"Imagine highways run by regulations written in 1791. Imagine limiting yourself to medical care that was available in 1791. The second amendment was written in 1791."
Socialized medicine didn't exist in 1791, and neither did compact fully automatic firearms. Is your argument about technology, or about regulation? Because you seem to be saying basically that regulation needs to keep up with technology, but your examples are contradictory. Most of your examples are not based on principles enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but assume that technology will provide more options to citizens over time that not only need regulation but are good for citizens to have; but the same logic doesn't support the point you're really making, that advancements in firearm technology should not be regulated in a way that lets people have well designed guns but just shouldn't have them at all.
That's the problem with dishonest metaphors and analogies built around half truths: it looks like you're making a point because of the symmetry in your argument, but it's got the same symmetry as "heads I win, tails you lose."
Socialized medicine didn't exist in 1791, and neither did compact fully automatic firearms. Is your argument about technology, or about regulation? Because you seem to be saying basically that regulation needs to keep up with technology, but your examples are contradictory. Most of your examples are not based on principles enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but assume that technology will provide more options to citizens over time that not only need regulation but are good for citizens to have; but the same logic doesn't support the point you're really making, that advancements in firearm technology should not be regulated in a way that lets people have well designed guns but just shouldn't have them at all.
That's the problem with dishonest metaphors and analogies built around half truths: it looks like you're making a point because of the symmetry in your argument, but it's got the same symmetry as "heads I win, tails you lose."
No comments:
Post a Comment