In many other arenas we limit individual freedom to protect the lives of others. When someone has a highly communicable disease, she or he is quarantined. Even dogs with rabies are isolated to prevent transmission. You wouldn’t want a person infected with Ebola virus walking the streets and kissing your children.Guess what she wants "modest limits" on.
And then they wonder why their intended targets react with hostility...
5 comments:
"Putting modest limits on types of weapons and who can own them is a small price to pay for enhanced safety and security."
When you start with a blatantly false premise is it any wonder that you end up with a very stupid conclusion? May the gods please save us from idiots (well meaning and otherwise).
They miss the point that we already have "modest" limits on weapons and who can own them. No Full auto (minor exceptions), No bore size in excess of .50 (some exceptions), no convicted felons (regardless of the actual crime), no mentally insane, not illegal drug users, etc. No artillery piecesk, no RPG, No grenades, or other fun items.
That non-argument is growing rather tiresome, and has me really wanting to build a cannon...
They're going to find out that some people may well accept their analogy at face value.
"Dogs with rabies are isolated..."
Hm. Just what is it that one does to a dog with rabies again? Oh sure, they may get "isolated", but then what happens? I don't seem to recall "here's a couple aspirin and call me in the morning" as the customary rehabilitative treatment, do you?
Ya know, if someone intends to treat me like a rabid dog, I may just respond like one. Only I'll be doing it with a clear head.
I asked her what she'd do if she was faced with being rape and being strangled... smile and submit?
Hypocrite...
Post a Comment