01-14-2021, 09:58 PM
(01-14-2021, 09:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except you don't get to be the arbiter of that decision. The reason why is the Constitution. I know the slippery slope argument is overplayed, but the minute you start limiting speech that isn't criminal you've literally started the countdown on the death of free speech. You're a reasonable man, and I like to think I am too (I am but I'm being humble) and the fact that we can disagree on this shows just how far the gap would be between two unreasonable people.
The bottom line is this, do you want more freedom or do you want more security? I will always err on the side of personal freedom because I know how historically rare it is and how easy it is to lose. If I lose my life because of this freedom I see it as a small price to pay for maintaining said freedom for my nephews and future generations.
The Supreme Court has held multiple times that your freedoms can actually be restricted for the wholes greater security. We have judges who make those decisions and it’s not a matter of if I or you do, it’s if they do and that “they” evolves and changes over time. I like freedom but I forfeit it every day, as you do, for the safety and security of others. Of course there are overreaches, heck the current President tried to take our right to a fairly administered election away, eventually they find balance but it seems some like “guns” are simply sacrilegious to ever challenge, which I think is my biggest problem. We act like the guys who allowed slavery were infallible when talking about the 2nd amendment. The issue now is it’s become too much of our culture to ever broach again.
