OK, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. However, as common sense would have it, some people are obviously not supposed to have guns. Mentally retarded people, the Virginia Tech guy, convicted felons. For the good of the entire nation, we have selective gun control procedures put into place against these people.
We remove the rights of a few people to protect the rights of everyone else. And, for the most part, everyone is happy.
But why can't we do that with other Amendments? OK, I agree with everyone having free speech, but can't we just take groups like NAMBLA and just shut them up? They do just about as much good as an insane person with a gun, so why not simply remove their right?
I remember playing outside when I was a kid. My parents would let me go all day and not even check on me. When I had my children, I let them do pretty much the same thing, but I kept a little closer eye on them because the world was just getting crazy. But my children are almost ready to have kids, and I fear that they won’t even be able to let their children out of the house, there are so many crazy people out there.
Can’t we say that all people have freedom of speech, EXCEPT CHILD MOLESTERS?
Can’t we say “no cruel and unusual punishment”, EXCEPT FOR CHILD MOLESTERS?
We put restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, why not the rest?
2007-06-15
03:21:30
·
22 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics