>The concession I'd make is guns. We've lost that
>battle anyway, never mind the text of the Constitution
>and Miller v. US (holding that the right to bear arms
>is not individual)
Dan Lazare had a piece in Harper's some years ago arguing that consensus of legal scholars now is the the gun crowd is right on the constitutional issue. But why not argue from principle, instead of from the ancient sacred text?
I'm willing to concede on guns, even though I'm not a populist. Some regulation, on the order of a drvier's license, seems in order, but no outright prohibition. I don't see why the state should have a monopoly over arms. And I always loved the Workers Vanguard analysis of the Waco barbeque - it was the fault of liberal anti-gun nuts.
Doug