SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ManyMoose who wrote (41585)11/20/2005 1:02:44 AM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
"I am incredulous that you would support revocation of a Constitutionally protected right for the illusion, (that's all it is), that you would be safer or more secure"

I don't. The right to bear arms is not in any way compromised by the rights of society to determine reasonable limitations on the said bearing of arms--JUST AS SOCIETY DETERMINES REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

The illusion that a public interest in how weapons are stockpiled and used is antithetical to the right to bear arms is an illusion fostered by extremists. Good and decent citizens have nothing to lose through gun safety--or through reasonable limitations on gun usage. Naturally, such regulations should not be arbitrary, but should be rationally defensible. To tell me (were I a U.S. citizen) that I, with loved ones under my roof, have no legitimate interest in the weapons my neighbours amass, or whom they lend them to, or how they are used--this is to mock the Constitution and to despise the concept of public safety.

Conversely, for people to attempt to deny the essential right to gun ownership is to mock the Constitution and despise the concept of "We the People".

So holster your gun and have a drink...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext