Fletchette
Member
Quote:
That seems a bit harsh.
we'll then what's "reasonable" then?
I could say that negligent homocide is just as heinous as outright murder as the end result is the same. Which is a pretty absolutist take on things.
Quote:
Who decides? A jury of peers.
These are the same peers that may think that a safety test for buying a handgun is appropriate?
You see people tend to be "reasonable" more so then "absolutist/extremeist".
If you apply absolutist logic to the 2A how will you treat all other rights? Will there be any middle ground? Is the 2A the only one worthy of an absolute view?
I am not advocating anarchy, I am advocating that we not restrict our rights.
Let me give you an example:
Say a disgruntled bigot hates people of a certain race. He decides to go out one night, hide in a bush, and wait until he sees someone of the race he does not like. Then he shoots him.
The way society is going, this guy would be arrested for murder, carrying a gun concealed, using the a magazine with too many bullets, using the wrong "type" of bullet (like hollowpoints), buying the gun without a background check and no waiting period, hate thought and wearing sneakers (which obviously means he wanted to "sneak"...no honest person needs to walk quietly...)
I am advocating arresting him and charging him with murder. That's it.
No gun control. No thought control. No made up crimes that do nothing but restrict law adiding people.
A free society need not be anarchy. Inalienable rights do not need to be restricted.