Quote:
Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 04:25 PM
Skirt the issue if you like, but to me either you support measures that protect individuals at the expense of personal freedoms or you do not. The right to possess assault weapons is a right many Americans apparently feel they deserve b/c if they don't have this right, they are on the slide down the slippery slope to not being allowed to have a gun at all. OTOH, the left is ok with banning assault weapons b/c it can rationalize that banning ridiculous weapons with no real purpose outside of war does not mean Uncle George will be thrown in jail someday cuz he refuses to turn over his old .22 that he shoots gophers with. However, they suddenly get skittish when you suggest maybe the government needs some latitude to catch terrorists who are already living in the US b/c it is now ineveitable that big brother will be bashing down there door in a matter of days.
Show me how either side is rational in this, and I'll eat my words, but to me it seems as though both sides are guilty of having an opinion embedded and not being capable of making a decision on the merits.
|
Skirting the issue?
Do I think the government should have the right, sans probable cause, to tap my phone and snoop around my library and bank records? No.
Do I think the government should have the right to stop me from owning a product designed solely to kill scores of other citizens? Yes.
Is it irrational to wish for a society that falls somewhere between anarchy and a police state?