Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ghostcat
While it is a well reasoned argument I think it fails on the fact that the writers of the constitution did not in fact include any language setting the standard of the weapon as being discriminating.

Thats as may be, but are you of the opinion that your rights triumph anothers rights?

To put it more succinctly: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

22 posted on 04/18/2002 10:16:34 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Lazamataz
"Thats as may be, but are you of the opinion that your rights triumph anothers rights?"
In no way have I said that my rights trump others, that argument is a red herring, I expect better of you than that laz!

To put it more succinctly: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
If your nose walks into my arm as I am swinging while I have taken reasonable percautions against hitting your nose then in fact that is not true. If however I have not taken any reasonable percautions then I might have indeed violated your rights to have an un-hit nose. Rights do not exist in a vacum so that is why intent, and reasonableness of behavior, and degree of responsibility must be considered.

35 posted on 04/18/2002 10:39:49 AM PDT by ghostcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz
Lazamataz said: "To put it more succinctly: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

Not exactly. It also depends on where you put your nose.

44 posted on 04/18/2002 10:46:28 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson