I’d call wanting to disarm an entire populace and arbitrarily kill babies pretty tyrannical, but that wouldn’t mean we should kill people who advocate such things.
Also, Kamala Harris wants to “restore the protections of Roe v. Wade,” which would essentially allow abortions up to the point of birth for any/no reason. Abortion is, in the vast majority of cases, the killing of an innocent human being - the fetus/baby. That is, it’s murder of an exceptionally vulnerable person.
If a man had an assault rifle and a handgun, and he put down the assault rifle, would you describe him as ‘unarmed’? If so, I don’t think you can describe removing assault rifles as ‘disarming’ people.
My point was that if the man is still ‘armed’, he hasn’t been ‘disarmed’, he just has one less (type of) gun. For example, if I told you that there was a man in my street with two guns, and then added that he’d now been disarmed (forcibly or otherwise), you would assume that he now had zero guns.
the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’d call wanting to disarm an entire populace and arbitrarily kill babies pretty tyrannical, but that wouldn’t mean we should kill people who advocate such things.
Serinus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
wtf are you on?
the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Kamala Harris supports an assault weapons ban. First of all, most firearm deaths are done with handguns rather than rifles - 59% vs. 3%. Second, I’ve yet to hear a definition of “assault weapon” that isn’t completely arbitrary. Third, there is very little evidence that the previous assault weapons ban actually reduced firearm deaths.
Also, Kamala Harris wants to “restore the protections of Roe v. Wade,” which would essentially allow abortions up to the point of birth for any/no reason. Abortion is, in the vast majority of cases, the killing of an innocent human being - the fetus/baby. That is, it’s murder of an exceptionally vulnerable person.
surge_1@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Dude… you’re so exceptionally wrong, it’s pretty sad
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
If a man had an assault rifle and a handgun, and he put down the assault rifle, would you describe him as ‘unarmed’? If so, I don’t think you can describe removing assault rifles as ‘disarming’ people.
the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world 5 months ago
No, I wouldn’t call that disarmament. If someone else took away his assault rifle by force (or threat of force), that’s disarmament. As is legally preventing someone from acquiring an assault rifle. Felons are disarmed, for example. The Supreme Court affirms that people have the right to keep and bear personal arms, and also that the government doesn’t have the right to eliminate that right without serious historical precedent. Funnily enough, New York State tried justifying their concealed carry legislation by citing bigoted laws from our “Anglo-American tradition.”
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
My point was that if the man is still ‘armed’, he hasn’t been ‘disarmed’, he just has one less (type of) gun. For example, if I told you that there was a man in my street with two guns, and then added that he’d now been disarmed (forcibly or otherwise), you would assume that he now had zero guns.