3 ms·
Either I don't understand the quote, or it's way off. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. By 'beginning', you'd think you want to stop a crimin
by hrkristian 13y ago
Either I don't understand the quote, or it's way off.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
By 'beginning', you'd think you want to stop a criminal from becoming a criminal (general: a problem from becoming a problem) in the first place. Laws never do this, and the quote used "and", as if that is what a law does.
- bmelton 13y agoI'm guessing you're missing some nuance to it, because it's always struck me at least as rather insightful. It sounds like you're looking at it exactly backwards. The adage doesn't apply to the criminal, but to the actions we would otherwise wish to protect. In regards to the first amendment, the earliest affronts to it in my lifetime were under the guise of pornography. Pornography, even by today's standards, is considered unseemly and unnecessary, so it's easy to get a bunch of folks willing to defend it and have their name associated with porn. In regards to the second amendment, the battle is against fully automatic firearms. Again, considered unseemly and unnecessary. Both of those assaults were likely political ruses, and to those ends, as a citizenry, we failed to defend them strongly enough. Now, the door has been opened. The first amendment is not considered sacrosanct, nor is the second. By proxy, nor are any of the others. That we failed at the onset, because we did not defend the scoundrels, we have steepened the slope. Now there's precedent on the books, that rights can be violated, "if there's a good reason". Our government has decided that it has a good reason, and that reason is terrorism, from which it will milk every last ounce of reasonability until it can be replaced or our war on civil rights is won or lost.