Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rogerv

rogev:
In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?






By following the basic principles of our Constitution.

No infringements on individual liberties allowed.
18 jones






I think civil rights have protected us from the brutal treatment one sees in some regimes around the world, and I'm glad they are there. -- [snip] -- I know some of you are very concerned about right to bear arms because you believe otherwise the government might not honor its commitment to protect your other rights.

(BTW I am not interested in taking your guns away from you, but I do distinguish regulation from suppression; I think all our rights are qualified by an obligation to protect others from harm)
-- snip --

-- we disagree on what liberties people should be allowed to have (making the application of constitutional principles far from straightforward).



21 rogerv








You distinguish regulation from suppression; - thus, you think our rights to keep & bear arms are qualified by an obligation to protect others from 'harm'.
Unsaid is your assumption that guns are harmful objects and must be regulated. Your belief is being used by government to infringe by over-regulation.

It is not a 'belief' but a fact that the government has not honored its commitment to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, among many others.

Indeed, -- we disagree on the basics themselves of what liberties people have, not only on what they "should be allowed to have".
In fact, your use of 'allowed' is a good illustration of how deep our disagreement lies.

How can we rationally institute changes in our society if we can't even agree on such basic principles?





29 posted on 12/16/2004 12:10:16 PM PST by jonestown ( JONESTOWN, TX http://www.tsha.utexas.edu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: jonestown

I believe some gun control measures are knee-jerk overreactions and don't endorse them. Nor do I count myself as a person who is concerned about what liberties other people have. On that score, I am comfortable with as much liberty that is consistent with everyone have like liberty. The only limitation I insist on is the same one John Stuart Mill insisted on: liberty is limited when such liberty would harm others. Whether particular restrictions on gun ownership protect anyone or not is a question of fact, and you, I'm sure know more about that than I do.


45 posted on 12/17/2004 10:47:19 AM PST by rogerv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: jonestown

One further point. I believe that regulation is consistent with liberty provided we always look for the least restrictive alternative when imposing regulation. That place the burden on those who would restrict liberty to demonstrate no reasonable alternative would achieve the same ends and a lower price to liberty. I hope that clarification helps.


48 posted on 12/17/2004 11:16:55 AM PST by rogerv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson