I don't necessarily disagree with you Scott, but cars and heart disease aren't specifically talked about in the Bill of Rights. You asked why people on the left are so much more keen on the 1st amendment than the 2nd and I answered that question.
Words are safer than guns (in individual situations) and more useful in the long run. Words also have more power for both good and evil, in the long run, I'd argue which may make them more dangerous than guns over the course of a long period of time. But in terms of danger in individual situations, guns are far more dangerous than words. Oh and I think there is an assumption that people with guns are better able to defend themselves than people with unpopular opinions :) Judah On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, I hate to sounf cliche, but I firmly believe guns don't kill people, > people kill people. Take the guns away and they will find other ways to > kill each other. > > I can kill as many, or more, people with my car than a gun, yet no one wants > to seems to take my car away. Heart disease is a huge killer, maybe we > should start regulating what people eat and force them to exercise while we > are at it. > > The problem, as I see it, is not the gun, but the person. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I find it interesting that liberals will defend the 1st amendment until >> they >> > are blue in the face, but are willing to throw the next one out the >> window. >> > >> >> There are two major reasons I see for this. >> >> One is that the first amendment is a lot more clearly written than the >> second. As I'm sure you know, the Supreme Court just had its very >> first case that directly addressed whether the 2nd amendment applied >> to individual gun ownership or group ownership (a well regulated >> militia). That's a long to be debate about the plain text meaning of a >> part of the constitution. I'm not sure that the most recent decision >> really settled the matter, but its a start. >> >> The second reason is that guns kill people and words don't. I can >> defend the right of of white supremacists to spout of hateful rhetoric >> and be sure that the words, odious as they are, aren't going to >> physically damage anyone I love. There are well established exceptions >> to the first amendment for speech that directly incites violence, so >> arguing for all other sorts of unpopular speech is safe if at times >> nauseating. The margin of error when dealing with guns is not as great >> as when dealing with words. Words don't accidentally go off in freak >> accidents, they don't get found and used by kids because parents >> forgot to lock them up, etc. >> >> I'm still a supporter of the 2nd amendment and particularly the right >> of individuals to bear arms. But yeah, the positive effect and >> potentially harmful effects of the 1st and 2nd amendments? No contest, >> the 1st amendment means a heck of a lot more to our society. >> >> Judah >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280023 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
