So basically you don't care about the words in or the intent of the constitution, same as Gruss.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:38 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: questions from the gun control thread > > 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:280034 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
