones who wrote articles and lobbed dire accusations against Bush for misusing the wiretap court and circumventing due process with terror detainees and the like. Why would a secret court now be trustworthy? Trust it with Obama, but not Bush? How about Trump? How about the winner in 2024 who we haven’t even heard of today?
I find that people often advocate more government power when their guys are in power. Then, when they’re on the outside looking in because they lost an election or two, suddenly they’re big on checks-and-balances, transparency, etc., etc.
Human nature, yes, but no way to run a republic. Don’t give our overlords of today power and leeway you’d fear in the regime of tomorrow.