New Mexico prosecutors on Tuesday said they intended to recharge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021.
Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.
people who have different opinions that you are not “trolls” they just disagree with you
do you think pro 2A folks think that people that commit gun crimes shouldn’t be punished?
One thing they rightfully always bring up is that in many of these shootings, the existing laws weren’t even being followed, yet they always spur cries for new laws that would only hurt law abiding citizens.
I am going to ask you to actually consider the following situation. Let’s say in the future hate speech is criminalized. If someone goes and says something very evil, would you support removing the first amendment rights of all citizens based on their actions?
Sorry, I said hate speech as an example, but you are correct, hate speech is generally only used as a way to increase sentences of people that commit other hate crimes.
However, there are many instances that speech is limited by the government, and they don’t violate the first amendment.
We currently have limitations on free speech, and yet we still have free speech. And we currently have limitations on the second amendment (you can’t own a nuclear or biological weapon legally).
So how would a couple more limitations completely remove the right to own arms?
I think you may have missed the connection to the first amendment.
I assumed you believed in the conspiracy theory “slippery slope”, I was wondering why you think the slope isn’t slippery for the first amendment, but just the second?
stupid comment:
One thing they rightfully always bring up is that in many of these shootings, the existing laws weren’t even being followed, yet they always spur cries for new laws that would only hurt law abiding citizens.
I am going to ask you to actually consider the following situation. Let’s say in the future hate speech is criminalized. If someone goes and says something very evil, would you support removing the first amendment rights of all citizens based on their actions?
Hate speech is currently criminalized, in certain situations. And it hasn’t resulted in the first amendment rights of all citizens being removed.
So why would “well regulat[ing]” purchases of fire arms lead to the removal of 2nd amendment rights?
No, it is not.
Sorry, I said hate speech as an example, but you are correct, hate speech is generally only used as a way to increase sentences of people that commit other hate crimes.
However, there are many instances that speech is limited by the government, and they don’t violate the first amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#%3A~%3Atext%3DCategories_of_speech_that_are%2Claw%2C_true_threats%2C_and_commercial?wprov=sfla1
So, I ask again with the new context:
We currently have limitations on free speech, and yet we still have free speech. And we currently have limitations on the second amendment (you can’t own a nuclear or biological weapon legally).
So how would a couple more limitations completely remove the right to own arms?
it is an obvious slippery slope.
there will never be a time in which people who seek to restrict the 2A will go:
“ah, yes, this is enough limitations, we are done”
that’s why it’s important to put your foot down and stop it in its tracks.
I think you may have missed the connection to the first amendment.
I assumed you believed in the conspiracy theory “slippery slope”, I was wondering why you think the slope isn’t slippery for the first amendment, but just the second?
“conspiracy theory”
my brother, it is simple pattern recognition.
Do you not answer because you can’t explain?