SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 13,896
- 6,495
- 365
There is an old saying, Sauce for the Goose, is good for the Gander. What that means is that if you apply one standard to a thing, that standard should be good for all things.
Article after article. Opinion pieces fly one after another. All demanding an end to the Second Amendment on emotional grounds. Because a fraction of a percent abuse those rights, we should get rid of them for everyone.
Our nation was founded on ideals. We were furious that someone could take away rights we believed were granted to us by our Creator. God for those of you who believe, Gaia for those of you who think that this is just a big accident. Those ideals boiled down to the idea that men should be free. Yes, I know, and acknowledge that we hardly lived up to those lofty ideals, but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s stay focused on the issues for a change?
Over the centuries, things that could not be discussed because of Blue Laws, were discussed as the courts felt that freedom of speech trumped public sentiment. There were limits, sure. You couldn’t yell fire in a crowded theater. But those limits were based upon the actions, not the word. You could yell fire, but not in a crowded theater that was yet to be blazing.
The arguments we are using for firearms are not based upon logic, consistency with the ideals that we were founded upon, but are founded upon emotion. So why don’t we apply those same emotional arguments to other freedoms?
Things you say can hurt someone’s feelings. It isn’t right that you should be able to do that, so we must repeal the freedom of speech. Some religions practice intolerance, those religions abuse the freedoms we all have, so we must get rid of them. Some criminals use the time it takes for Police to get a warrant to destroy evidence. We must get rid of the whole thing.
You should not have the ability to hurt someone’s feelings. Some people exceed the speed limits, and some drive drunk. We must get rid of the ability for people to drive.
Only with those other things, we restrict behavior, and not the freedom. We penalize those who are convicted of DUI, or of speeding. We don’t ban cars. We penalize those who do shout fire in a crowded theater, we don’t abolish free speech.
Opinion | To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
Why not? Why not use the sauce for the Goose to these other issues? I join in the rejections of those who argue that one race or another is a problem. Pfui. I always argue for maximum freedoms, not the limiting of freedoms to placate someone. Because I believe in the ideals that we struggled to live up to for so long.
I’ll oppose any effort to limit or restrict any freedom. I always have, and always will. Because those limits are always based not upon ideals, but upon emotion. That never ends well.
Article after article. Opinion pieces fly one after another. All demanding an end to the Second Amendment on emotional grounds. Because a fraction of a percent abuse those rights, we should get rid of them for everyone.
Our nation was founded on ideals. We were furious that someone could take away rights we believed were granted to us by our Creator. God for those of you who believe, Gaia for those of you who think that this is just a big accident. Those ideals boiled down to the idea that men should be free. Yes, I know, and acknowledge that we hardly lived up to those lofty ideals, but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s stay focused on the issues for a change?
Over the centuries, things that could not be discussed because of Blue Laws, were discussed as the courts felt that freedom of speech trumped public sentiment. There were limits, sure. You couldn’t yell fire in a crowded theater. But those limits were based upon the actions, not the word. You could yell fire, but not in a crowded theater that was yet to be blazing.
The arguments we are using for firearms are not based upon logic, consistency with the ideals that we were founded upon, but are founded upon emotion. So why don’t we apply those same emotional arguments to other freedoms?
Things you say can hurt someone’s feelings. It isn’t right that you should be able to do that, so we must repeal the freedom of speech. Some religions practice intolerance, those religions abuse the freedoms we all have, so we must get rid of them. Some criminals use the time it takes for Police to get a warrant to destroy evidence. We must get rid of the whole thing.
You should not have the ability to hurt someone’s feelings. Some people exceed the speed limits, and some drive drunk. We must get rid of the ability for people to drive.
Only with those other things, we restrict behavior, and not the freedom. We penalize those who are convicted of DUI, or of speeding. We don’t ban cars. We penalize those who do shout fire in a crowded theater, we don’t abolish free speech.
Opinion | To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
Why not? Why not use the sauce for the Goose to these other issues? I join in the rejections of those who argue that one race or another is a problem. Pfui. I always argue for maximum freedoms, not the limiting of freedoms to placate someone. Because I believe in the ideals that we struggled to live up to for so long.
I’ll oppose any effort to limit or restrict any freedom. I always have, and always will. Because those limits are always based not upon ideals, but upon emotion. That never ends well.
