V
Vonsalza
Guest
Incrementalism IS slippery slope fallacy, Jon. By definition.
Ok, then you’re fine with infringements that you agree with. Just wanted to get that “out there”.
Saving lives isn’t a good reason?
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
And again, the right is still intact. The rifle is just more expensive to obtain.
Like the “right” to conceal-and-carry in most states also requires a permit that you have to pay for.
Like the “right” to conceal-and-carry in most states also requires a permit that you have to pay for.
Last edited:
Call it what what you will, it is a strategy of the anti-2nd crowd.
Are you opposed to prison sentences that restrict freedom? Fines for restitution? I’m not. Be consistent.
No lives are saved by restricting the law abiding. Target the criminals
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Fair enough. Just understand that one of your core paradigms violates logic.
As long as we both agree that the right to bear arms must be reasonably infringed, fine with me, Jon.
*Or, I guess, the definition of “arms” must be suitably limited. As we agree it is.
Target the supply.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I’m not holding a class of people responsible. Just a class of weapons.
L
LilyM
Guest
The very fact you have to pay for weapons and ammo requires sctimping snd saving for some folks anyways. If tfey are so essential and a constitutional right then why are they not free?Vonsalza:
Whose business is it with what frequency I exercise my constitutionally protected right, as long as I do not violate the rights of others ?
The intent is the same. If you are trying to make a right more difficult to obtain, unless your target is criminals, the control has a ban motive to it because of the intent.
Just like a poll tax.
Should they prioritize and save up for due process? How about protection against illegal search and seizure? If it can be done to one right, it can be done to others.
And in fact, the progressives in Congress demanded we do just that: treat due process as a right that can be suspended, limited.
Last edited:
Actually, it just exposes the treachery of those who want to confiscate the right.
Absolutely. If you are convicted of a crime.
Of criminals.
Because the manufacturers have to pay their employees, stockholders, etc.
Further, if government is paying, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. Newspapers cost money. Tv networks charge for advertising. Government’s job is twofold: don’t interfere in rights, and prevent their being denied
L
LilyM
Guest
What? Health care and education are rights, not privileges. And are provided by the government free, at least to those who cannot otherwise afford them.
Noone has a right per se to newspapers or tv (although even there lots of countries have publicly funded tv broadcasters)
Noone has a right per se to newspapers or tv (although even there lots of countries have publicly funded tv broadcasters)
Last edited:
If they are rights, then government cannot touch them. Education is, in reality, an entitlement, provided to minors. At the state and local level.
Healthcare is a right, protected by the 9th amendment, in my view, and should not be interfered with by government. If it can be taken away, it is not a right
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
Who is not a criminal?
L
LilyM
Guest
Like I said, why are guns not treated like other rights, or even privileges, and provided free or subsidised to the poor? If the right is so essential?LilyM:
If they are rights, then government cannot touch them. Education is, in reality, an entitlement, provided to minors. At the state and local level.
Healthcare is a right, protected by the 9th amendment, in my view, and should not be interfered with by government. If it can be taken away, it is not a right
They are. You have a right to own a firearm. You do not have a right to expect me to pay for it. You have a right to start a news agency. You do not have a right to expect me to pay for it. Everyone has a right to healthcare. No one has a right to someone else’s property or labor in order to acquire it.
You access your rights. I access mine. Government should stay out of the way.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
…if that’s how you rationalize your irrational attachment, sure!
…Or if you’re law-abiding and want to own an automatic. Or a nuke.
Good. We agree. The right to bear arms must be limited!
Sure. And until a way to perfectly predict/preempt crime comes along, limiting the availability of the weapons that criminals use seems like a good step!
Your answer is, basically, “do nothing”. Fewer and fewer are willing to accept that, Jon. And thank God…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Except for roads schools cops armies public hospitals space programs… the list goes ever onward…LilyM:
They are. You have a right to own a firearm. You do not have a right to expect me to pay for it. You have a right to start a news agency. You do not have a right to expect me to pay for it. Everyone has a right to healthcare. No one has a right to someone else’s property or labor in order to acquire it.
You access your rights. I access mine. Government should stay out of the way.
Except for that stuff!
It is interesting how you dodge the truth with such nonsense. It isn’t irrational to observe what the anti-2nd crowd has been doing.
Sure. And your right to speech has limits, not the limits the progressive movement seems to want, but limits. Limits based on interfering with the rights of others. The difference is semi automatic firearms are legal, and attempting to limit access by government of certain classes or groups is discrimination, and part of the incrementalism that you are trying to hard to deny.
Last edited:
If I expect you to build me a private road, or provide me my own police force all at your cost , you might have a case. But you don’t.
Last edited:
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
Everyone commits a crime and gets away with it. A just man sins seven
times a day.
times a day.
Last edited:
But you know I am talking about in legal terms. Of course all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If we are using that standard, again, start by disarming all of the world’s governments first. After all, governments killed tens and tens of millions of civilians in the last century.
- Status