Tim May writes: [lots 'o stuff]
But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands of claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life to someone convicted of fraud or money laundering?
The compelling need appears to be related to the general trend of disarming as many of the marks as possible, as soon as possible.
Close. The complling need is for politicians to appear to be 'tough on crime'. Being 'tough on crime' gets you reelected. Being 'soft on crime' means you lose and have to find a real job. Taking away the rights of convicted criminals who have served their sentences makes you look tough on crime to the sheeple. The convicts and wimpy human-rights organizations like the ACLU might complain, but fuck 'em, they're liberals or criminals who get whatever we decide that they deserve. Hell, if it'll get people to vote for you, throw 'em in a mental hospital after they've served their terms, or publish their names so citizens can drive them out of town. It has little to do with disarming the population and lots to do with the climate of fear that politicans and the media have whipped up. With the downfall of communisim and the end of the cold war, the DOJ/FBI/NSA/prison system has become the new Military Industrial Complex. Need money to get elected? Vote for new prisons and the powerful Prison Guards lobby will help you out. Need a new pork-barrel project to help out your friends back in the district? Vote for federal dollars for more cops. Need to sell papers or TV ads? Tell people how bad crime is, everyone's afraid of the criminals they see on 'Cops'. More fear. More cops. More jails. We're marching towards the police state one jack-boot at a time.