You might look up what DC v. Heller decided. Sorry, but your continued attempts to describe the possibilities I listed as - to take just a few adjectives that you have presently chosen to deluge me with so as to paint me as a raving lunatic - "imaginary," "unrealistic," and "fantastic," don't hold up. I wouldn't call being one supreme court vote away from losing the individual right to bear arms any of those things. — Thorongil

The leap is from "repeal of second amendment" to "ban on all guns".

If you really feel you are being picked on, you can raise it in Feedback. — Baden

Yes, why not raise it in feedback, so that a verdict can be given by a group of leftist mods on their own behaviour. Sounds like a good idea. >:O

The leap is from "repeal of second amendment" to "ban on all guns". — Michael

So if members of the left assert - like you yourself - that for strategical reason things must be started with small gradual changes, how is that a leap?

So if members of the left assert - like you yourself - that for strategical reason things must be started with small gradual changes, how is that a leap? — Agustino

Are those who argue that the first amendment doesn't protect the right of any adult to marry planning to ban marriage in its entirety? Or do they just wish to allow for bans on certain types of marriage (e.g. same-sex marriage)?

Wanting to repeal the second amendment so that greater restrictions on gun control can be put in place doesn't entail wanting to ban all guns.

The leap is from "repeal of second amendment" to "ban on all guns". — Michael

It wasn't even 'repeal', it was, 'hey, the constitution itself provides for a reading in which regulation is written into the very passage itself'. And as Ciceronianus pointed out all those pages ago, none of the constitutional rights are unconditional, and practically none are treated as such; the insistence that the 2nd is somehow special is itself a complete anomaly.

I get it but I actually don't want unfair treatment and it's difficult to be objective when involved in a discussion. As I've said before I believe all of these debates should end with a smile and a handshake if possible.

Are those who argue that the first amendment doesn't protect the right of any adult to marry planning to ban marriage in its entirety? Or do they just wish to allow for bans on certain types of marriage (e.g. same-sex marriage)? — Michael

Well two things. First of all, they state that their intention is to ban same-sex marriage but not the other kind of marriage. In this other case, some of the leftists openly state that the intention is to ban all guns, but that should be approached by gradual change. So the situations are not similar.

Second of all, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so there isn't even a problem.

Wanting to repeal the second amendment so that greater restrictions on gun control can be put in place doesn't entail wanting to ban all guns. — Michael

No, you're right, it doesn't entail it. But do some people on the left want to ban all guns, and intend to do this via the route of gradual change?

Yes, but I am also bacillus paranoias. So will you judge me with your microscope? :D

Isn't it illegal in the UK to buy a knife of any kind if you're under 18? Isn't it true that knives are highly regulated, and there have even been calls for total bans on any knife that comes to a point? How long before you have to be 18 to be legally allowed to use safety scissors, with gloves on?

Isn't it illegal in the UK to buy a knife of any kind if you're under 18? — Wosret

Yes, when I was an immigrant there, I remember having trouble buying a knife.

Second of all, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so there isn't even a problem. — Agustino

:-}

No, you're right, it doesn't entail it. But do some people on the left want to ban all guns, and intend to do this via the route of gradual change? — Agustino

Yes, and some don't. Some might just want to address the fact that a ban on anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is unconstitutional. Some will think that bans like this are needed, and so a repeal of the second amendment is required.

Yes, and some don't. — Michael

Ok, so then you can understand that it's not such a big leap when actors on the left publicly state that this is their intention. At least you understand how Thorongil can come to make the leap.

Isn't it illegal in the UK to buy a knife of any kind if you're under 18? Isn't it true that knives are highly regulated, and there have even been calls for total bans on any knife that comes to a point? — Wosret

Selling, buying and carrying knives:

It’s illegal to:

• sell a knife to anyone under 18, unless it has a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
• carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less
• carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
• use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)

How long before you have to be 18 to be legally allowed to use safety scissors, with gloves on?

Nonsense rhetoric. Slippery slope fallacy.

People are never going to feel safe enough, it clearly is a slippery slope. There is going to be push and pull. Obviously some will never be pleased until they get personal nukes, and others won't be until we all can't leave the house without helmets, and permanently attached oven mitts. It probably just has a lot to do with temperament, what temperature the water is you're already sitting in, and personal feelings of security, and anxiety.

Everyone should just get sweet knife defense courses. Obviously not a slippery slope when things have gotten that ridiculous.

Obviously some will never be pleased until they get personal nukes, and others won't be until we all can't leave the house without helmets, and permanently attached over mitts — Wosret

>:O . It's an interesting paradox. Some think it's safer if everyone has weapons, and others that it's safer if no one has weapons.

Now this comment reminded me that you said something interesting to me about imitation in a comment yesterday that I meant to reply to and forgot, but I need to find it first.

Some do think that guns makes them safer, but I think that the debate tends to be more phrased as freedom vs safety, smaller government and "nanny state". So whether it made people safer or not I don't think is the issue for most that are pro gun rights.

