• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Counterpoint, no rights are absolute. There are conditions and restrictions on every “fundamental constitutional right.” Freedom of speech does not include slander or inciting violence. Freedom of religion does not protect abuse or acts of violence. Freedom to bear arms does not include weapons of war or negligent behavior.

    Addiction is a medical condition, and should not be treated by criminal courts. On the other hand, addiction does undermine an individual’s rational thinking. Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms? I don’t think that is an unreasonable restriction.

    The problem with my argument is that I don’t think our restrictions on gun ownership go nearly far enough. Addiction is a problem, but it’s not the most pressing problem we have related to gun violence.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Counterpoint, no rights are absolute. There are conditions and restrictions on every “fundamental constitutional right.”

      Further to that point, rights come with responsibilities. If you are going to forfeit those responsibilities to society then you are going to also forfeit some of the associated rights granted by society.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Counter-counterpoint: restricting rights after completion of a judicial sentence prevents convicts from reintegrating into society, which increases the odds of recidivism. If you want people to choose to act responsibly, they need to have the opportunity to do so.