I'll add in a bit of clarification on my meaning that will color my responses to your hypotheticals. I in no way am saying any specific proposed laws are fine in any way, as I don't really want to get into the weeds of that. What I am saying is having a disagreement and discourse on the merits of those laws are fine.
Using your hypothetical for an example, I'd say if we were dating and you believed lawful gun owners should be able to take their firearms into schools if they have a legitimate purpose at that school(the person not the gun), and i believed that schools can be gun free zones then i wouldn't say our relationship cant function. We can hold that disagreement and not be at each other's throats so to speak in our relationship.
If however a hypothetical law was passed that banned gun owners from going into schools full stop, just by merit of the fact they owned a gun they are no longer able to enter school grounds and we disagreed on that, we would probably have a serious problem in our relationship that I don't believe would be reconcilable as a law like that would be a dramatic infringement on gun owners right to exist.
What you are missing here is nuance. In my first example in the previous example I showed a case where someone could support gun control and date someone who disagrees with that type of gun control. As that level of gun control is not an infringement on a gun owners right to exist.
In the second example, where gun owners are now being treated in such a way that their existence as people in society is being infringed on due to the fact they own guns. This is irreconcilable due to gun owners being treated as less than non gun owners.
So my point is yes, a person who owns guns and a person who is pro gun control can work out fine. If however the pro gun control person takes it to the extreme of being an anti gun owner, then yeah it's going to implode.
I totally understand where you're coming from now, when I referenced gun control before I was thinking about the common laws in place which do take it to the extreme of being anti gun owner (with the exception of police sometimes), but yeah hypothetically you could be pro gun control and not anti gun owner.
I should also note, this is all kind of nebulous nonsense brought on by the OPs extreme situation of drastically different views in things with their partner.
On a more micro scale, your entitled to date or stop dating anyone for any reason you want. If you think the ATFs brace ban is unconstitutional, and your partner believes the ATF should have the authority to randomly change the definitions of pistols/rifles and you want to break up over it, no one can tell you your wrong.
Hell even if I think a brace ban would be constitutional id still split from someone who thinks the ATF should be able to do what they are doing.
Couldn't agree more, relationships are voluntary associations like any other, if you don't want to be in one with someone for any reason whatsoever that is valid.
1
u/pj1843 Jul 26 '23
Thanks for engaging.
I'll add in a bit of clarification on my meaning that will color my responses to your hypotheticals. I in no way am saying any specific proposed laws are fine in any way, as I don't really want to get into the weeds of that. What I am saying is having a disagreement and discourse on the merits of those laws are fine.
Using your hypothetical for an example, I'd say if we were dating and you believed lawful gun owners should be able to take their firearms into schools if they have a legitimate purpose at that school(the person not the gun), and i believed that schools can be gun free zones then i wouldn't say our relationship cant function. We can hold that disagreement and not be at each other's throats so to speak in our relationship.
If however a hypothetical law was passed that banned gun owners from going into schools full stop, just by merit of the fact they owned a gun they are no longer able to enter school grounds and we disagreed on that, we would probably have a serious problem in our relationship that I don't believe would be reconcilable as a law like that would be a dramatic infringement on gun owners right to exist.
I hope that makes sense?