MI is indeed Michigan.
I just cannot believe that some people will fight tooth and nail for something specifically written in the Constitution, then turn around and base everything else over whether or not they feel it is a good idea.
Some people feel that a world without guns would make life more enjoyable and safe. If we didn't have guns, we woudn't have anyone shot. Using some of your logic, I am suprised that it isn't your stand.
You cannot have freedom and protect people at the same time. You either give them freedom, including the freedom to do stupid things and hurt themselves, or give them safety, which will require taking all freedom and you making all choices for them.
If you support legislating things to keep people from hurting themselves, why aren't you supporting a ban on smoking? Heck, the decision to smoke will affect more bystander sthan your decision to not wear a safety belt. Why don't we enforce all sexual acts must be done with birth protection, unless you have a note from the doctor saying you are trying to have a baby? Why not ban swimming without a life preserver? Why not just ban firearms, to keep those few hundred accidents and few thousand homicides from happening every year? Not to mention things like hang gliding, mountain climing, sky diving, and scuba diving? Those sports are full of dangers, and there really is no reason to do any of them.
And when do we stop supporting other's ideas to save ourselves? Once you say something should be enforced to keep people from killing themselves, can you really disagree with another idea?
It is not the government's job to protect me from myself.
I just cannot believe that some people will fight tooth and nail for something specifically written in the Constitution, then turn around and base everything else over whether or not they feel it is a good idea.
Some people feel that a world without guns would make life more enjoyable and safe. If we didn't have guns, we woudn't have anyone shot. Using some of your logic, I am suprised that it isn't your stand.
You cannot have freedom and protect people at the same time. You either give them freedom, including the freedom to do stupid things and hurt themselves, or give them safety, which will require taking all freedom and you making all choices for them.
If you support legislating things to keep people from hurting themselves, why aren't you supporting a ban on smoking? Heck, the decision to smoke will affect more bystander sthan your decision to not wear a safety belt. Why don't we enforce all sexual acts must be done with birth protection, unless you have a note from the doctor saying you are trying to have a baby? Why not ban swimming without a life preserver? Why not just ban firearms, to keep those few hundred accidents and few thousand homicides from happening every year? Not to mention things like hang gliding, mountain climing, sky diving, and scuba diving? Those sports are full of dangers, and there really is no reason to do any of them.
And when do we stop supporting other's ideas to save ourselves? Once you say something should be enforced to keep people from killing themselves, can you really disagree with another idea?
It is not the government's job to protect me from myself.