The Politics of Attitude

You don't like it - you frown on it. Whenever it is mentioned, you have a visceral distaste. Many would say that you're unnecessarily critical of something that almost everyone finds useful, and that many people find essential. In fact, if it didn't exist, a lot of us wouldn't be here.

What am I talking about?

Sex?

Guns?

The answer is: both.

It seems that a lot of people have a very strong opposition to the idea of guns, or to the idea of sex, and tend to overlook situations where each could play a positive influence. There are a lot of people who take extreme positions against guns and against sex in both parties. It's time that we had a realistic, responsible, mature attitude about these things: as a country, we should realize that there are proper and safe ways to use and enjoy both items I have mentioned.

However, some folks are just doggedly determined to oppose both wherever they appear.

We don't need to abhor sex, or guns: we don't need to control them, we need to promote safe behaviors and encourage learning so that when people use these things, they'll know what they're doing.

For those who are reticent to approve of sex education: would you leave a loaded gun lying around your house, especially if you had children who knew nothing about firearms?

Of course not - that would be negligent.

Some people don't like guns - some people don't like sex very much, either. Fine. That's your personal preference, and you have the right as an American to have that preference. But don't impose your morality on me just because you are disgusted by other citizens' affinity for either quantity.

Our guiding principle should be that as long as the public safety and welfare is not infringed, individual liberty should be protected. That should be something to which everyone can consent.

Strict Interpretation?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Is it curious that some argue that strict constructionism be applied in the interpretation of the First Amendment, but not for the Second Amendment? And is it not also curious that some argue that strict constructionism be applied to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, but not for the First Amendment?

The NRA would likely contend that the 2nd Amendment extends thoroughly to individual rights. Many gun control advocates reply that the Amendment is really meant just for the more limited sense of a "well regulated Militia".

Many conservatives have argued that the 1st Amendment is more limited - Congress is only prohibited from establishing any one kind of religion, not prevented from establishing religious influence in general. Yet many others would reply that the 1st Amendment is really meant to protect all other kinds of individual rights in a broader sense of application.

So, those who argue that the 2nd Amendment should be applied broadly to individual rights, but not the 1st Amendment, why so? Also, those who argue that the 1st Amendment should be applied broadly to individual rights, but not the 2nd Amendment, why so?

I am not declaring or asserting that it is impossible to make such a justification - I just find it rather curious to seize onto a strict constructionism in one instance and seemingly abandon the same stance in another comparable instance.

Above all, please show your work. Thank you!