Billie from Ockham wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:41 pm
But what does being strong on the First A mean'? There are two sides to the establishment clause. Does being strong on the First mean that religions are allowed to do anything that they want, no matter what, or does being strong on the First mean that gov't should never provide any support or special treatment for any religion? You can't have it both way. So what does being strong on the First mean to you and why do you believe that Trump's nominees will support that view?
Likewise, does being strong on the Second mean that I can own a tank? That's what some Second-A absolutists argue. Do you believe that Trump has been nominating people who will remove all limits on what "arms" a citizen can own?
As long as they follow the laws and don't kill people who work on the sabbath, and as long as they don't want special treatment, then what's the problem? It's not only religions who protest against having to pay for abortions, since views on abortion can be independent of religious views. The Obamacare laws added a new restriction to religion that was not a pre-existing one. And making bakeries bake a gay wedding cake takes away their right to choose what customers to serve (is that a constitutional one too? not sure). Everyone else gets to do that, but that right is restricted on (some) religions. Imagine what the response would have been if the complaint was that a muslim bakery was refusing to bake the cake. The gay couple would have been accused of islamophobia etc.
A strong 1st amendment means free speech and free thought.
With the 2nd, even in gun controlled places, anyone old enough to drive, can drive a heavy truck into a crowd of people, so yeah, why outlaw tanks? As long as it's not actually used to murder anyone, and no matter how improbable it might be that it'll ever be needed for a self defence situation, why not? A lawn ornament like that might even have some deterrence value!
Many (maybe all?) authoritarian regimes, from Hitler's socialist workers party to Venezuela's current day socialist disaster, disarmed their citizens first before taking full control. I guess they knew some stuff would be coming up that the people might not be too happy about having forced on them.
There's no limits on how many knives a person can own, or what types, so why with guns? Anyways, in gun controlled cities, like lovely democrat-run Chicago, there are way more gun deaths. They becomes a safe space for criminals (who don't give a shit that they are not supposed to have any guns) while leaving non-criminals (who are following the law and don't have guns) defenseless. Homes can be broken into without fear that the criminal will be shot. Holdups can be done without fear that the victim will pull out a gun of their own.