betacon said:
|
The problem is that there is always a "middle ground" It reminds me of Zeno's paradox and how one might seemingly never reach their destination if they keep moving half the distance they moved before, but essentially the sum of the limit of each adds up to a finite number. So with each "compromise" we get closer and closer to that nanny state, and it only remains a nanny state when it's benevolent, otherwise it turns totalitarian. No thank you! I value freedom very much, and invidual liberties are very important for living a "good life" albeit not necessarily a totally safe one. However; these idealisms always lead to dissapointment and often ruin (substantiated by history.) Hence, when it comes to individual liberties there is no compromise which deals with the state's involvement. Compromise must be within the society, which is a separate and distinct entity from the state and which has a different origin and different values. The state is meant to protect our liberties as long as they don't intrude upon the liberties and freedoms of others. Hence, lawful citizens should be able to own what they want. There ARE other solutions, and it is clear with the diversity found among the various states in the U.S, in which many have many guns but few homicides.
