01-15-2021, 12:48 AM
(01-14-2021, 09:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: 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. It's clearly about striking a balance. I'm just going to err on the side of personal freedom every single time. We've had millennia of governments lording over their people. We've had barely over two hundred years of erring on the side of liberty, in one nation. You want "progressive"? Well it doesn't get more progressive than the right to defend yourself.
Quote:Of course there are overreaches, heck the current President tried to take our right to a fairly administered election away,
Which, honestly, I would hope is all the proof you would need that erring on the side of personal liberty is of paramount importance. Don't trade one set of dictatorial rules for another.
Quote: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.
The UK allowed slavery. The Framers recognized that it wasn't the hill to die on to enact the Republic they desired. Was this the wrong tactic, maybe. It certainly wasn't objectively wrong given the entirety of the circumstances. As far as the 2nd Amendment, it is unique in history. In all other societies the ruling class has expended tremendous effort to keep arms out of the hands of the common folk. Why do you think this is? Say we had no second amendment and Trump had succeeded in his plans, would you be happy you had no means available to confront your oppressors at that point? I 100% support the Second amendment as I strongly believe that the means of self defense should not be monopolized by the government. Yes, that means bad actors will use that right to perpetrate terrible crimes on occasion, which is why our justice system should punish such people in a harsh and unforgiving manner.
What I cannot countenance is a system that presumes criminal intent in its citizenry, that assumes the citizenry is not responsible enough to wield a power previously restricted to the ruling class. Broach the topic all you want, but the reason for supporting the 2A is no different now than when it was written, and no amount of criminal activity by garbage human beings will convince me that relinquishing that unique right is acceptable, ever.
