She fell in love in the Spring,
And somehow broke it.
why this particular type of freedom of association should be banned
the IRS, and the general expansion of the administrative state, offer literally hundreds of thousands of [pages of] reasons why
Regret lateness of last night's reply resulting in an incomplete thought.
And neither do unions. Unions work for their members.
Thank you for making my argument for me. Private sector unions are an obvious extension of freedom of association. But public sector unions, as you note, work for their members. The inescapable conclusion is that a public sector union, over time, is going to serve its members, to the detriment of the public.
We understood that the Commies were attacking the culture, subverting academia and Hollywood. One must offer props to them for infiltrating the IRS. The suppression of the Tea Parties leading up to the 2012 election, with a wink from the GOP, and to the surprise of Mitt the Milquetoast, was a brilliant bit of work.
The Constitution is an expression of a lack of faith in people, irrespective of their labels du jour.
Your bogus rate of fire argument is a (perhaps not deliberate) attempt to distract from the 2A's absolute right of self defense.
The NRA is so strong, and the blowback against gungrabbers so strident, because nobody is buying the 'boil the frog' argument. The Left is understood to argue in bad faith, because the Left ultimately hates liberty and wishes to reduce a free people to livestock.
And why is it that on other matters you are fine to leave the states and jurisdictions to pass their own laws, but on this particular situation you want the federal government to step in and tell the smaller governments how to do their jobs?
Let's flip that around, and inquire why the 14th Amendment has been used to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights except the 2A, against the smaller governments?
Hint: "educe a free people to livestock" is the ultimate goal.
which goes well with your general disdain for organized labor. What you have not answered though is why this particular type of freedom of association should be banned when others are not.
I think the IRS, and the general expansion of the administrative state, offer literally hundreds of thousands of reasons why.
If someone choses of their own free will to be part of a union how is that different from choosing of their own free will to be a member of a specific church?
Crazy thing is, we don't have churches making decisions about how to regulate the lives of random people. I really don't know how to make this distinction more obvious to the oblivious.
My point is that the whole "morally blameworthy" is excessively squishy.
Only for the rationalizing sack of crap in the crowd, or those who place religious levels of faith in the state.
your original thesis here is that if the high capacity magazine ban where equally enforced (and existed where the interview you mention took place) then your Mr. Gregory would be expecting to serve jail time.
The other direction the reaction could go is that people say "Ah, all of these DC abridgements of the Second Amendment are a pile of crap, and we should strike them."
Whacky thing is, the state never seems to just relinquish power, and let liberty flower. . .
So would you enjoy it enough to do it for free
I teach for free several times a week, in fact.
I don't hold anything against government employees.
And neither do I. Government employee unions remain a conflict of interest and a form of delayed mutiny, however.
(Shares o' grooming stocks)
Would've afforded fun
To some hirsute civilization