Thank you to CapeTown and
I heard you, and I’ll take a shot. I think that everyone who has contributed so far has dodged the key issue. I plan on doing the same, but only after I distract you by pointing out their mistake. It’s called banter; it distracts the audience.
“In terms of the ease with which one can acquire a gun, however, and the fire power of available weapons, the 2nd Amendment does not seem to be supportive in the case of a automatic weapon,” says CapeTown
“I believe that abortion should definitely be legal at least during the early stages (I think the current law is no regulation until after the first trimester), while as it gets later into the pregnancy the arguments become stronger for some kind of government regulation,” says
To me, the real difficulty of governance is setting standards that one would apply to the masses. Some drivers would suggest that they could drive safely at 80, but that "those other idiots" are dangerous at 50. The hardest part of making decisions for a large population is deciding at what level you are willing to sacrifice your freedoms so that others will not have them.
So far, no one has addressed the real issue, of setting those limits. It may seem ridiculous to suggest that an organism is a fetus at day 209 and an unborn child at 211, but in reality it’s no more arbitrary than suggesting that you are driving safely at 64mph and recklessly at 66mph.
The key question is one of when. When does abortion become murder, and when is a weapon too powerful to be privately owned. So, CapeTown,
See what I did there? Banter.