Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Just as libel and slander aren't mentioned in the First, nukes and weaponized biological agents aren't mentioned in the Second. Arguing the dividing line for both amendments is and should be an ongoing process.
|
emphasis mine.
This excerpt from yet another gun control argument is yet another example of Happy Monkey's eloquence. I read this post, and all the others in this context many times before I decided to put this part in the HoF. Many times, too many times, the discussion transforms into an argument, which is ok, but then continues to decay into a shouting match. One of the saddest responses in these situations is the assertion that since "it says so right there in the Constitution / Bill of Rights" that the discussion is closed. Such a reaction is a desperate tactic to end the discussion, not to persuade the other side.
Even if the other side is unpersuadable, even if the discussion is "freaking boring", closing the discussion this way, only shows a closed mind. Retire from the discussion if you wish, but realize that the discussions and the decision will continue despite your abdication. The Constitution is a starting point, not a finish line.
"All just power is derived from the consent of the governed." -- John Locke. There can be no consent without discussion. Silence is *not* assent.