• nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Call me crazy, but maybe erring on the side of caution makes sense when we’re talking about the right to own tools designed to kill things.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.