Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 62 of 62

Thread: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

  1. #61
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,722

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Am I getting confused, now, or was it you, some ways back in this thread, who stated that it was hypocritical to support the right to keep and bear arms, but to oppose the “right” to abuse drugs? That's the argument that I think I am having with you—that I do not accept the “right” to abuse drugs as being in any way comparable to the right to keep and bear arms; and therefore find no hypocrisy or inconsistency in supporting the right to keep and bear arms, while opposing the “right” to abuse drugs.
    Hey,come on. Read your Constitution. The second and a half amendment says that the right to keep and bear drugs shall not be abridged. LOL.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #62
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Am I getting confused, now, or was it you, some ways back in this thread, who stated that it was hypocritical to support the right to keep and bear arms, but to oppose the “right” to abuse drugs? That's the argument that I think I am having with you—that I do not accept the “right” to abuse drugs as being in any way comparable to the right to keep and bear arms; and therefore find no hypocrisy or inconsistency in supporting the right to keep and bear arms, while opposing the “right” to abuse drugs.
    Oh, I think I understand where you're coming from now. And yes, that was me.

    When it comes to rights I think people should have, my philosophy is deeply rooted in the idea that "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose." Even if by swinging my fist I end up hurting myself (but nobody else). Government's proper role is to preserve our rights, and only place limits on our actions if those actions would infringe on the rights of someone else. Murder and theft infringe upon the rights of others, but using drugs/alcohol and then watching TV for the next 8 hours does not.

    In my view, there is no effective difference between enumerated and unenumerated rights. We have just as much of a right to go hang gliding as we do to keep and bear arms, even though there is no right to go hang gliding mentioned in the Constitution. That's because the Bill of Rights is not supposed to infer a limit on the infinite number of other rights that are not mentioned. So, every right that is not limited by Constitutionally-compliant law(s) is an inherent right retained by the People. To come along and pass (or support) an Unconstitutional law prohibiting one of these implicitly protected rights, while at the same time supporting the right to own guns because that right is explicitly protected in the Constitution, is hypocritical to me. It doesn't matter that guns and drugs are so different, it's all about the proper role of government.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •