Mike, whether you're talking about parenting or talking about firearms, the legal concept you are getting at is one called "prior restraint" -- a restraint on behavior in advance of such behavior. When talking about free speech, a prior restraint would be -- oh, I don't know, an arbitrary "zone" around politicians or in national parks where you are allowed ot protest or otherwise speak your mind or demonstrate. In any event, its a determination, again by SOMEONE in an arbitrary position of POWER, which will eventually be corrupted. With weapons it would be that "Bureaucrat A" has determined you are mentally ill, therefore you shall not own a weapon and shall be denied your inalienable natural right to protect your person, your property, and your pursuit of happiness - what constitutes "mentally ill" is a moving target that changes with the political winds. As scary as this concept is with gun ownership, when you apply it to parenting, it is far more frightening because you are flirting with the the progressive eugenics concepts -- think about that... "Bureaucrat B" deciding that, based on arbitrary guidelines derived by some "expert" (read a PERSON in an arbitrary position of POWER), you can't have kids because of this personality trait or that, or perhaps based on genetic likelihood of birth defects, and perhaps defects is a ever-broadening definition that eventually encapsulates an entire race... that has happened before, and it was a concept widely embraced by progressives on this side of the atlantic, the idea that with the right people in control we could actually breed out undesirable traits from the American population...
No. The "law" that I live with and practice everyday is essentially nothing but a set of petty rules put in place by corrupt busybodies that wish to tell others how to live. The only true law is natural law, law based on our very humanity. It matters not if I believe my inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are part of an evolutionary cycle, or whether I believe I've been touched by the holy as a human being -- either way, my rights are mine in the absolute absence of government, in the absolute absence of man's law. I have my rights because I am, not because some government says I do. This is the American experiment, this is what Jefferson stood for.
All that said, I am talking about an ideal here, one that is awfully difficult to achieve in the midst of masses of people who don't want to be free, because the responsibility that comes with freedom is more that they can bear. If you are looking for a position to take on firearms, self protection, freedom -- don't make it a political one, make it a personal one. I consider myself a "free man", and I do not recognize the authority of arbitrary government over me - I live my life according to my own moral compass, which includes a central premise that I will not agress against others and thereby violate their rights, but will zealously defend my own against other's aggression. I know, you're thinking, but you pay taxes, you follow laws that might be contrary to those beliefs -- yes I do, but only to the extent necessary to keep myself out of prison, where my freedom would be even more completely oppressed.
And I talk. I write. I try to help wake people in America (and really the world, as natural rights have nothing to do with citizenship) up to what they had, what they have lost, and how they might take it back without the need for violence. Withdraw your consent from government not of the people, by the people and for the people -- more importantly, do not consent to government that serves any purpose but the protection and security of your natural rights, not that promises security to you. The tyrants have control only as long as we allow it, only as long as we tolerate their folly, only as long as those who work for them are willing to commit violence on their behalf.
