Commentor FredT says, "This is a terrible misreading of American history, as well as evidence of sheer unfamiliarity with regulatory inclinations across the country."
FredT is wrong.
Up until about 1860, FredT would have been right. But when the Confederacy tried to secede, and was prevented from doing so through force of arms, the US became a union which was imposed by military force.
The war to preserve the union was nothing more than Washington, D.C. telling the states that they don't have the right of self-determination, and that joining the union is a one-way street: you can join, but you can't leave.
You can say whatever you like about the high-minded ideals that drove the American government to do what it did, but the simple fact is that the Civil War imposed membership in the US on states who desired only to leave--and if they had been allowed to do so, no war would have occurred.
* * *
The second part of this Kevin Williamson post talks about how Illinois enforces gun laws:
Illinois, for example, makes it difficult for an ordinary citizen to legally carry a gun for self defense — up until a couple of years ago, doing so was categorically prohibited. But Illinois police seize thousands of illegal guns from criminals each year, and the state prosecutes practically none of those weapons cases. The law-abiding — by definition law-abiding — citizens applying for concealed-carry permits get treated like criminals, and the actual criminals do not. If you follow the law and inform Illinois authorities that you have a gun in the home, you invite all sorts of intrusion and oversight. If you don’t, nobody’s really looking. Meanwhile, the streets of Chicago are full of blood, going on 1,600 shootings this year and it’s not even Halloween. Nobody is held responsible for that carnage, but if you put an eleventh round in your legally owned rifle in Oak Park, you’re looking at jail time.If Illinois actually were to enforce its gun laws, our prisons would be full of violent criminals and there'd be no room for all the drug dealers. Besides, you can't campaign for tighter restrictions on gun ownership if you don't have horriffic gun crime statistics, and punishing the criminals for having illegal guns might discourage illegal gun ownership--which is the source of all the gun crime in the first place. Law-abiding gun owners, by definition, don't commit crimes with them, and you can't argue that guns cause crime if you don't have gun crime. QED.
...and of course if a legal gun owner screws up you do your damnedest to make an example out of him, because he broke the law! And maybe other legal gun owners will decide the risk isn't worth it and voluntarily disarm, right?
* * *
McRib is back, and it's so f-ing tasty it makes you want to punch yourself in the face.