Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
You can't smoke in a preschool; you can't drive your motorcycle through a shopping mall; and you can't go to a ball game without your pants on. You see, this is what some of us are getting at: You have rights to certain things, but there are reasonable limits. (And they aren't merely "as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.") You have the right to private property, but you cannot own certain materials that are banned from private ownership (specifically due to risk of public danger). This isn't an infringement on property rights; it's about reasonable restrictions.
They aren't trying to take all the guns away; they're merely limiting the availability of certain firearms. And, as has been mentioned more than once here, most Americans support that.
|
woohoo, outstanding!!!!
who gets to define reasonable and whats that definition consist of? will it be the same as mine? for those that disagree on the 'reasonableness' of the definition of reasonable, whats our recourse?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|