Back in the 90's Tipper Gore was a very vocal supporter of censoring music. Her little PMRC outfit argued that musicians shouldn't be allowed to express themselves freely, and adults shouldn't be allowed to buy the music they want to buy because it might harm the little children. However, every thinking progressive said, "What the fuck? If you don't want your child listening to music that you don't like, then monitor what the hell your child is listen to and what records they're buying."
The music censorship movement is more or less dead, and ultimately, music fans won. Those saying "parents should take more responsibility for their children" won.
Then there was another argument to limit rights. Some Evangelical woman says, "we can't allow gay marriage. How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men can get married?"
And every right thinking progressive was outraged. Saying, "I didn't spread my legs and pump out a child. You did. Are you really trying to say that people shouldn't have the right to marry because you don't want to talk to your fucking kid?"
And ultimately, irresponsible Jesus Freak lady is losing that argument as gay marriage rights has continually expanded, and will continue to do so.
Then in December, 20 children get gunned down at Sandy Hook. Democrats drag weeping parents out into the public spotlight, while they wail that no one needs an AR-15 to hunt deer. That these children are dead and it's all the NRA's fault. That gun owners are one in the same with criminal child killers.
So let's follow the bouncing ball here. If you don't want your kid harmed, then protect your kid. See how perfectly logical that is? Why should anyone lose their rights because some parents have FAILED as parents?
Every creature on this earth must protect themselves from predators. Every creature that gives birth must protect their young until their young can protect themselves. Why would anyone in their right mind think that human beings are any different?
If a child gets run over, that's not an argument to ban cars. If a child dies of food poisoning that's not an argument to ban food. If a child dies from downing a bottle of aspirin, that's not an argument to ban aspirin. And if a child dies from being shot, that is not an argument to ban guns.
The only logical thing here that should be banned here is that irresponsible parents should be banned from reproducing.
Every individual makes the choice to have a child. You make the choice to spend the next two decades of your life feeding that child, nurturing that child, clothing that child, educating that child, and protecting that child. If any harm comes to that child, then it is your fault and nobody else's.
I sat on my back porch Sunday, I live in the country. You can here gun shots all day long. Parents teaching their children to target practice, and big adults playing. It doesn't bother me, nor do I fear for my dog that runs freely when I am home.
But before I hit that- it's not that it was "progressives" that wanted to protect people's rights, it was liberals. "Progressive" makes little sense to me.
The problem with your bouncing ball is that it's more like one of those crazy bouncing balls that can go in a lot of directions and once you see where it can go- your argument looks downright silly. So really your argument is more like a donut.
So follow this bouncing ball:
On one hand, you are arguing about people's right to express themselves, and that we as a liberal nation, cringed at such a concept and ultimately it failed. Are you saying that a person who brings in a gun to a local movie theater and kills everyone in sight is just expressing their self?
You must also be aghast that we have not taught our children to protect themselves if a person yells fire in a theater and be able to rough out the impeding stampede to the door (and oh yeah- they were just joking). Right? Because we clearly have set a boundary on speech where you can't do that. But using your logic- you want the parents to be able to teach their kids what to do if someone yells fire into a crowded theater and survive the rush to the doors that has historically proven to be deadly. Panic is something that is bad for a democracy and the government has a right to limit our rights in the interest of avoiding, or minimizing panic.
It would be a nice cozy use of your logical ball if children in south Los Angeles weren't made to sleep under their bed because they fear a random bullet. How, exactly, does one teach their child to dodge a bullet that comes through the wall while they are sleeping? but that's not really panic... it's much worse. Is there a book that teaches parents how to dodge bullets that go through walls, while they sleep?
If we can, logically, say the limit to the 1st amendment's right to to free speech can be limited in x, y, and z, (ie the "can't shout fire in a crowded theater) surely the government has a duty to explore and limit reasonably the right of gun owners who might have a desire to do something like shout "fire" in a crowded theater. No?
But again- you are talking about things that might give children poor impressions about life and trying yo tie that into the gun debate is about not letting them be shot and killed. Do people's life trump a person's right to speech? I think so. Therefore I think your ball just fell through the big hole in the middle of your donut.
Yes, we as a nation need to come up with a nationwide solution. Because one state can't ban guns and expect to solve the problem when the next state over let's 18 year olds with no jobs and no income to buy $50,000 worth of guns at a time.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
