Talk about a Slippery Slope

I had to go back to be sure that I did not write, as you assert, that I felt there should be no laws regulating gun use on the grounds that it would prevent stupid (and in the process, I believe, labeling me insane, not very nice Steve.  Lets play nice and keep to policy and topic shall we? )  My exact words ( a few posts ago)were:

“Believe it or not, I actually am OK with having some (read that word strongly - SOME) regulation/registration and/or licensing”

 

  Additionally, I think that my assertions regarding the legislation are in regard to the futile attempt to prevent any and all gun problems, but nowhere did I claim that there should be no laws or anything in place.  More, it is the disparate laws depending on locale and the continuing push ( especially after some nut with a gun is splashed across the newspapers)  to put more and more restrictions in place to try to prevent tragedies, but in truth, all it does is restrict or make legal ownership more difficult.  Does it prevent some bad things from occurring? Undoubtedly there are terrible events which are avoided BUT it also creates an infringements of personal rights, and these laws need to be scrutinized and enacted with extreme care.  There will always be crazies with guns (hopefully not many) just as there will always be drunks with cars, no matter the laws. And so we find that there is some agreement between us in this.  (and if you are going to attack my positions, be sure to have them correct.)

As to constitutional rights, it does not matter if you disagree with ‘my’ interpretation, that remains the interpretation which is followed. Gun ownership remains a right of all people  ( a right you can lose with illegal actions) but is protected (at least at this time), even for the blind.

Finally, I always find it amusing how passionately people on the left will defend individual rights and Constitutional amendments ( and even going so far as to create them like ‘the right to marriage’) as long as it is not the right to keep and bear arms.  Just a few pages ago you were quite voracious in your arguments about due process rights and how infringing on them ( despite the potential prevention of tragedies) was too immoral and a slippery slope.  Yet in this breath, you argue that it is fine to infringe on the rights of people if you (or perhaps whoever may be in power) do not believe that person is able to participate in those rights.  According to that logic, maybe children and the mentally retarded shouldn’t get equal rights because they can’t fully understand that concept and further cannot participate and contribute equally to our society.  Maybe only poor people should be able to exercise the 8th amendment right to not having unreasonable bail or fines, after all shouldn’t those fat cat bankers pay more?- we already do that percentage wise with taxes.  Or maybe those who are the worst of the worst criminals ( like men who rape babies) ought to not get the protection of the 8th amendment, after all, they deserve a terrible and cruel punishment.   See how hard it becomes when you pick and choose who and what deserves the rights afforded in the Constitution? Maybe it is just better to let the rights that the Constitution spells out to be given to all until the time that they do something to lose those rights.  Else it becomes a particularly slippery slope.

 

And finally, Day care providers, what do you think of the (forced) unionization of them in Michigan?