>>2437623>I just wish more people would hold the constitution above their own ideals for society,this religious approach to law is exactly the problem. when all you have to stand on for why you should have some such right or why some thing should be illegal is "because it is already my right" or "because it is already illegal", it's not a very good argument and won't sway anyone who thinks the opposite should be the case.
it is so easy to erode rights in the US because, for the most part, arguments for those rights don't follow lines like "I need the right to free speech because open criticism of processes is the first step to improving them; we can't identify legitimate issues for people in problem-solving positions to actually solve if we're not allowed to speak openly about issues", it's just "well it's there in the constitution so eat shit" but then because that's a pretty shit argument, people in power find it easy to skirt that right, and people who are getting their rights skirted don't really mind or even notice because, well, it's not like they struck it out of the constitution so i guess everything is still okay right??
just look at 2A; congress shall make no law yadda yadda don't regulate guns. Yet the ATF exists. And instead of just not complying with regulations, "sheepdawg" types and wannabe revolutionaries still insist on following the rules the ATF sets out, which is why garbage meme items like 80% lowers and retard shoulder braces exist, or those weird flappy grips they sell in California.
law isn't scripture and if there is something in law that you like, you should be prepared to describe why it's a good idea. simply saying "it's good because law is good" isn't enough because lawmakers can be real fucking dumb sometimes and there have been some real shitty laws in the past.
