It's not really a matter of a slippery slope arguement, as that in of itself is the problem I have with socialized things.  You need to infringe on peoples rights as a rule just to make the numbers work financially. (And even then....)

It doesn't matter how trivial or pointless a personal freedom is, it's a personal freedom. 

No law should ever be imposed that infringes on anothers right, unless it prevents a direct threat.  Even if it's a freedom that has no advantage to anyone or reason.  Like say, the freedom to stab yourself in the foot.  Not to mention all the cuts it leads to elsewhere.  Not to mention the other cuts.  Like say, not fully funding health and science ventures because all it will do is baloon medical expenses and goverment pensions and goverment social security.

Also, I'm not sure you can call the romanian revolution a legal one.  It afterall did come about thanks to a bunch of illegal rioting.  But in general, weaponry does give regular people leverage in both legal and illegal revolutions and preventing dictatorships... because the case for opression is going to be harder to make because it will be harder.

I find that quote above troubling.  Not saying the acquisition of weapons should be like buying bubble gum, but here is what the second amendment does say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The intention is so that the people can form a militia to protect themselves against foreign invaders and a government that can become oppressive.  From this, the right to carry a weapon for self-defense can be argued.  However, when the right bear arms is framed in the context of crime prevention first, and also hunting, then restrictions on the type of weapons good citizens can have, is infringed upon.  The weapons get made weaker and weaker to the place where only the government will have powerful weapons, and if there is some sort of coup that happens, and a dictator gains control of the government, the citizens will lose all their rights.

By the way, it is the nature of this that had me annoyed an Angle's comment she threw out there.  To say we are THIS close to needing to engage in the use of such weapons against the government is slanderous of those who are in congress now.

As the supreme court puts it. 

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

If they listed EVERY reason why the right to bear arms should not be infringed opon the consitution would be even longer. 

I'm just waiting for the Republicans to blame the next cannibal that eats children on this.

As soon as there's two people interacting, the concept of personal freedom has to be clarified. Once again, if you stab yourself in the foot on a desrt island, it's your own bleeding and sepsis you're facing. If you stab your own foot on a street in NY you'll probably distress onlookers and grab some time out of some policeman's schedule, some resources in an ER, maybe some time for a psychiatric evaluation. All resources that could be used to fix and prevent actual accidents and unwilling behaviours.

Law is all about defining the fuzzy, overlapping bounduaries of rights, the keyword here being defining - an intellectual human activity. To think that rights exist a priori and the law has to stop on their hard bounduary is a nice, clean, naive thought.

When it comes to arms, I'm pretty sure you don't think citizens should have the right to secretly build explosives in their backyard, just in case they need the expertise for a rightworthy revolution. Because they would endanger their neighbours and kids, for a very questionable payoff. Well, having guns in every home endangers the lives of even the neighbour who doesn't own one: it escalates the risk of a burglar being prone to preemtive violence, it increases the risk of children getting their hands on guns, it increases the risk of a third party being involved into shooting for futile motives.

You may think that it's worth the cost, but you're paying it against the right of a burglar to not be shot in the face while stealing a TV, the right to the safety of your kids, the right to not be killed by a gunshot while walking by the door of a fighting couple. It's not a yes/no discrete situation, a right being adamantly observed or utterly trampled: in a community we assess risks, and we pay with small amounts of our saftey and liberty all the time to gain other new liberties. Tradeoffs is what a community is about - wrinkles on your shirt included.

A) A burgler has no right to not be shot in the face.  If someone is breaking into someone elses house, they've basically forfeited all rights they have by illegally breaking in and threating someones private space.

B) Two people don't intersect until there is actual interaction.  Taking the above example...

1) Distressing people on the street.  A non arguement, as anything on the street could distress people.  Two gay people making out on the street would distress people for example. 

2) Why would it grab time out of a policeman's schedule?  You stabbed yourself in the foot you haven't committed a crime.  If by stabbing yourself in the foot and then you need a policeman to help you to the hospital or something... then you should be charged for use of said policeman since the wound was self inflicted.

3) Resources in the ER.  This is why we pay for medical treatment.  The government shouldn't be paying for someone stabbing themselves in the foot or someones lung cancer who smokes cigarettes.

4) Psyche Evaluation.  Again, this is why we pay for medical treatment.

