Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.

  • Jericho_One@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • applejacks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Jericho_One@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?