Tags:
Nice argument, Heather.
I'm sorry, I was getting the feeling from your earlier statements that because you are personally against owning firearms, that other people should not own them at all. That is a position that is all too common on a lot of issues.
.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
"So the people owning the gun aren't necessarily unethical, yet the people owning the gun are unethical for owning the gun? Tank be confused, please help him out."
"Unethical" was perhaps the wrong word. I have a personal opposition to guns, but I can understand why people choose to own them and I don't think people who own guns are bad.
Regarding the abortion rights and free speech arguments: come on. I am not seeking to take anyone's rights away. I am not about to argue against gun rights in front of the Supreme Court. Clearly, I would lose. People can be opposed to abortion rights all they want. If someone believed that the 1st Amendment or due process clause was antiquated and misinterpreted, fine. They wouldn't get anywhere with those arguments. It's just an opinion.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is a vague statement. It's not irrational to have a disagreement about what it means or how it's applicable to our society today.
This has gottena bit fiesty. Can we just talk about the sex slaves in Doug's basement?
This has gottena bit fiesty. Can we just talk about the sex slaves in Doug's basement?
Here is why:
If you want rights you feel are important protected by a document you have to be willing to allow it to protect rights you do not agree with.
Once you start picking and choosing the parts of something you want to protect and adhere to you have started down the slippery slope that takes ALL of our rights away.
heather stratton said:"It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it."
I don't see why. There are other laws I disagree with. Why should I pretend that the Constitution is perfect or above criticism?
Guess we'll just have to disagree. I really don't think my stance is hypocritical. Can I not appreciate the Clean Water Act but think the Defense of Marriage Act was wrong? So why can't I appreciate the first Amendment but think we should reevaluate the second? You said yourself that the Constitution is a fluid document, and we all know that it was flawed from the beginning. It has been re-interpreted and changed plenty of times.
Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Even if it were to come up, re-interpreting one amendment of the Constitution is not going to lead to taking ALL of our rights away. Chicago had a handgun ban for a long time, and our other Constitutional rights were not affected by that, as far as I know.
notoriousDUG said:Here is why:
If you want rights you feel are important protected by a document you have to be willing to allow it to protect rights you do not agree with.
Once you start picking and choosing the parts of something you want to protect and adhere to you have started down the slippery slope that takes ALL of our rights away.
heather stratton said:"It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it."
I don't see why. There are other laws I disagree with. Why should I pretend that the Constitution is perfect or above criticism?
118 members
203 members
262 members
269 members
63 members