C) Any resulting action that causes trouble, for example someone being careless with their gun and a kid accidently shoots someone would in fact be a crime of course.  It's neglect letting a kid get ahold of your guns or to store explosives near residential areas.

D) The fact that some people will make mistakes is in fact the "price of freedom." however the right to make mistakes is again a natural freedom that shouldn't be infringed.

E) Heck, gun control laws?  Cigarettes are way more costly to society to them, and are much more likely to effect people due to second hand smoke, including smokers children.   Fast Food is more costly and deadly to society, including defenseless children who grow up on it.  There are numerous things more dangerous and costly to society that we wouldn't think of banning.  Heck the above are more dangerous then someones rights to stab themself in the foot!  Which is in general the problem again with such freedom restricting laws. 

They are mostly arbitrary... look at the ban on violent videogames in some countries for example.  There is no proof of ANY negative effect... and yet...

Politicans don't ban things for public good.  They ban things for popularity's sake.

Or to put it more simply....

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

and nowhere before it.

One person's rights are never supposed to supercede another person's rights ever.

@Kasz216:

D) The fact that some people will make mistakes is in fact the "price of freedom." however the right to make mistakes is again a natural freedom that shouldn't be infringed.

People also have responsabilities when living in a society. And mistakes have consiquences, so it's better to have preventive lwas.

E) Heck, gun control laws?  Cigarettes are way more costly to society to them, and are much more likely to effect people due to second hand smoke, including smokers children.   Fast Food is more costly and deadly to society, including defenseless children who grow up on it.  There are numerous things more dangerous and costly to society that we wouldn't think of banning.  Heck the above are more dangerous then someones rights to stab themself in the foot!  Which is in general the problem again with such freedom restricting laws.

The only purpose of a gun is to shoot people. The purpose of a cigarette isn't to cause lung cancer.

D) Pretty much eveything we do soley for enjoyment is a mistake.

E)  Er... no.  The only purpose of guns isn't to shoot people.

For example, some people shoot guns for relaxation.  Some use them to hunt for enjoyment or food or both. 

What use do Cigarettes have again?  Like, other then hopelessly addicting people, giving people cancer and costing national productivity because smokers miss more days of work on average?  Oh, and poisoning people in the general area too?

The most common reason people give?  Relaxation.  It's pretty much the only answer given by smokers.  (Like people who shoot guns.)  Though the truth is... studies tend to show cigarretes don't relax you.  It's all a placebo effect.

Well until you get addicted, and can't go too long without a fix.

Cigarrettes are actually a worse right then stabbing oneself in the foot.  Stabbing yourself in the foot is much less addicting.

It's still a right.  Marijuana is illegal when Alchohol is MUCH worse and legal.  The afteraffects of drinking that hurt and kill people, like drunk driving are the only crime.  No preventative measures here.  Marijuana illegal, gun ownership, people want illegal.

Nobody wants drinking Illegal even though it's more dangerous then both combined... why?  Most people like drinking.

Pure cognitative dissonance and bias.

It's quite obvious that I don't agree with your idea that a burglar has forfeited his right to not be shot in the face as soon as he sneaks into my home to steal a TV. I think you'll find that most civilized country legislations agree with me - at best they'll add mitigating circumstances to praeterintentional or voluntary murder unless you're directly assaulted.

But that's just an example of rights, or better what we think of as rights, clashing and overlapping. Which brings me back to the fact that idealistic petitions about freedom are naive when compared to the complexity of the world. While it's true that the most responsible, caring person could manage to never harm anyone with the gun he keeps at home, safely stored and everything, it's also true that a drunk person can make more damage with a gun than his bare hands.

Accidents happen, bad decisions are taken and later regret and if multplying the chance of an accident happening by the damaging potential you get something too high, you just trace a line. Which is why not even a very competent, patriotic and morally sound nuclear engineer would be permitted to build a nuke in his garage.

Going around swinging fists stopping just before other's noses sounds funny for a two liner that makes you feel all good inside about the sanctity of so called personal freedoms. But while idealism is concerned with the intentions, the pragmatic law must deal with real outcomes: if everybody went around trying to do that kind of swinging, we'd end up with a lot of bruised noses. And if the effects of the lack of common sense or care or cold blood is shooting your neighbour by mistake rather than punching someone, then a pragmatic decision by a community can very well be to limit the chances for really bad outcomes to happen.