Name: Anonymous 2006-11-27 16:22
To start with, I'll quote my post from the Vasectomies thread. The quote is as follows:
"In the words of Bill Clinton:
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." -William Jefferson Clinton"
In that comment, President Clinton was referring to some rights that the Bill of Rights & Constitution contain. Obviously, however, the above quote is easilly applicable to other situations as well.
When people abuse their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, that must be taken away. When people abuse their 1st amendment right to free speech using offencive or foul language, we must move to restrict their right to speech. When privacy rights such as those within the fourth amendment are protecting terrorists (essentially the same thing as being abused), they must be reconsidered. When the government is unable to adequately continue the War on Terror because of complications regarding the 5th and 8th amendment, we must move to reduce, reform, or remove these rights."
-Post 95, Vasectomies Thread.
Reading what I wrote back in >>95 over again, in light of this recent conversation has led me to the conclusion that perhaps it was a bit rash of me to say that nobody should have 2nd amendment, 5th amendment, or 8th amendment rights anymore due to their abuses by a few irresponsible men..
At first, this sounded fine, but then I considered the fact that women hardly ever abuse these freedoms(1), and thus taking them away from women is not justified, seeing as how the justification in taking them away from males is that males abuse them. This is no doubt due to the naturally aggressive nature of males.
Since men abuse their freedoms, they are open to being taken away. Since women don't, taking them away is not justified. What, then, is the obvious solution? Of course, take them away from men, not women.
This way, the option of self-defense is still open for those women who feel threatened by aggressive males, and much of the criminal element (4/5 criminals are males, a whopping 80%!) will thus not have access to guns or the freedoms they abuse.
(Women don't generally commit crimes.)
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442 (1)
Face it, how often is it you see women shooting up schools, robbing banks, flying planes into buildings, murdering people, raping people, sexually harassing people, or acting violently? Since males abuse their rights, and women don't, logically we should remove the rights from the males, and not from women.
The facts are in (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442), and they are on my side.
"In the words of Bill Clinton:
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." -William Jefferson Clinton"
In that comment, President Clinton was referring to some rights that the Bill of Rights & Constitution contain. Obviously, however, the above quote is easilly applicable to other situations as well.
When people abuse their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, that must be taken away. When people abuse their 1st amendment right to free speech using offencive or foul language, we must move to restrict their right to speech. When privacy rights such as those within the fourth amendment are protecting terrorists (essentially the same thing as being abused), they must be reconsidered. When the government is unable to adequately continue the War on Terror because of complications regarding the 5th and 8th amendment, we must move to reduce, reform, or remove these rights."
-Post 95, Vasectomies Thread.
Reading what I wrote back in >>95 over again, in light of this recent conversation has led me to the conclusion that perhaps it was a bit rash of me to say that nobody should have 2nd amendment, 5th amendment, or 8th amendment rights anymore due to their abuses by a few irresponsible men..
At first, this sounded fine, but then I considered the fact that women hardly ever abuse these freedoms(1), and thus taking them away from women is not justified, seeing as how the justification in taking them away from males is that males abuse them. This is no doubt due to the naturally aggressive nature of males.
Since men abuse their freedoms, they are open to being taken away. Since women don't, taking them away is not justified. What, then, is the obvious solution? Of course, take them away from men, not women.
This way, the option of self-defense is still open for those women who feel threatened by aggressive males, and much of the criminal element (4/5 criminals are males, a whopping 80%!) will thus not have access to guns or the freedoms they abuse.
(Women don't generally commit crimes.)
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442 (1)
Face it, how often is it you see women shooting up schools, robbing banks, flying planes into buildings, murdering people, raping people, sexually harassing people, or acting violently? Since males abuse their rights, and women don't, logically we should remove the rights from the males, and not from women.
The facts are in (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442), and they are on my side.