Obviously not a slippery slope when things have gotten that ridiculous. — Wosret

They haven't gotten that ridiculous, as you don't have to be 18 to use safety scissors with gloves.

How reckless.

Second of all, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so there isn't even a problem. — Agustino

I can't resist:

If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman then same-sex marriage is incoherent, and so no same-sex couples are married. Whatever the current legal status of their relationship, it isn't marriage, and so those who oppose it have nothing to worry about (and nothing to ban).

Besides, such a ban would clearly violate the first amendment, as Americans have the constitutional right to use the word "marriage" to describe the relationship of same-sex couples, even if such language-use is contrary to the historical definition of the term. We're free to speak gobbledygook.

Only your manly parts. :)

Hmm... Bacillus Sexomaniacus ;)

Whatever the current legal status of their relationship, it isn't marriage, and so those who oppose it have nothing to worry about (and nothing to ban). — Michael

Sure, but many of them are simply concerned about marriage being the words that are used, and the fact that religious groups are forced to recognise these unions. Apart from that, no issue.

We're free to speak gobbledygook. — Michael

Sure, but the issue is that this gobbledygook can impinge on the freedom of religious organisations since they will be expected to recognise these new gobbledygook forms of marriage.

What does it mean to be expected to recognise these so-called-but-not-really-marriages? Are they obliged to say "you two are married"?

Are they obliged to say "you two are married"? — Michael

Yes, they are obliged (or can be obliged) to officiate marriage ceremonies or recognise the couple as married.

they are obliged (or can be obliged) to officiate marriage ceremonies — Agustino

Then the problem isn't with same-sex so-called-but-not-really-marriage per se but with religious institutions being required to officiate such unions.

Would it be a problem if same-sex couples are allowed to be issued so-called-but-not-really-marriage licenses but that religious institutions are not required to officiate such unions? That's how it works in the UK.

or recognise the couple as married.

That's the bit I'm confused about. What does it mean to recognise a couple as married?

Would it be a problem if same-sex couples are allowed to be issued so-called-but-not-really-marriage licenses but that religious institutions are not required to officiate such unions? — Michael

No, people are free to associate as they wish, and live together with whoever they wish.

What does it mean to recognise a couple as married? — Michael

Recognising a couple as married (from the point of view of religious institutions) means according them the status of married in a religious sense - meaning holding religious ceremonies to recognise their marriage.

Recognising a couple as married (from the point of view of religious institutions) means according them the status of married in a religious sense - meaning holding religious ceremonies to recognise their marriage. — Agustino

So when you say "they are obliged ... to officiate marriage ceremonies or recognise the couple as married" you're just repeating yourself?

Then I guess the whole debate against same-sex marriage is pretty pointless, as from what I understand, religious institutions aren't required to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies (at least not in the UK or the US).

Moral principles are important to be freely chosen or imparted, otherwise it is just tyranny, and slavery. I — Wosret

You are right, but this is a counter intuitive truth. It would seem, on surface, that best way to promote morality is by force and by heavy progranda. Yet, you are correct this would not be true virtue since it would not be a free choice. In fact even a morally good nation where virtue is an easy or natural choice (the default) would do little to encourage true virtue that requires choosing against vice. In fact our current nation is probably ideal, it grants freedom to choose while providing an atmosphere where virtue is neither present nor truly known. That is a perfect situation to raise up rare individuals who seek out virtue and pursue it even against the common zeitgeist. I suspect the world has always been this way and I doubt good societies ever existed. I think virtue is a probably better with quality than quantity.

I agree with you that culture is made a scapegoat that everyone but oneself is prone to. Several factors are at play here. First, most people are basically good and decent yet being good and decent doesn't sell ratings or catch the spotlight. So we have the illusion that our neighbors are morally worse than we are. Second, we have many subcultures, many of them religious, which provide a contrasting narrative and offer a stronger moral code that people follow. Third, I would be bold enough to say I do not allow my culture to determine my values and have an ethic and worldview that us fundamentally oppossed to modern culture's ethic. This is because I'm heavily drawn to contemplation almost monasticism and firmly reject materialism. In high school I had dreams of becoming a monk, but I foolishly didn't listen. I blame culture for the lie that getting a job and having a family is the key to happiness and having them I feel a bit tricked. I think there is a way to be a family centered contemplative. The way I fundamentally differ from culture is that I know that my happiness is completely independent of my material or social success. I really don't care about my salary or promotions or what others think of me. Or perhaps more accurately put I know I shouldn't care and I struggle to live my life without seeking those things.

many of them are simply concerned about marriage being the words that are used — Agustino

It is strange to me that people have such strong convictions over a (supposed) misuse of a word. How can it actually bother you that a word which (supposedly) means "union of man and a woman" is being used to describe the union of two men or of two women? Are the religious just deeply committed to preserving definitions? Are they just deeply opposed to semantic change?