That there are other countries with both freedom and gun control seems to be mystifying to some and it shouldn't be.
The reason for this is not mystifying at all.
Those other countries were not founded on a document that listed the right to keep and bear arms as something fundamental for its citizens. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights is listed before things as basic to personal freedom and as important to society as the right to trial by jury, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the right to representation by a lawyer, protection from double jeopardy, or the fact that police would need probable cause and a warrant before searching your person or home. It was a big deal then, and it's the reason why other free countries do not have the same relationship with guns that America does.
This is why comparing America to other free countries with regards to gun control is not particularly useful.
You're right, it's not mystifying, just sad. From up on high you were handed down "thou shalt have the right to own guns" because a handful of people a few hundred years ago thought it was a good idea while the rest of the modern world looks on and goes "that's crazy"
And so you have a gun violence rate that would be normal in the rest of the central and south america regions and an unending series of national tragedies
The second amendment was quite clearly talking about a volunteer military made up of militiamen who were to supply their own guns. Using it to justify universal and unrestricted gun ownership in an era where the military is professional and are supplied with guns is a stretch a Pharisee would be proud of.
Thankfully no one here is doing the bolded, and the constant strawmanning is not helpful.
Also, the 2nd specifies that it is a Right of the People. Those are, in all other cases, individual rights.
RE Online Sales: You can buy firearms online in that you can purchase them and then that company must send them to an FFL holder (brick and mortar retailer) of your choosing where you then go pay a transfer fee (I have yet to encounter an FFL that doesn't charge a transfer free ranging between $25-100) and undergo the NICS background check.
Buying firearms online does not mean you can go to an online retailer and have it sent directly to your home (legally). No online dealer would send a firearm without confirmation of an FFL over fax (they contact the FFL holder you provide to get proof of FFL) and you literally cannot finish the purchase on online retail sites without providing an FFL.
So it's less Amazon and more like putting in a special order from your local gun store?
Ok, on the "can't buy ammo" complaint, i am going to make a possibly a bit unfair comment.
The complaint is not that it would not save lives (it might not, i am quite happy to hear an argument on how it is a feel good not at all effective legislation, but that was not the objection), but that it would be inconvenient.
I see this a lot in anti regulation arguments, not in all of them, but in a large amount.
In this forum I generally assume that everyone is more or less arguing in good faith, so someone skips straight to complaining that something is going to be a pain in the butt, I'll fill in the blanks and add 'relative to the potential benefit' at the end of the line.
The main question I have about the online ammo ban would be how would it save lives? If sales of ammo online have zero security so that someone who otherwise shouldn't be able to buy ammo (which from a cursory search is mostly anyone under 18 (or 21 for handguns), as most states don't have much by way of limits on ammo purchases), then yeah, maybe cracking down on that might be a thing. But given the relative lack of really tight regulation of ammo sales at any level, not to mention that it's possible to buy actual guns online, I'm not really sure what banning ammo from the internet gets you.
I assume people argue in good faith, and therefore won't lie, deceive or otherwise seek to mislead people, and that any errors in their arguments are honest mistakes or disagreements, but i will not edit their arguments into more reasonable ones if i have no reason to assume they meant something else than what they said.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas? A hundred years? 150? Racist oppressors were disarming black Americans starting with post-Reconstruction, and it didn't stop until
Actually that's the state of affairs in New York right now.
That there are other countries with both freedom and gun control seems to be mystifying to some and it shouldn't be.
The reason for this is not mystifying at all.
Those other countries were not founded on a document that listed the right to keep and bear arms as something fundamental for its citizens. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights is listed before things as basic to personal freedom and as important to society as the right to trial by jury, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the right to representation by a lawyer, protection from double jeopardy, or the fact that police would need probable cause and a warrant before searching your person or home. It was a big deal then, and it's the reason why other free countries do not have the same relationship with guns that America does.
This is why comparing America to other free countries with regards to gun control is not particularly useful.
