Originally Posted by detbuch
belts and bump stocks are not the same thing, let me save you the trouble, I concede that they are not identical from a subatomic particle perspective. However, when the state of CT was considering seat belt laws, I heard the same exact arguments from people...this is tyranny, when does it stop, these are my rights, it's my choice blah blah blah. It was like a Mad Lib game (remember those?), you could remove "gun" and insert "seat belt". That law took away a degree of liberty, for the purpose of saving lives. In that regard, it's the same exact issue we are discussing here.
No, it's not the same issue. And your blah blah arguments that you repeat over and over when they are based on emotion and "saving a few lives" are actually a lib game.
"my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points."
I'm making one point. Just one, and that is this...Restrictions on our freedoms (be it the freedom to buy bump stocks or the freedom to not wear one's seat belt or the freedom to possess child pornography) are not always a bad thing. The Bill Of Rights was never, ever meant to be absolute. Freedom of speech was never meant to include threatening people or child pornography (which is a 'thing', right?) Freedom of religion doesn't include human sacrifice.
Restrictions are bad if they create legal precedents which can be used to expand the power to restrict. The mantra (blah blah) is always to save some lives.
And "freedom" of religion can only be free if it respects the freedom of all. If someone does not want to be sacrificed it would not be freedom to sacrifice her. In the Founders notion of "freedom" that which is not consented to is not freedom. Unconsented to sacrifice would obviously not be a freedom of religion, it would be an unconstitutional license.
Threatening people would be a coercion of sorts, not an act of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.
Child pornography would be subjugating children who are not capable of having mature, constitutional notions of their rights, of what participating in pornography could do to their growth, etc. It would not be an act of freedom.
Again, you must understand the Founder's idea of freedom in order to discuss it.
And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, here is a rule from the University of VA rulebook of 1819..."“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”
That rule was ratified by the school's board of directors, which included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Therefore, he Bill of Rights is not a catalogue of absolutes and it never was. We can have reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, and indeed the first amendment, without infringing upon our freedoms.
Schools (especially private ones as many were in the founding days) and localities can restrict such things. The federal government is far more limited by the Constitution.
I can't buy child pornography legally, but I can still say that Congress is full of jerks and write a letter criticizing the president without fear of the gulag.
|