I value 1st Amendment Rights well beyond your capacity. My own parents, to whom I owe my very life, and respect beyond your wildest dreams, disagree with me on most political views. I would risk my own life to defend the right of any citizen who disagrees with me..as I would any of the other 26 Amendments. Life's value is absolutely dependent upon freedom, and when people sacrifice freedom for safety, they deserve neither.
I presume you're happy with they way your own country's run? Great! Revel in it and live there happily! Personally, the idea of sacrificing individual rights for the sake of the collective doesn't appeal to me, nor did it appeal to the founders of this country, for whom you must hold a particular distane. I don't care..and neither should you, since you don't live here.
If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile? Your time would be better spent, saving MANY more lives, and attacking a tool that isn't protected by Civil Liberties.
If you're going to make condescending, nitpicking remarks about spelling or typos, this conversation ends.
"nor did it appeal to the founders of this country". I don't believe the founders of a country should have any bearing on how it is run *now*, in the present. The past is that past, let it die and start considering new ideas objectively.
"neither should you, since you don't live here". I will decide what I care about, thank you. Refer to my two sentences of my first reply to you.
"If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile?" Cars also make millions of lives easier. Cars aren't designed to kill, they have a greater purpose; guns are designed to kill. Cars would be much, much, much harder to ban than guns because cars are (at the moment) essential to economic development, whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development.
It was hardly condescending or nitpicking - your comment was unclear. It was hardly a simple spelling mistake when you substitute a whole other word in. I didn't start this (unnecessarily hostile) conversation with you, and I don't really care if you want to end it.
What is your opinion on gun control?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I value 1st Amendment Rights well beyond your capacity. My own parents, to whom I owe my very life, and respect beyond your wildest dreams, disagree with me on most political views. I would risk my own life to defend the right of any citizen who disagrees with me..as I would any of the other 26 Amendments. Life's value is absolutely dependent upon freedom, and when people sacrifice freedom for safety, they deserve neither.
I presume you're happy with they way your own country's run? Great! Revel in it and live there happily! Personally, the idea of sacrificing individual rights for the sake of the collective doesn't appeal to me, nor did it appeal to the founders of this country, for whom you must hold a particular distane. I don't care..and neither should you, since you don't live here.
If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile? Your time would be better spent, saving MANY more lives, and attacking a tool that isn't protected by Civil Liberties.
If you're going to make condescending, nitpicking remarks about spelling or typos, this conversation ends.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"nor did it appeal to the founders of this country". I don't believe the founders of a country should have any bearing on how it is run *now*, in the present. The past is that past, let it die and start considering new ideas objectively.
"neither should you, since you don't live here". I will decide what I care about, thank you. Refer to my two sentences of my first reply to you.
"If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile?" Cars also make millions of lives easier. Cars aren't designed to kill, they have a greater purpose; guns are designed to kill. Cars would be much, much, much harder to ban than guns because cars are (at the moment) essential to economic development, whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development.
It was hardly condescending or nitpicking - your comment was unclear. It was hardly a simple spelling mistake when you substitute a whole other word in. I didn't start this (unnecessarily hostile) conversation with you, and I don't really care if you want to end it.