Phat writes:
quote:
The state should not meddle in peoples freedoms and rights.
First: You have the right to kill people?
Second: The state most definitely *should* meddle for no right is absolute. See the first point.
After all, the Second Amendment directly and specifically states that your right to own a gun is in relation to the need for a "well-regulated" militia.
Exactly where do you think that "well-regulated" part is going to come from? That's right: The government.
The Second Amendment directly and specifically states that the government is going to tell you what it is you can and cannot do with a gun. The Supreme Court's decision that your right to own a gun was a personal right was literally predicated upon the idea that the "well-regulated" part didn't actually mean anything and is to be ignored.
Your libertarian claptrap is showing, Phat. You seem to be of the opinion that you are an island and anybody who gets hurt by your actions only has themselves to blame.
I seem to recall something in your religious text about being your "brother's keeper." Your actions have consequences and thus, you are beholden to the people around you. No freedom is absolute. No right is absolute.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.