>It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room.
You're right in general, though as <cadlin> points out modern forms of "gun control" do have late 19th century racist roots. But outright criminal prohibitions on personal possession of firearms -- which we had in the U.S. in some areas before the Supreme Court's Heller decision -- would have been unthinkable. So would effectively complete bans on carrying weapons both concealed or openly, which some areas still have until the Supreme Court rules in the next 2A case up for arguments this fall.
> But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.
It depends on who you talk to. If you were in a room filled with libertarian-minded engineers at Google or Microsoft, and there are plenty of them, you'd be the one laughed out of the room. Or if you were in a diner in most rural areas of the United States. But in certain coastal enclaves, yes, "gun control" has come to have a religious import.
Though the taboo-to-question topic I thought of first when reading pg's 2004 essay (a well written one, too) was anthropogenic global warming.
Not in the same way. I know the chairman of the Calguns Foundation (hoffmang on Twitter), who's also for HN purposes the chairman and CEO of a ~200-employee Silicon Valley recurring billing/subscription management startup. My understanding of his position, and I may of course have it wrong or be misremembering, is that he's okay with some form of background checks, perhaps via proof of backgroundcheckness, for ownership as long as you can actually own the firearm you want. He's okay with regulations on open or concealed carry as long as you can have some form of reasonable carry.
This is the opposite of the extreme near-religious positions of folks who want to ban guns. See Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) telling 60 Minutes she wanted an "outright ban" on all guns -- "Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in" -- but didn't have enough Senate votes for it.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/01/Reminder-...
So you pick two people, one moderate and one extreme, and pretend they're representative?
Most people's opinions on this stuff is somewhere in the middle (i.e. there should be some regulations on guns but some private gun ownership should be allowed). There are extremists on both sides. On one side it manifests as "ban them all" and on the other side it's "no regulation whatsoever".
You're right in general, though as <cadlin> points out modern forms of "gun control" do have late 19th century racist roots. But outright criminal prohibitions on personal possession of firearms -- which we had in the U.S. in some areas before the Supreme Court's Heller decision -- would have been unthinkable. So would effectively complete bans on carrying weapons both concealed or openly, which some areas still have until the Supreme Court rules in the next 2A case up for arguments this fall.
> But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.
It depends on who you talk to. If you were in a room filled with libertarian-minded engineers at Google or Microsoft, and there are plenty of them, you'd be the one laughed out of the room. Or if you were in a diner in most rural areas of the United States. But in certain coastal enclaves, yes, "gun control" has come to have a religious import.
Though the taboo-to-question topic I thought of first when reading pg's 2004 essay (a well written one, too) was anthropogenic global warming.