Anonymous wrote:I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction on a right. It's antithetical.

The gay community didn't stand for "reasonable restrictions" on marriage.

The pro choice movement doesn't accept "reasonable restrictions" on abortion rights.

The NAACP doesn't tolerate "reasonable restrictions" in where black people are allowed to live.


The gun rights community is no different than these other groups. A human right is an absolute right. It's not subject to restriction.
4

Except that there are restrictions on abortions. Some are reasonable like no third trimester abortions except in cases sheer the mother's life is at risk. Others are really extreme like lying to women about how abortions cause breast cancer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no amount of human tragedy, accidents or malice is worth losing a right.

Go look at my original post. I made clear on day 1 that I'm not looking to eliminate anyone's right to own a gun. Surely you can agree there should be reasonable safety restrictions, don't you?

There already are reasonable safety restrictions which clearly infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. Are you seriously proposing more?

My right to life is more important than your "right" to military grade weapons without safety features.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no amount of human tragedy, accidents or malice is worth losing a right.

Go look at my original post. I made clear on day 1 that I'm not looking to eliminate anyone's right to own a gun. Surely you can agree there should be reasonable safety restrictions, don't you?

There already are reasonable safety restrictions which clearly infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. Are you seriously proposing more?

BULLSHIT. What or how is your right infringed? And, yes, I am proposing more. Your rights end at my safety. Heller is the biggest piece of judicial activism to come out of the SCOTUS in 20 years. I hope Scalia's corpse is being feasted upon because of it.

Anonymous wrote:Over the coming weeks and months, I'll be posting news stories to this thread about just some of the innocent children who are harmed by guns. They are just part of the price our society is paying to allow easy access to guns.

I, for one, do not consider the price of these children's lives to be worth the benefit of having easy access to guns. I'm not advocating for elimination of all guns. I'm just saying that our society needs to make some changes to ensure guns are distributed, stored, and used more safely. Stop the senseless deaths of innocents.

I agree. And the NRA, and their supporters, simply have no credibility. The violence is among the highest in the "first world" countries. And, it's disgusting. But, I long ago lost hope for any sensible restrictions. I watched 20 first-graders, and their teachers, murdered in their classroom. And our legislators, and many politicians, continued to suck at the NRA's teat. They drank the Kool-Aid. Stupid fuckers that they are.

Not until the number of dead surpasses whatever levels people think are intolerable will this change. It's unbelievably vile. And if you support the NRA and their policies, I instantly think less of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no amount of human tragedy, accidents or malice is worth losing a right.

Go look at my original post. I made clear on day 1 that I'm not looking to eliminate anyone's right to own a gun. Surely you can agree there should be reasonable safety restrictions, don't you?

There already are reasonable safety restrictions which clearly infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. Are you seriously proposing more?

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction on a right. It's antithetical.

The gay community didn't stand for "reasonable restrictions" on marriage.

The pro choice movement doesn't accept "reasonable restrictions" on abortion rights.

The NAACP doesn't tolerate "reasonable restrictions" in where black people are allowed to live.


The gun rights community is no different than these other groups. A human right is an absolute right. It's not subject to restriction.

Is it reasonable to forbid a 10 year old to get married?

Is it reasonable to forbid a 13 year from getting a driver's license?

Is it reasonable to forbid a 16 year old from buying beer?

Is it reasonable to forbid stores from selling grenades to anyone?

Is it reasonable to forbid a large group of protesters from gathering on a public space without a permit?

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction on a right. It's antithetical.

The gay community didn't stand for "reasonable restrictions" on marriage.

The pro choice movement doesn't accept "reasonable restrictions" on abortion rights.

The NAACP doesn't tolerate "reasonable restrictions" in where black people are allowed to live.


The gun rights community is no different than these other groups. A human right is an absolute right. It's not subject to restriction.

BS

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no amount of human tragedy, accidents or malice is worth losing a right.

Sorry, it's just not.

If it were, abortion would be outlawed.

Orders of magnitude more children have been lost through abortion in just the last 50 years than have been killed with a gun in the entire history of guns.

The difference is these children were wanted and compatible with life.

I believe the comparison to "shouting fire in crowded theater" or libel/slander is a flawed premise, and thus invalid as a comparable scenario with regards to limitations.

I'm sure you don't feel this way, and I respect that.

We each have firm opinions about this, and they differ.

That is not a bad thing, and it also doesn't mean that one of us neccesarily has to be wrong about it.



I don't want to force anyone to own a gun. That would be just as offensive to me as a law that banned guns.

But I also don't share the responsibilty when people illegally harm innocent parties with a gun any more than a random car owner shares responsiblity when a drunk driver accidently kills someone or a terrorist uses one in an attack.

Anonymous wrote:Of course there are reasonable restrictions on rights found in the Bill of Rights. For examples of restrictions on First Amendment rights, see: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.

You will need to go back and fix your argument because this part of it is wrong.

there is a ton wrong with that poster's argument - but you have made a good point

Of course there are reasonable restrictions on rights found in the Bill of Rights. For examples of restrictions on First Amendment rights, see: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.

You will need to go back and fix your argument because this part of it is wrong.

I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction on a right. It's antithetical.

The gay community didn't stand for "reasonable restrictions" on marriage.

The pro choice movement doesn't accept "reasonable restrictions" on abortion rights.

The NAACP doesn't tolerate "reasonable restrictions" in where black people are allowed to live.


The gun rights community is no different than these other groups. A human right is an absolute right. It's not subject to restriction.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no amount of human tragedy, accidents or malice is worth losing a right.

Go look at my original post. I made clear on day 1 that I'm not looking to eliminate anyone's right to own a gun. Surely you can agree there should be reasonable safety restrictions, don't you?

Is this all to deflect from the fact that the San Bernadino shooter was black? I'm really confused here.

Sorry, but no amount of human tragedy, accidents or malice is worth losing a right.

Sorry, it's just not.

If it were, abortion would be outlawed.

Orders of magnitude more children have been lost through abortion in just the last 50 years than have been killed with a gun in the entire history of guns.