Quote:

Very true Marv. I support your right to not want to own a gun.

The question is, do you support my right to own one? Probably not.

So it all boils down to a group of people wanting to take the rights of another group of people away.

Bob



With respect, there are gaping logical flaws in this argument as the two rights in question are very different in nature.

Citizen A claims the right not to bear arms. This choice has no directly lethal or potentially lethal effect on anyone. The citizen who exercises this right represents no threat to anyone.
There is not a single state, regime or government in the world that would challenge a citizen's right not to bear firearms.

Citizen B claims the right to bear arms. This means he could, potentially:
- shoot himself, whether intentionally or by accident
- shoot others, whether intentionally or by accident
- have his firearm (through accidental discovery, sale or, more likely, theft) fall into the hands of someone less prudent -and more trigger happy- than himself

Clearly, these two 'rights' cannot therefore be viewed as being similar.

Marc's SoundCloud
Marc's YouTube