08-22-2019, 03:19 PM
(08-22-2019, 12:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It still shows there are more limitations to our free speech than just what does direct harm.
Granted.
Quote:I genuinely expected those other infractions to be more of the job than penal code violations. Just seems like volume alone would cause that.
There are positions in law enforcement agencies that deal specifically with traffic related issues. of course an officer not assigned to traffic isn't going to ignore a guy blowing by them at 100 mph, but the bulk of their day is not going to spent that way.
Quote:Your concerns seem rooted in a slippery slope argument that isn't necessarily accurate. But we've had this discussion before about how California Democrats have ruined you.
Sincerely, I don't think you can make that argument anymore. You have Democratic frontrunners for POTUS talking about taking guns away from the citizenry. This isn't a slippery slope argument anymore, it's being openly advocated.
“So to gun owners out there who say well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns,” CNN’s Anderson Cooper said in an interview with Biden.
“Bingo,” the Democrat interjected, “you’re right if you have an assault weapon.”
Quote:I didn't address it because it really wasn't a thought experiment that interested me. What I will say, though, is that the reasons for those rights being removed are different. The removal of the right to bear arms is rooted in a public safety argument. I, personally, think that only those that have been found guilty of a violent felony should continue to have that right revoked. If someone was charged with a felony that was not violent or did not involve a firearm, then that right should be restored.
The right to vote being revoked is based upon the concept of civil death. This removes the individual from society as a form of punishment. It was also a tool used by states to keep black people from being able to vote, using crimes that black people were seen to commit more often as the criteria for disenfranchisement. I, personally, am not in favor of disenfranchisement in any form.
Because of these differences in reason for the two revocations of rights (promotion of the public welfare v. punishment of the individual), I don't see the positions contradictory at all.
Interesting argument. I suppose I'm approaching this from the Starship Troopers angle of the act of voting being the exercise of political force. An admittedly simplistic way of explaining that, but, as I stated, and anyone who hates Trump will be forced to agree, you can do far greater, and longer lasting, damage at the ballot box than you can with a firearm.
