| Kasz216 said: So...your arguement is. If something is much more dangerous then something else... but more people want it to be legal... it should be legal. Is that not just advocating tyranny of the majority? Having the right to almost punch people in the face will mean people will be punched in the face accidently, however it's a better alternative then the legality of something being dependent on it's popularity. The fact that I might like something less dangerous but be denied of it because it's less popular is absurd. |
That's exactly how it worked out with alcohol vs drugs such as marjuana in many western countries, isnt't it? It's not my position, but it's what happened historically.
Please note that I'm not advocating anything: I'm stating that human law is born out of pragmatic choices a community makes about itself and its evolution, not just petitions of principles. Matter of fact.
And while on several issues I find myself in the minority most of the times, and I can think I see things better or clearer than the law, that's not the point I was making. We can disagree on how much regulation is needed for guns in a modern western society, but at least we'd be arguing about risks and statistics and licenses and corner cases, not about an abstract, naked right.
And I claimed that this is what law is about: the wooly layers of interpretation and muddling that come between aseptic abstract individual rights and their realization in a given situation with many people involved. Law is only necessary in a community; isn't it obvious that clashing of so-called individual rights is inevitable and its own reason d'etre?
