Quote:
Quote by: Milton Bradley  No, you want to frame the debate as if it were "a policy decision", unfortunately for you, I see this as one of my birthrights, so don't expect our side to come around to your framed debate position, because we see right through your little charade.
Subversive! |
Yes, I want to frame the debate as a policy decision because that is what it is. It is not a birthright, because we do not all enter the world with a gun strapped to our hips. But, if you would prefer, I can go the less snarky rout and say that every birthright that exists at all, exists because someone made a "policy decision". The most famous "birthright", the right of primogenitor, was a policy decision that some still cling to and others have discarded, as a matter of policy. God did not ordain your right to own a gun, anymore than he ordained the first born son to always inherit the title and position of his father. Unless you want to bring that archaic practice back to our shores, you must admit that we pick and chose what "birthrights" we have, as a matter of policy.
Think of it this way, when the Founders accepted Jefferson's text for the Declaration of Independence, they said what they meant to England and to posterity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are your birthrights. The Constitution is the mode of enacting the policy they felt, at the time, best safegarded those birthrights. They gave us the ability to amend if we wanted to change policy and they vested the Supreme Court with the power to interpret what they meant and what the document should mean in the future. By whatever course, it is all still about the best policy for protecting your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and a firearm.