You're right, it's not mystifying, just sad. From up on high you were handed down "thou shalt have the right to own guns" because a handful of people a few hundred years ago thought it was a good idea while the rest of the modern world looks on and goes "that's crazy"
And so you have a gun violence rate that would be normal in the rest of the central and south america regions and an unending series of national tragedies
The second amendment was quite clearly talking about a volunteer military made up of militiamen who were to supply their own guns. Using it to justify universal and unrestricted gun ownership in an era where the military is professional and are supplied with guns is a stretch a Pharisee would be proud of.
Thankfully no one here is doing the bolded, and the constant strawmanning is not helpful.
Also, the 2nd specifies that it is a Right of the People. Those are, in all other cases, individual rights.
I've been arguing this online for ages and I would characterize typical NRA/Republican views on gun control as being in favor of unrestricted ownership, save for felons. Most of them seem to believe that the current weak-sauce regulations are onerous and should be repealed. I stand by my comments.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
The way our military works bears no resemblence to the original intention, as well.
Some things that can be defined as human qualities change little over time, but something specific like firearms change dramatically over time.
As far as I know, out of all of the bill of rights, only the 2nd deals with the legality of ownership of a physical good.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Ok, on the "can't buy ammo" complaint, i am going to make a possibly a bit unfair comment.
The complaint is not that it would not save lives (it might not, i am quite happy to hear an argument on how it is a feel good not at all effective legislation, but that was not the objection), but that it would be inconvenient.
I see this a lot in anti regulation arguments, not in all of them, but in a large amount.
In this forum I generally assume that everyone is more or less arguing in good faith, so someone skips straight to complaining that something is going to be a pain in the butt, I'll fill in the blanks and add 'relative to the potential benefit' at the end of the line.
The main question I have about the online ammo ban would be how would it save lives? If sales of ammo online have zero security so that someone who otherwise shouldn't be able to buy ammo (which from a cursory search is mostly anyone under 18 (or 21 for handguns), as most states don't have much by way of limits on ammo purchases), then yeah, maybe cracking down on that might be a thing. But given the relative lack of really tight regulation of ammo sales at any level, not to mention that it's possible to buy actual guns online, I'm not really sure what banning ammo from the internet gets you.
I assume people argue in good faith, and therefore won't lie, deceive or otherwise seek to mislead people, and that any errors in their arguments are honest mistakes or disagreements, but i will not edit their arguments into more reasonable ones if i have no reason to assume they meant something else than what they said.
I think that for the most part we are arguing in good faith, even when we disagree about the meaning of definitions and facts. Good on us. This is a probably the second most volatile subject in D&D (behind the orange terror). I'm proud of us, good job us.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
I'm less concerned about the idea itself, then i am of people using it as an argument from authority.
The founding fathers were fallible people, creatures of their time.
And as we have done away with slavery and given the vote to people other than land owning men, maybe we should examine the idea of militia as a basis for national defense.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
I'm less concerned about the idea itself, then i am of people using it as an argument from authority.
The founding fathers were fallible people, creatures of their time.
And as we have done away with slavery and given the vote to people other than land owning men, maybe we should examine the idea of militia as a basis for national defense.
Yeah, enshrining the 2nd amendment as infallible and the founding fathers as divine is one of the most dangerous strains of constitutional originalism we have.
The 2nd amendment worked great for a little nation constantly under the threat of siege from European nations and the native Americans they stole the land from, but it seems antiquated and quite frankly dangerous today.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
And as we have done away with slavery and given the vote to people other than land owning men, maybe we should examine the idea of militia as a basis for national defense.
We certainly have! In fact, it has been almost entirely dropped. The US military would not be so terrifying and powerful a force if it entirely relied on semi-trained young farmers turning up with their personal guns to fight in between harvests. Although it would certainly deter foreign adventures!
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
To point the first, I was replying to your rebuttal of mind control being illegal, so it would seem you were trying to compare the two.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
And as we have done away with slavery and given the vote to people other than land owning men, maybe we should examine the idea of militia as a basis for national defense.
We certainly have! In fact, it has been almost entirely dropped. The US military would not be so terrifying and powerful a force if it entirely relied on semi-trained young farmers turning up with their personal guns to fight in between harvests. Although it would certainly deter foreign adventures!
You have given up the practice, but the idea, seems pretty alive and well, and going strong in certain segments of the population.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
We just recently had a thread where people were arguing that the 1st is too unrestrictive as well and people are harmed in ways they never have before.
The ideal of the security of a free state is no less important today than it was! I know it's popular to argue that America is invincible and unassailable from within and without but I'm not so sanguine about things given that, if you happen to be brown, we've only had free States for like 60 years.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
+13
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
And as we have done away with slavery and given the vote to people other than land owning men, maybe we should examine the idea of militia as a basis for national defense.
We certainly have! In fact, it has been almost entirely dropped. The US military would not be so terrifying and powerful a force if it entirely relied on semi-trained young farmers turning up with their personal guns to fight in between harvests. Although it would certainly deter foreign adventures!
You have given up the practice, but the idea, seems pretty alive and well, and going strong in certain segments of the population.
I mean, there are still large sections of the country where you did what your daddy did, join the military or go to college on an athletic scholarship. Things are changing thanks to the internet, but we haven't necessarily progressed too much passed that idea.
Now military training now is super effective, we wouldn't really want a militia. Psychologically, Joe average makes a terrible soldier because they don't really want to kill anyone, honestly naturally only about 2% of the population's default instinct is to shoot to kill. We are just hard wired not too. Our military training uses some skinner box techniques to short circuit that natural impulse so that we respond to threats before we can process our actions, there are also thoughts that this has contributed to the increase in PTSD and some other post combat problems, but it is way different than farmers on the weekends, however areas seem to treat it like that.
I'm not making a point I'm just thinking out loud so I'm not sure what conclusion I want to draw yet.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas? A hundred years? 150? Racist oppressors were disarming black Americans starting with post-Reconstruction, and it didn't stop until
Actually that's the state of affairs in New York right now.
When they're no longer applicable and modified for the current century. The Founders were flawed individuals who never dreamt of what would happen in our time period. They had no conception of tanks, nuclear weapons, machine guns, mini-guns, social media, drones etc. Back then a militia stood a chance at standing up to the government, that is not true now. Also, wth the slavery and not letting women vote.
The NRA aren't with the black American's now, either. See their reaction once Obama got in office, they couldn't wait to sound the alarms for the Dems takin' their guns to the hilt. And what happened? Nothing.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Also, as new technologies involving speech, or atleast the expression of ideas, have come about, those have been regulated.
Printing Press, Radio, Movies, Television, Internet...
All are regulated to lesser or greater extent.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Search is search, speech is speech, and arms are arms. When we invent mind blasts and virtual snow crash black ice and phasers and projectiles seem silly, the 2nd will still apply.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
And as we have done away with slavery and given the vote to people other than land owning men, maybe we should examine the idea of militia as a basis for national defense.
We certainly have! In fact, it has been almost entirely dropped. The US military would not be so terrifying and powerful a force if it entirely relied on semi-trained young farmers turning up with their personal guns to fight in between harvests. Although it would certainly deter foreign adventures!
You have given up the practice, but the idea, seems pretty alive and well, and going strong in certain segments of the population.
I mean, there are still large sections of the country where you did what your daddy did, join the military or go to college on an athletic scholarship. Things are changing thanks to the internet, but we haven't necessarily progressed too much passed that idea.
Now military training now is super effective, we wouldn't really want a militia. Psychologically, Joe average makes a terrible soldier because they don't really want to kill anyone, honestly naturally only about 2% of the population's default instinct is to shoot to kill. We are just hard wired not too. Our military training uses some skinner box techniques to short circuit that natural impulse so that we respond to threats before we can process our actions, there are also thoughts that this has contributed to the increase in PTSD and some other post combat problems, but it is way different than farmers on the weekends, however areas seem to treat it like that.
I'm not making a point I'm just thinking out loud so I'm not sure what conclusion I want to draw yet.
I mean, if people want to be Billy Badasses by doing military training and wrecking their psychological health, then they can have at it.
I almost checked in to the ER because of my anxiety during last years 4th of July causing DANGER CLOSE to flash across my brain constantly despite me knowing they were just fireworks.
Actual real training to be able to kill someone will fuck you up, and the fact that 99% of the population has never engaged in it and still wants to pretend like they could do it just feels like the most dishonest chest-pounding I can recall.
We are living in an era where some celebrity can fart out a political statement and ten seconds later a hundred million people get a notification on their phone. Speech may not be technology, but the mechanism of delivery has changed radically since the founding era in the same way that propelling a piece of metal out of a tube has.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas? A hundred years? 150? Racist oppressors were disarming black Americans starting with post-Reconstruction, and it didn't stop until
Actually that's the state of affairs in New York right now.
The NRA aren't with the black American's now, either. See their reaction once Obama got in office, they couldn't wait to sound the alarms for the Dems takin' their guns to the hilt. And what happened? Nothing.
The NRA are *still* trying to scare their members with the guv'mint taking their guns - even though the guv'mint is entirely in Republican hands and working on weakening gun control, not strengthening it.
I have been broken into. We were in the bedroom and they (he/she?) came in the sliding glass door and stole a laptop, a camera and my wife's purse.
We hid in the bedroom until we couldn't hear anyone moving around and then called the police.
Insurance got me a new laptop and camera and the biggest pain was my wife's ID.
No one died.
I know the thread has moved on, but I wanted to comment on this.
I've taken a few defensive pistol classes, and talked with a few other instructors, and they'd all agree this is the right thing to do even if you have a gun. My first instructor told us that he has a worked out plan with his family. If he hears anything that sounds like people breaking into his house he grabs his kids from the bedroom next to him and his wife's, shuts and locks the bedroom door, and calls the cops. He keeps a pistol with a light on it in a small safe in his nightstand that he'll pull out, but that only gets used if someone tries breaking into the bedroom. And only after he loudly tells them he has a gun and will fire if they don't leave.
One of the first things all the defensive pistol classes I've taken try and teach you is that having a gun does not make you Jason Bourne, and taking said gun to 'check out that noise I heard downstairs' is generally a pretty stupid move. (Unless you happen to be a member of Seal Team 6, at which point you probably know what the hell you're doing). That's why cops exist.
Guns kill innocent people, generally, because the people using them are irresponsible and stupid. But that's not unique to guns. Last I looked a lot more people were killed by cars than by guns. Usually because the drivers were irresponsible and stupid.
+8
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
We are living in an era where some celebrity can fart out a political statement and ten seconds later a hundred million people get a notification on their phone. Speech may not be technology, but the mechanism of delivery has changed radically since the founding era in the same way that propelling a piece of metal out of a tube has.
Yes, but only one is meant to kill something.
The evolution of hearing soundwaves shaped by teeth, tongue, and lips does not line up in any way with the evolution of modern small arms.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Search is search, speech is speech, and arms are arms. When we invent mind blasts and virtual snow crash black ice and phasers and projectiles seem silly, the 2nd will still apply.
That's an interesting point.
I wonder how public support would change if instead of guns the arms in question were, I dunno, an app.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Search is search, speech is speech, and arms are arms. When we invent mind blasts and virtual snow crash black ice and phasers and projectiles seem silly, the 2nd will still apply.
Yes, because the idea of even easier methods of killing people being propagated amongst the populace with zero effort on controls really puts the warm fuzzies in my belly.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas? A hundred years? 150? Racist oppressors were disarming black Americans starting with post-Reconstruction, and it didn't stop until
Actually that's the state of affairs in New York right now.
The NRA aren't with the black American's now, either. See their reaction once Obama got in office, they couldn't wait to sound the alarms for the Dems takin' their guns to the hilt. And what happened? Nothing.
The NRA are *still* trying to scare their members with the guv'mint taking their guns - even though the guv'mint is entirely in Republican hands and working on weakening gun control, not strengthening it.
I have been broken into. We were in the bedroom and they (he/she?) came in the sliding glass door and stole a laptop, a camera and my wife's purse.
We hid in the bedroom until we couldn't hear anyone moving around and then called the police.
Insurance got me a new laptop and camera and the biggest pain was my wife's ID.
No one died.
I've taken a few defensive pistol classes, and talked with a few other instructors, and they'd all agree this is the right thing to do even if you have a gun. My first instructor told us that he has a worked out plan with his family. If he hears anything that sounds like people breaking into his house he grabs his kids from the bedroom next to him and his wife's, shuts and locks the bedroom door, and calls the cops. He keeps a pistol with a light on it in a small safe in his nightstand that he'll pull out, but that only gets used if someone tries breaking into the bedroom. And only after he loudly tells them he has a gun and will fire if they don't leave.
Sounds like a very good strategy, because it's de-escalation rather than escalation. This would probably scare off every burglar other than the deranged and psychotic, which are genuinely few in number.
CelestialBadger on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas? A hundred years? 150? Racist oppressors were disarming black Americans starting with post-Reconstruction, and it didn't stop until
Actually that's the state of affairs in New York right now.
The NRA aren't with the black American's now, either. See their reaction once Obama got in office, they couldn't wait to sound the alarms for the Dems takin' their guns to the hilt. And what happened? Nothing.
The NRA are *still* trying to scare their members with the guv'mint taking their guns - even though the guv'mint is entirely in Republican hands and working on weakening gun control, not strengthening it.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Search is search, speech is speech, and arms are arms. When we invent mind blasts and virtual snow crash black ice and phasers and projectiles seem silly, the 2nd will still apply.
Yes, because the idea of even easier methods of killing people being propagated amongst the populace with zero effort on controls really puts the warm fuzzies in my belly.
It's not like the Founders were unfamiliar with sweeping technological changes remaking the world around them, particularly in the realm of war. One of the first semi-auto rifles was pitched to the Continental Congress but they declined to buy any.
I also find it interesting that in the decision a state law from New York is cited (which actually predates the current US constitution) in which those who can't afford to purchase their own arms and can prove it must have arms and ammunition provided to them.
That is not all that uncommon afaik. We will also at times also cite pre and post US constitution English law (statutory and common).
That wasn't why it interested me. The statement that the law requires the officer of the militia, as an agent of the state, to provide for the arms and ammunition of those citizens who can't afford them was interesting. If we assume that the chain of logic that SCOTUS used to find the NFA constitutional in regulating weapons that don't have a "military purpose" (even though this was factually incorrect, as shotguns were in use by the US military before Miller and what would be considered Short Barrel Shotguns now are still in use by the military) they also brushed past an argument for the subsidization of arms for the citizenry (the state providing arms and ammunition for those who could not afford to procure them).
I do not understand why that would be relevant to anything? Or interesting really.
If the US wants to subsidize arms it can (indeed it does in this sense as it has a military). If it necessitates purchase (another thing it can do) for the public good then such an arrangement or ruling also would make sense.
But like... we don't have that kind of state militia anymore so...
The idea of a right to own weapons in the personal sense, especially to the degree that is commonly espoused today, has none of that. There is no moral argument for it. There is no history, no philosophy, nothing.
Where the hell did you get this idea?
For example I'm going to copy part of this book summary bit wholesale-from one of the apparently non-existent works of philosophy on the subject.
If, then, one has a right to self-defense, does it not follow that one has the right to use suitable means to exercise that right? To grant that one has a right to self-defense but to deny effective means of defending oneself is to withdraw the right supposedly granted. Guns are often an especially effective means of self-defense. Unless there is something “special” about guns that violates people’s rights or exposes them to undue risk, on what grounds may they be prohibited?
DeGrazia does not altogether deny the right of self-defense, but he qualifies it in a way that will make anyone with a libertarian bone in his body gasp in astonishment. So long as the state is doing an adequate job in protecting your community, he maintains, one does not have an unlimited right to self-defense.
But what if police protection fails? If an armed intruder enters your house, do you not have the right to confront him with lethal force, if doing so is necessary to protect yourself? It is in answer to this that DeGrazia makes his surprising response. He does not deny — how could he — that situations of the kind just described occur. Even so, though, the state may prohibit people from owning guns if it judges that people would on the whole be better off without them. “I [DeGrazia] emphasize the devastating consequences of widespread gun ownership in a societal context in which gun regulations are minimal.” In sum, you cannot protect yourself if the state judges that too many accidental deaths, or other mishaps, are likely to ensue if gun ownership is permitted.
