As Fear described it, I’m not seeing a lot of due process there.
“Described”? You mean “Imagined”?
So, you ‘imagined’ it with due process tacked on somewhere? You were responding to MEBuckner’s post who was responding to Fear’s post, but you didn’t put in that you imagine an expansion of Fear’s post where due process is in there, somewhere. It’s not intuitively obvious that it would be, so your 5 were sentence is a bit opaque.
Point is, if you’re imagining an alternate universe, you can make it follow whatever rules you like.
lol, ok…true enough.
The point remains, however, that when anti-gun folks imagine a country where the Second Amendment no longer exists, they tend to imagine that the other Constitutional rights don’t exist (for gun owners).
Which is related to what gun owners mean when they say the Second Amendment is key to the other rights in the Constitution. Not merely “I have a gun so I can shoot the feds when they come to grab it”, but people who talk causally about revoking the Second Amendment and then going door-to-door to search for guns reveal something. Namely, that they would regard the other Constitutional rights then in the same way that they regard the RtKaBA now - as something that can be hand-waved away as necessary.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, for example, the law that Kamala Harris approved for SF banned handguns and included no recompense for their confiscation.
Here’s a Wikipedia article that is relevant to argument:
I think most people who would like to repeal the Second Amendment are thinking of a place more like Canada and less like North Korea.
Or the UK
Would they take us back?
Lol
Would you think that a constitutional amendment banning free speech, religion, or allowing random searches of homes as just a “perfectly legal” change to society?
You mention “basic universal human rights” which comes from the ether yet you snicker at those who call upon natural law as a a source of rights.
Yes, I snicker at any claims for “natural rights”. Do lions and bears respect your natural rights? Natural law such as gravity and inertia are very different from human rights. Rights exist only when protected by laws of men. Men decide what rights are, not nature.
Why are you crying about an imagined loss of due process when you already have a massive lack of due process in civil forfieture. You act like it doesn’t already exist in your country. You think it happens in other countries too? No - it doesn’t.
Then what are these “universally recognized human rights” mentioned above? Those surely are not respected by lions and bears.
The objection was that slavery is so obviously different because of these human rights. If we only have laws of men and no higher law, then the point raised in the first page of the thread has not been rebutted: If slavery is the law of the land, do we simply respect the law like we “should” respect a repeal of the Second Amendment?
The “asset forfeiture” programs practiced by some police departments in the United States are appalling and, I would say, unconstitutional. From what I can tell, they’re pretty close to highway robbery–by law enforcement agencies, no less–and I firmly support action at the federal level to abolish such odious practices. No one’s property should be seized based on an allegation that that property is the fruit of a crime in the absence of a conviction for that crime.
I am not at all sure why being opposed to an existing injustice should prevent me from raising an objection when someone proposes a new and different injustice.
Fair enough. I also don’t want to start being the “whattabout” guy…
Yes.
It seems strange that a “natural human right” requires the invention of technology to realize it.
More or less humans have always had weapons, and the right to defend yourself is thus a natural right.
sure, but I don’t see where “Guns” becomes part of it.
Unless you are saying the “natural right” is to use the same technology you are defending against.