And the big Hunh? Award goes to…

The Cato Institute from coming out with this piece: Gun Control Advocates Should Applaud the Supreme Court with the words:

This ruling does not necessarily invalidate all gun control laws, but it will likely mean the demise of outright bans and restrict significantly the ability of states and cities to impose other kinds of controls.

The problem is that gun bans, especially those enacted by local legislatures, should be an option and in no way infringe upon the “Second Amendment right” which is to be free of a standing army rather than to own weapons outside the context of militia service.

Even weirder is the comment that:

The most significant negative of gun control is distracting attention from policies like drug prohibition that play a far larger role in generating crime. So long as policy generates a demand for crime, policy can do little to reduce crime.

Now how likely is it that the prohibition on drugs will ever be lifted, and even if it is lifted, that the black market in drugs will be eradicated? After all, there are still people who make moonshine liquor to avoid paying taxes. So, if we want to get into it, there will always be an economic incentive for a black market in drugs if they are regulated.

and the Cato folks look at things in terms of money (rather than how it affects people).

The real amusing point is that the people who talk about Liberty have engaged in what would be considered the ultimate act of tyranny by the founders (invalidating local Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, by those who are neither elected nor citizens of that jurisdiction).

Anyway, the Cato Institute can act in the way that it does should show them for the disreputable weasels that they are.

And saying that “Gun Control Advocates Should Applaud the Supreme Court” is cause for those who believe that the Heller-McDonald cases vindicate their “rights” to be suspicious.

If they weren’t sheep.

%d bloggers like this: