Often, when Scott Adams discusses guns and his "support" [sic] of the Second Amendment, he'll comment that pro-gun people need to realize that "Some people are better off with guns and some are better off without them". This is why he seems to think it's OK to "compromise" away the right if enough people decide they are better off without guns.
As if this makes any difference to human rights!
You could argue, using this same logic, that some people are better off with (other forms of) slavery and others are better off without it.
I'm sure anyone who feels they can't thrive without slaves doing their labor for them would say they are better off with slavery and anyone who has been enslaved would point out they are better off without it.
Where human rights are concerned it makes no difference if some people are "better off" if they are allowed to violate your fundamental human rights. Even if it means they die.
-
My surgery fund.
Thank you!
Thank you!
