If NRA members don't protest but AGREE with banning some types
that doesn't mean they HAVE to agree to OTHER types.
They most certainly do. They have denied there is a 'principle' that decides because they have let 'common sense' decide on the machine gun ban.
It's all or none when using the 'principle' argument.
I an not using the 'principles' argument because I believe the Second Amendment is open to a 'common sense' argument because it is more vague
And in this case the majority rules. If we raise the bar to where 'weapons for war' includes assault rifles then so be it.
They will stop being manufactured, glorified and sold for profit at the expense of bass shooting victims.
In principle I believe innocent unarmed Americans right to life deserves higher priority than the right for NRA types to play with weapons of war as toys.
Dear
NotfooledbyW
And in principle, many conservatives believe that the unborn "right to life"
deserves higher priority than due process issues violated by penalizing abortion.
You said if WE agree to raise the bar.
Okay, would you agree to change the abortion laws concerning right to life
as a trade off?
How about this as a compromise:
allow right to life conscientious objectors to completely defund
any liberal policy, institution or program such as Planned Parenthood,
public schools or health care that promotes choices of birth controla
and abortion above responsibility for abstinence and stopping abuse of sexual relationships.
And in turn, liberals get to defund the death penalty,
military, guns or whatever else they don't support
and put taxes into health care and education they believe in.
You are free to invest and support policies YOU believe in.
But if you are saying WE, as on a national/federal level,
then you cannot religiously dictate your beliefs for all others
included in that WE.
If these groups don't agree, that's why they need to separate.
NotfooledbyW if you and I wouldn't agree to prolife or proGod
advocates saying "WE" need EVERYONE to agree to pray to God in schools
and ban abortions, then why expect to dictate a policy for others to follow
if they don't believe in that either?
Prolife supporters believe that unborn life is more important than free choice to abort.
And they are Expected to pay for and promote their own programs,
NOT impose THEIR beliefs on anyone else through govt.
The most they can enforce is not being forced to FUND abortions they don't believe in.
So if you are like this, then neither can you impose
your beliefs above the freedom of others. If they
CONSENT that's constitutional, but if they don't
agree to give up their liberty and due process,
then govt cannot be abused to force that.
People have to consent, similar to prolife laws
where advocates of free choice put due process first,
and expect prolife to pay for preventing abortion other ways besides banning it.
If people aren't committing the crimes directly, then without conviction
or due process they can't be deprived of liberty because of
"someone else's beliefs". You'd have to prove the govt has compelling interest
in the LEAST RESTRICTIVE WAY. and that's where people can argue
there are LESS RESTRICTIVE WAYS than banning certain guns from ALL people.
