Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider
Not to associate my position with the OP, but your premise is a gun ban is the solution to a statistically isolated event. I would argue otherwise and further state that crazy will find a way to extract their pain on society. Furthermore the premise that "if it saves one life or prevents one massacre" is false in my mind because we do not report or account for all the lives saved or violence prevented by lawful gun owners defending their life and liberty from criminals or sick individuals who seek to do harm. Eliminating or severely restricting an enumerated right is unconscionable and does far more harm to society than these isolated events.
I've posted this elsewhere but figure it's applicable with the direction of this thread:
As many of you agree marriage is an individual right and women's health is an individual right, and that these are serious civil rights issues where tyranny of the majority and the collective is/are stampeding on the liberties of individuals, many of you who hold these positions dear to your heart also see fit to revoke or severely restrict an enumerated individual right as an emotional reaction to tragedy. I simply do not see the consistency in taking that position and yes this highlights how both sides of the aisle are intellectually inconsistent in regards to issues of liberty.
|
Where did Darren say anything about banning guns? He asked if its more important to lay blame than to find a solution. Why do you feel that "find a solution" means ban guns?
Secondly, with the discussion of marital and abortion rights, it certainly goes both ways. Those that want guns galore generally feel that gays should not marry and that abortions should be illegal. Obviously this is a gross over-simplification of what someone might believe for argument's sake. Civil liberties are readily cherry picked by both sides of the aisle, and then held up as proof of failure to protect civil liberties by the other side. What a delightful sequence! Round and round we go.