>>>>The argument makes perfect logical sense. In fact, moreso because as I pointed out gun ownership is a Constitutional right whereas owning and operating a car is not. If you cannot see the difference then we agree, there is no discussion possible.
>>>
>>>Whether something is a constitutional right or not is totally irrelevant.
>>
>>Now you're calling the Supreme Law of the Unites States irrelevant. What matters is not law but changing opinion through time. That's how dictators and monarchs operate. IWO exactly what our founders fought so hard to break away from.
>
>Sigh... did you ever see the movie of Judge Dread with silvester stalone, Qouting "I am the law"? Not a particular great movie, except for the story that laws can get out of sync of its intention. Laws need to be questioned continuesly, because its not about what the laws say, but what it should say, in this day and age.
>
>Again, you're persistent to regard the law as cast in stone, absolute and unquestionable. Sounds to me you're stuck in your own world while the rest of the world is evolving.
>
>>>Some muslim countries may have constitutional rights, to have more than one wife, stone women, adultery, abuse children, murder non muslim, etc. Do you agree with them? You seem to think that those rights are cast in stone, static and absolute.
>
>>I apologize for any misunderstanding, when I mention the Constitution I meant the US one.
>
>You're choosing to miss the point, the point is that what might be in any countries constitution might be immorally wrong (or incomplete) in this day and age as judged as percieved by the majority. Even if you want to hang on to what the founding fathers have written down, they could not have meant that automatic guns should be available in the way it currently is in your society. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was more along the lines of the idea behind militia, as it currently is in Switzerland. I'm convinced that the founding fathers would turn arround in their graves if they saw where it lead to.
>
>

>>>Many of those rights stem from an entire different age and therefore are outdated. The right to drive a car already is embedded in other constitutional rights, like in 1st amendment (equal rights). Fixing those wrong rights is just exactly the point here !
>>
>>The first amendment is not "equal rights". Perhaps you're thinking of the 14th which guarantees equal protection under the law. Of course, since you're advocating doing away with the Supreme Law of the land it's difficult to imagin how the 14th applies.
>
>I'm not advocating anything about doing away with the enforcement of the law. Please don't put words in my mouth I did not say.
>
>>>I'm shocked again to see that somehow people throw up all kinds of silly and stupid argument just to live with the status quo, just to justify to do exact what you did the last time this happened: Absolutely nothing.
>
>>I'm never shocked to see the sactimonious cries for more restriction on liberty whenever a tragedy occurs. Whether it's the atriot Act or an assault weapons ban the cry of the ambulance chaser is always the same. Because a psychopath did something bad we must all pay with out liberty.
>
>Yeah, I understand, you hang on to your rights to increase the chance of getting your beloved ones and children slaughtered, only because your in love with guns. Yep, that makes sense.
>
>Do you have the right to kill another without any reason?
>Do you have the right to judge and prosecute people?
>
>With this logic, your society ranks on the same scale as 3rd world countries like south africa. You are doing a huge disservices to the future of a great nation.

Was your "ad hominem" argument due to an ethical lapse, or a logical mistake?


*Updated: just to move my comment I don't know how it ended up in the middle of the page.