[HumanaeVitae]

Bullhockey. How is my owning an EEEEeeevil assualt rifle immoral/illegal in California.. but somehow not so here in Austin Texas?

You didn't read my post. The people of Kalifornia are saying that ownership of assault rifles is wrong for some reason, i.e. you 'ought not' own one. That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.

[Dead Corpse]

That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.

And a law against two guys buggering each other in their apartment in no way harms you which completely fries YOUR argument. You were the one trying to draw the connection between morality and legality.

For the record, yer' still wrong.

[tpaine]

Just because something is not outlawed does not mean it is not immoral. But if something is outlawed, then society is saying it is immoral. The standard of morality being employed may be flawed, but society's statement about whatever activity is outlawed is clear: it is wrong.
771 -HumanaeVitae-


Bullhockey. How is my owning an EEEEeeevil assualt rifle immoral/illegal in California.. but somehow not so here in Austin Texas?
795 -DC-


You didn't read my post. The people of Kalifornia are saying that ownership of assault rifles is wrong for some reason, i.e. you 'ought not' own one. That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.
-hv-


We ALL read your post. You clearly wrote:

"society's statement about whatever activity is outlawed is clear: it is wrong."

Thus, you are defending CA 'societys' statement that 'assault weapons' can be prohibited. -- Which is clearly unconstitutional.

Waffle all you like as to your personal intent, but you support societies ability to 'outlaw' property or immoral behaviors.