U.S. Senate Republicans moved to block a ban on assault-style weapons put forward by Democrats on Wednesday, as the United States recorded the highest number of mass shootings for the second year in a row.
I mean, when you’re talking about, essentially, “Hey just to be safe we’re going to permanently remove one of your constitutional rights without due process.” then it’s a no-go for me.
Imagine if anyone arrested just for being present at a protest that turned violent, whether that individual was violent or not…or even just made a social media post that they agreed with the protestors…well sorry, but just to be safe, we’re going to revoke your first amendment right to assembly for the rest of your life.
Erring on the side of caution, you know. Never can tell when those peaceful assemblies might turn violent and you’ve already shown a risk factor.
If you stand there telling people to go kill those guys, then you will be arrested and won’t be protected by the first amendment.
And the second amendment, until very recently (Heller 2008) and depending on which fucking commas you want to recognize, started with “A well regulated Militia (capitalized)” and even then the Supreme court said there can be exceptions to personal possession. Though the current joke of a court would probably put their dicks in that decision as well now.
This is a mix of the composition /division fallacy, slippery slope and the false cause fallacy.
False cause draws a comparison between two things that are not nessisarily connected. Constitutional gun rights and freedom of speech and association. There are a lot of countries where gun rights are non-constitutional that still have freedom of speech and freedom of association. Not all federal law is constitutional and there are a lot of freedoms and protections only actually protected beyond constitutional law.
The slippery slope is more well known. In this case it’s sketching out a senario that could have plenty of other possibilities. If gun ownership had limitations they wouldn’t nessisarily be each of the limitations mentioned here. It assumes no protections for this kind of thing would be in place despite an increasing world wide stance that this sort of thing is a violation of human rights.
The composition /division fallacy - that one part of something has to be applied to all or that the whole must apply to its parts. That if one part of the Constitution is rethought as an unnessisary and even harmful thing that the entire document will be treated that way.
There are a lot of countries which have rethought their rights charters and constitutional documents and updated them to suit a changing world. The US Constitution is particularly paranoid because it was written during a period when it represented a rather large democratic experiment that seemed incredibly tenuous. They even still modeled the President off of a King because Monarchy was still very much the norm and there wasn’t a lot of examples of government that didn’t just change who was the king. Not a hundred years prior England had decapitated their king, essentially replaced him with a guy who was basically a king for life in all but name and reverted to a constitutional Monarchy the second he died. It made sense to be paranoid that everything they worked for was temporary and needed to be protected with a show of force. Since then democracy has spread to become the majority system of government and variations on the 2nd Amendment are incredibly rare. Only Mexico, Guatemala and the US has constitutional gun rights. By contrast Freedom of Speech is granted protections by International Law, is considered a corner stone of Human rights and around 150 countries have freedom of speech protections. One of these things is not like the other.
A constitution is not a document that you never change. That’s just another fallacy - an appeal to tradition. The US has removed bits of it before too, you get to drink alcohol because somebody rethought your 18th amendment. Your freedom of speech rights aren’t going anywhere. Nobody wants that.
It’s really okay. You can put the guns down. Most of the world has.
I mean, when you’re talking about, essentially, “Hey just to be safe we’re going to permanently remove one of your constitutional rights without due process.” then it’s a no-go for me.
Imagine if anyone arrested just for being present at a protest that turned violent, whether that individual was violent or not…or even just made a social media post that they agreed with the protestors…well sorry, but just to be safe, we’re going to revoke your first amendment right to assembly for the rest of your life.
Erring on the side of caution, you know. Never can tell when those peaceful assemblies might turn violent and you’ve already shown a risk factor.
If you stand there telling people to go kill those guys, then you will be arrested and won’t be protected by the first amendment.
And the second amendment, until very recently (Heller 2008) and depending on which fucking commas you want to recognize, started with “A well regulated Militia (capitalized)” and even then the Supreme court said there can be exceptions to personal possession. Though the current joke of a court would probably put their dicks in that decision as well now.
This is a mix of the composition /division fallacy, slippery slope and the false cause fallacy.
False cause draws a comparison between two things that are not nessisarily connected. Constitutional gun rights and freedom of speech and association. There are a lot of countries where gun rights are non-constitutional that still have freedom of speech and freedom of association. Not all federal law is constitutional and there are a lot of freedoms and protections only actually protected beyond constitutional law.
The slippery slope is more well known. In this case it’s sketching out a senario that could have plenty of other possibilities. If gun ownership had limitations they wouldn’t nessisarily be each of the limitations mentioned here. It assumes no protections for this kind of thing would be in place despite an increasing world wide stance that this sort of thing is a violation of human rights.
The composition /division fallacy - that one part of something has to be applied to all or that the whole must apply to its parts. That if one part of the Constitution is rethought as an unnessisary and even harmful thing that the entire document will be treated that way.
There are a lot of countries which have rethought their rights charters and constitutional documents and updated them to suit a changing world. The US Constitution is particularly paranoid because it was written during a period when it represented a rather large democratic experiment that seemed incredibly tenuous. They even still modeled the President off of a King because Monarchy was still very much the norm and there wasn’t a lot of examples of government that didn’t just change who was the king. Not a hundred years prior England had decapitated their king, essentially replaced him with a guy who was basically a king for life in all but name and reverted to a constitutional Monarchy the second he died. It made sense to be paranoid that everything they worked for was temporary and needed to be protected with a show of force. Since then democracy has spread to become the majority system of government and variations on the 2nd Amendment are incredibly rare. Only Mexico, Guatemala and the US has constitutional gun rights. By contrast Freedom of Speech is granted protections by International Law, is considered a corner stone of Human rights and around 150 countries have freedom of speech protections. One of these things is not like the other.
A constitution is not a document that you never change. That’s just another fallacy - an appeal to tradition. The US has removed bits of it before too, you get to drink alcohol because somebody rethought your 18th amendment. Your freedom of speech rights aren’t going anywhere. Nobody wants that.
It’s really okay. You can put the guns down. Most of the world has.