THIS Is What A "No Compromise" Position Looks Like.

[mzmadmike]

We "Compromised" and lost warships and artillery and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on auto and silencers and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on imports and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" again on autos and gained nothing.  We "Compromised" on certain cosmetic features that complicated the matter, and gained nothing.  There

Comments

[septithol]

The thing is, Mike, that you are refering to the 'right' to own weapons of various sorts. Which I believe in, since I believe in rights and the existence of any right necessarily that there also must exist a right to defend those rights, and therefore to own whatever weapons you choose to defend those rights

[mzmadmike]

I would use it to defend my nation and community, not myself.

I don't find how my possession would hinder anyone's right to life. Only the illicit use thereof, which makes it no different from any other weapon.

Prior restraint is frowned upon by the Constitution and SCOTUS.

[septithol]

Madmike wrote

[mzmadmike]

The "Right to live" argument can be used against guns, on the argument that they MIGHT get stolen and/or used illicitly.

There is no difference in position, only in scale.

Either I can own the means to hurt others, or I can not. If I can, then the onus is on me to use it responsibly, and I am liable for any harm that results.

If I can't own something because it MIGHT be used to harm others, then almost everything becomes bannable.

[septithol]

The "Right to live" argument can be used against guns, on the argument that they MIGHT get stolen and/or used illicitly.

There is no difference in position, only in scale.

Either I can own the means to hurt others, or I can not. If I can, then the onus is on me to use it responsibly, and I am liable for any harm that results.

If I can't own something because it MIGHT be used to harm others, then almost everything becomes bannable. Mike, I have been thinking about this for a couple hours while putting the papers around in the back room

[mzmadmike]

The point is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope

[septithol]

"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," I'd defend your right to own the nuke. But the moment you screwed up with it, in any of the ways I have previously listed, I'd prosecute you. Not before, though