Quote:

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, you are confusing RIGHTS with CHOICES, and so the logical error is yours.
RIGHTS are guaranteed by law. In this country we have the RIGHT ot bear arms, and that is not open to discussion, it is simply the law here.

However, people exercise that right with a variety of personal choices, including the choice to forego the right to bear arms.

Choices may or may not be legal. Anyone is free to make illegal choices; but the function of law is to determine the penalty for illegal choices. And a functional system will faithfully exact those penalties.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0