Quote:

Plenty of confused thinking here.



I'd have to agree, but probably not in the same way you meant it



Quote:

Quote:

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



As you can see, this is expressed in terms of rights and not choices. I replied in kind.




But that is not how I interpret Bob's comment, neither do I think that is how he intended it.
His point (I believe) is that the law currently allows both groups to have their respective choice. Every body *ought* to be happy, but that is not the case. Why? Because one group cannot be happy until the other group is forced to conform to the "no gun" choice, and the only way for that to happen is for one groups rights to be denied.

Most of the arguments here argue the LEGALITY of both choices... (and that is a fair discussion)
You argued the VALIDITY of the two choices, and that is not our argument at all...(though it *is* YOUR argument. In a nutshell, it seems to me that you believe your choice is superior to the other choice, and therefore the pro gun choice should be disallowed by law. And it is precisely this dictatorial approach to resolving issues that the conservative arguments resist.


Quote:



RIGHTS are indeed guaranteed by law, but that is not at all the same as saying that a particular right – in this case the right to own firearms – is not open to discussion. Of course it is. That’s one of the things democracy is all about. Laws come and go. They change. What do you think your legislators do all day?



except that the USA is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. My point is to derail the part of the discussion that elevates personal opinion above law. If you get taken to court over an infraction, your opinion doesn't matter to the judge. It is settled by the law, period, there is no discussion.

Quote:


Even declarations of rights, and, yes, constitutions, change – precisely as a result of such debate. Look closely and you will find that the Right to Bear Arms is, itself, an amendment.



which is precisely why the citizens need to diligently remain involved in the political process so some slick-talking politician doesn't crawl in under the door and change everything.
("this is the greatest nation on earth.. help me change it!")


Quote:


There are many schools of thought as to what the function of the law is, but they all focus, obviously enough, on determining what is and what is not legal. Determining penalties comes much later in the process.



ultimately, all a law CAN do is declare a penalty. Without a penalty there may as well be no law. Unenforced laws don't change behavior. Many would argue that penalties don't either. But the only real difference between a traffic intersection that has a stop sign and one that doesn't is the penalty for driving through the intersection without stopping.

Last edited by Pat Marr; 03/11/10 11:06 AM.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0