- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The right to defend oneself is not dependent on sight.
The point is that the set up you suggested relies upon the arbitrary emotional biases of humans rather than rational adjudication. I thought that re-presenting the scenario with different participants would highlight that and make it apparent to you.
Either I failed in that regard or you find arbitrary prejudices acceptable grounds for adjudication and legislation.
w/e. You're free to think as you wish.
The arbitrary bias I spoke of was the bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man. This bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man is what makes us different from animals?This arbitrary emotional bias is what distincts humans from animals...
Can you direct me to the law or rulings from whence the "right to feel safe" is derived? I have never heard of this right before and I would like to study up on it before we go further into the discussion of the "right to feel safe".You deem the right to carry a gun in public, for yourself and legally blind deserve a higher status than my right to feel safe in public
I am quite sure that this conclusion of your is not supported by anything I have ever written. The fact that you have expressed the idea makes me think I must not be doing the best job of communicating.You think you and the gun lobby has the right to judge on who's rights are more valuable
Would your love for "democracy" have caused you to back the majority approved Jim Crow laws?...i say the majority rules. It's a concept called democracy.
Yes, if there were a bias against the likelihood of a man being as proficient with a firearm as a woman, than that would be another example of emotional bias that differentiates us humans from animals, i stay with that opinion and argument.The arbitrary bias I spoke of was the bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man. This bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man is what makes us different from animals?
Is there a crossed wire somewhere. Cause that doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps it was it so deep it went over my head.
Sure, it's in the Declaration of Independence:Can you direct me to the law or rulings from whence the "right to feel safe" is derived? I have never heard of this right before and I would like to study up on it before we go further into the discussion of the "right to feel safe".
That default as presented by you only exists since the politically motivated landmark decision of the SCOTUS in 2008, since mere 5 years, and at no point as such in any former times. That alone shows that it's not an "undeniable" and ever-existing right that is not up for change. Which is not even the point in this discussion per se, since this is about "extending" that right now to the legally blind, where it is currently or until very recently is limited.The right to bear arms already exists. The default position is that people are allowed to bear arms. There are quite a number of reasons why this right is variously curtailed or outright denied for certain individuals and certain situations. "It doesn't feel safe," is not one of the arguments sufficient to take a fundamental liberty away from another human.
Would your love for "democracy" have caused you to back the majority approved Jim Crow laws?
Or is there more to democracy, the rule of law, and civil society than mere mob rule?