Disgustingly indifferent

Having ourselves a pretty serious dust-up at Kevin Baker's place, originally regarding alienation of "the tribe" by the "Three Percenters", but has taken a decidedly tangential path, with nominally smart people saying some seriously stupid shit.

In Comments, my fave is this bit of excrescence, from Connie du Toit;

"As the Heller documents described, "reasonable" restrictions were allowed and common. Where you could store arms in your home was stipulated in the law in Boston... and these were laws made during the time of the Founders. Most of these have to do with issues of competing rights... that your right to keep a gun could trump on another's right for reasonable safety measures taken to prevent fires. It wasn't a "universal" restriction against keeping firearms in your home, which would have been unConstitutional, but where they could be stored in your home. Your "universal" right cannot be infringed, but laws that are "reasonable" and address competing rights issues are perfectly acceptable. We're quibbling about details most of the time--of what defines reasonable. In some cases, such as in DC, the restrictions were universal, and therefore, UNreasonable."

All of that, without a single thought as to what the ramifications are regarding how to define two of those words, or that someone, anyone, might take issue with what "reasonable" might actually do to themselves, in tangible terms. She's not thought this out in the least, and is simply begging with her argument, that the whole mess regarding personal rights, freedom, end up in court for the fucking lawyers to haggle about.

What's reasonable to you isn't necessarily reasonable to me, and I'm quite sure that what Paul Helmke thinks is reasonable doesn't come close to matching my reasonable. Should we leave that for the court to decide. My biggest issue extends to more than just her, however, as it's this attitude that she is propagating, that is clearly spreading across this country, that what she is saying is correct, and entirely within the limits of our government to control.

Also, why should I give two licks of a dead wet rat's ass what Scalia wrote in the Heller case. It's being proven on a day to day basis that the whole thing was moot, and I said it before the call was even made.

Seriously, some people need more time to get their philosophy in order.

Or just shut the fuck up.