KY
“Why must I stop there?”
You dont must, you can say whatever you want, see the first amendment 🙂
“Why can’t I point out that my position, IMHO, is protected and enshrined by law.”
you can, but that isn’t what we are debating, it is a silly distraction. Yes your right to own a gun is protected by the second amendment as interpreted by the supreme court. I did not dispute that point, that is not the discussion.
“Why is that not germane to the discussion here?”
Because it is a distraction (and is designed to be one). You say “. They should have to go through the rigorous process of changing /deleting and amendment,” Yes I agreed to that over and over and over Yet we are still “debating” it. which is what makes it so frustrating .
Yes you have the right to own guns, that was never debated. in this thread.
SHOULD you have that right? you say yes even though it results in deaths (like cars which we agree we should be allowed to own even though they result in deaths) becasue you like them, fine.
but dont say “I should have the right to own BECAUSE of the second amendment” That is circular reasoning, and a distraction.
“I believe you should treat red lights as stop signs even in NYC between 12-630am, … But if I act upon it and get caught, it will cost me dearly. Because I have no legal standing.”
Great example! now, lets compare it to our discussion, If I were to argue and say “no we shouldn’t treat red lights as stop signs even in NYC between 12-630am,* because the law doesn’t allow that”
would you accept my argument “Ok I guess we shouldn’t”
Of course not ! (correct me if I’m wrong)
you would correctly, retort, “so change the law! ”
On the other hand if I argued ” At night it is dark it is hard to see cars, NYC is ‘the city that never sleeps’ even at night its busy etc etc etc” or “No , It is a good way to keep the populace nice and obedient a citizenry that sits idly at a red light at 2 AM when it is clearly safe to drive out of fear of what big brother can do to them, is one that is less likely to rise up (especially if we disarm them)” then THAT is my argument on your proposal. It would be empty filler to add “plus the law doesn’t allow it”
(* In reality I agree with you completely)