They will use illusions to Gun Control and call of us who support morality and morals Control Freaks. This is a strawman.
I doubt that anyone one of us who is opposed to this decision, is against Guns, but the libertarians want to make it seem that way.
This decision was wrong. Our founders would never have supported it. I have yet to have a libertarian hedonist explain step by step why the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was wrong in 1815, and the Pedophiles on the Supreme Court in 2002 were right today.
Perhaps you're not as important as you apparently think and no one wants to waste valuable seconds by crafting a response...
No, we are trying to point out that the precedent you want the courts to set could be used to suppress guns, or "hate speech" against gays, or amny other things the Constitution should protect.
Yet, makes the following statement himself: Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Who's comparing apples and oranges?
"I have yet to have a libertarian hedonist explain step by step why the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was wrong in 1815, and the Pedophiles on the Supreme Court in 2002 were right today."
So, the Supreme Court justices are pedophiles and libertarians are hedonists? Really? Slandering your opponents as well as Supreme Court justices. You're really portraying yourself as someone whose critical thinking skills are to be greatly admired.
The truth is, times change and so do community standards. Maybe not to your liking, but not necessarily immorally either. The ruling in the Sharples case likely wouldn't happened today. In addition, we can all be thankful that other court decisions, such as Scopes, Plessey vs. Ferguson, or Brown Vs. Board of Education, would also be decided differently today. But maybe you lament that reality also. Hmm?
Although I would never want to advocate any such travesty on children and view such stuff without context. We all have choices. Let us not perscribe only one thought for our nation. Its a land of free thinkers. I detest harm to women in movies. I wish that they would remove those types of movies but no I choose not to watch them. Therefore if no child is harmed or implictly exposed then no harm is done.
Either you misunderstand the point of the comparison or you're purposely misrepresenting it. We are not implying that you are against guns. That, in fact, is our point. The argument that you are using can be used almost verbatim to justify hardline gun restrictions. That you can see the flaw in the argument when it is used to regulate something you approve of, but not when used to regulate something you oppose, is laughable.