Quote:
Originally Posted by paulgiamatti
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I agree. What you're doing, however, is reducing the statement "people like Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodgers are a threat to public safety" to emotion. There are a couple problems with this. One; if 20 grade-school age children lying dead in a pool of their own blood doesn't evoke an emotional response from you, there's something wrong with you. And two; it's simply a factual statement.
|
No one wants to see children dead. If I could put on my superman cape and deflect the bullets from those various shootings then I would without hesitation. There is a famous quote that I cannot quite remember right now - I believe it was Justice Holmes - which went something along the lines of "When I make rulings which fix one problem, how can I be sure I am not creating new problems?"
Arguing that the government should take weapons away from people is not at all guaranteed to lower violence. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent crimes all the time, and criminals don't bother to obtain concealed carry permits. The list of sheriff's associations against gun control is long and growing. Furthermore, the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give the citizens some means of protection against government oppression.
This is where the emotion vs reason thing comes in: it actually takes courage NOT to act in the face of atrocity, knowing the cure would be worse than the disease. Liberty comes with a price: free speech and the right to bear arms both have down sides. But the upsides are greater.