08-21-2019, 12:35 PM
(08-21-2019, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:
The end result is still the same, and either can be applied, here.
I know we're on the verge of a semantic argument here but I don't believe they are the same. Words can be interpreted different ways. This is not the same as saying let's have a discussion on how much we want to limit "X" constitutional right.
Quote:Our First Amendment rights are already limited.
Yes, and, importantly to your next point, only when it causes direct harm to another person. Direct being the operative word.
Quote:Public welfare, which is more broad and all encompassing than safety. Sacrificing liberty for safety/security is a conservative position, liberty for equity is a liberal one. Both fall under welfare. Anyway, if liberty truly trumped public safety, you really wouldn't have a job as most of the laws on the books to promote a civil society and that it is your job to enforce would be non-existent as they would be deemed unconstitutional.
On this I think you are way off. Limiting the ability for others to cause you harm is not limiting their liberty, it is protecting yours. Pretty much every single law in the penal code defines the elements of, and proscribes punishments for, actions that case direct harm to another person. This distinction is important. My owning a firearm causes absolutely no one any direct harm. I will not use it to threaten, injure or kill another person except in a circumstance in which they are attempting to cause me direct harm. The gun control position is that my ability to own a certain type of firearm also allows other people to own them who will cause direct harm to others. Consequently, they argue my ability to own this type of firearm causes indirect harm. This is unacceptable to me and it honestly should be to everyone else.
You want to proscribe certain people from owning a firearm, that's fine with me as long as they are subject to due process and have demonstrated they should not own a firearm, e.g. convicted felon or domestic abuser. They have shown they are willing to cause direct harm to others. Oddly enough, the gun control side of this issue is also the side wanting to give those exact people their right to vote back. So, these people are not responsible enough to own a firearm but they are responsible enough to determine our laws and political leadership? Quite honestly you can do a lot more damage at the ballot box than you can with a firearm.
