|
|
|
|
|
|
by talldayo
732 days ago
|
|
|
> All of those "dozens of restrictive gun laws that rational people should advocate for" are also wildly unconstitutional and a complete violation of our natural rights. Okay. There are also laws that limit your speech on certain topics, but nobody is about to go defend the guy yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater. So natural infringement or not, there's not necessarily a demand to overturn all of these laws. Naturally speaking you're entitled to a great number of things the law stops you from doing, because deterministic change is not inherently a good thing. We prevent unnatural and harmful actions by outlawing the most egregious violations of our right to self-determination. If you're unwilling to adopt a compromising approach to gun control then I'd argue you're ill-equipped to promote change in a liberal democracy. |
|
|
"...But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago...."
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
https://archive.is/n6bpu