Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser Jock
I´m entirely serious.
Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights. Collective rights are merely extensions of individual rights. This includes the right and means of self defense.
Just because you work for Hugo Chavez or George Bush doesn´t give you any magic powers or privileges the rest of us do not have.
|
Honestly, your explanation above does little to explain your perspective to me. All the same, I was not raising any questions about the "right to bear arms" per se, although I do think its out-dated and should be irrelavant in a well-balanced society, but that's just me...
What I was questioning was the logic of your remark that I then quoted. You essentially stated that as far as you were concerned the right to bear arms was more important than the right to free speech.
I find it ironic that without free speech no one would be even able to voice objection to, or support for, fire arms.
Does it not seem strange that these priorities mean that you place expression of opinion lower than being able to shoot someone?
That is a scary thought to me. Personally, I think guns do nothing for security in a society, they only up the stakes but I don't want to be drawn into a guns are good/bad debate.
However, in Britain I am not allowed to carry a gun. I do not feel disempowered by this. I am allowed to express my opnions and loosing this would disempower me.
Bottom line, I don't get the impression you really thought about what is meant by what you wrote...
__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)
|