Hunt with great eloquence rejects this wide construal of risk. He distinguishes between type-risk, “imposed on the general population by a group of people: those who own or carry guns” and token-risk, “which is imposed by particular agents (including corporate bodies).” Type-risk, Hunt contends, is not a legitimate ground for coercion. The state may not prohibit armed self-defense because, given a large number of guns, some people will die in accidents. To think otherwise is “‘punishing’ (or penalizing)” some for the actions of others. “Such a policy is simply wrong, except perhaps in circumstances of catastrophic social collapse, such as widespread mob violence. Obviously, we do not live under such conditions now.”
It exists as the invention of an extremist faction that managed to get a stranglehold on one of the major political parties until they could dictate who could and could not be appointed to the courts. It is the result of an end run around the constitution and democracy. It is not lost on me that the same party rails about "activist judges", but projection is a topic for another thread.
I am struggling to understand how people electing representatives to the executive and legislative branch to appoint judges to the judiciary who share their views on legal issues is an "end run around the constitution and democracy". That is exactly the mechanism of democracy as prescribed by the constitution.
And what the fuck is this bizarrely(given the leanings of the forum) Scalia like insistence on highly selective originalism.
This idea that keeps getting presented in this thread that somehow every expansion of rights by SCOTUS you agree with is correct, but the others are wrong is just bullshit. Women have a right to a medical procedure (not mentioned anywhere in the constitution) because of a likewise unmentioned general right to privacy. And that's just the perfectly normal working of the judiciary, but a more permissive interpretation of an amendment that's actually part of the constitution is some sort of massive judicial overreach? Apple Sauce.
When you ask someone why they have a right to own guns, the answer begins and ends at "because the second amendment says so". If you press, you may get answers ranging from self defense (statistically bullshit) to resistance (naive bullshit). The common feature to these scenarios is anxiety. The push for a right to own guns boils down to wanting a safety blanket. That kills people (which it seems is a fairly strong violation of their rights).
So what it comes down to is, no, nobody is talking about taking your rights away. Your right to a gun is a mirage pushed by an industrial lobby scared of losing sales. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, morally wrong when you get told you can't have a gun. Don't compare it to centuries of civil rights struggles in this country or others, because it's not even close.
What rights are we talking about? Because US citizens have a legal right to own firearms. Full stop. This is a fact.
Morally, it's arguable and a lot of that hinges on how you philosophically construct and constrain rights. But arguing various philosophies on rights and justice is going to start getting pretty far afield for this thread I think.
Can you not split posts up? It makes it really annoying to try and maintain a thread of conversation.
So your big quote isn't even saying what you seem to think it says. Hunt is arguing that guns can be used as a means of self defense. This is different from arguing that someone has a right to a gun. Furthermore, a book published last year could hardly be further from evidence of a history of philosophical debate on the matter.
When you use a judge's belief on a specific issue as a litmus test in appointing them you pervert the judicial process. I dare you to say with a straight face that any of the judges who voted for Heller would have been appointed if their views on the 2nd amendment were otherwise. And seriously, Scalia wasn't for "originalism", he was for whatever justified the conclusion he wanted. Don't bring that hack up, he's emblematic of the issue to begin with.
The right to privacy is the 4th amendment. It's the same way freedom of conscience is part of the 1st. If you lack the ability to figure out how those two work, I recommend looking up the meaning of "modus tollendo tollens", and applying it.
If we want to get into the weeds, I feel there are generally two ways you can interpret a law. First is original intent - for more or less the entire bill of rights the intent is simple. The stronger federal government will not engage in the abuses European countries were (and that were why they had tried a weaker national government the first time). Second you can go with literal meaning, which has the obvious issues of trying to nail down edge cases. Written language is inherently ambiguous, and things that go unsaid can easily go unwritten as well.
As for original intent, it seems rather clear nobody thought the second amendment applied in a strong individual rights fashion at the time. Certainly nobody seemed to have an issue with cities restricting the carrying and use of firearms.
Literal meaning is a crapshoot here, since nobody can agree on the function of the first clause. Usually that kind of ambiguity is resolved by looking at intent, which is mentioned iirc in the Miller decision (spoilers: it was the militia).
And then right at the end you basically do exactly what I said you would. Your final argument is "because the second amendment says so". You're trying to just take the ball and go home.
I split my posts up, because on forums people tend to make a bunch of specific claims, and I prefer addressing them as individual items since they don't necessarily flow from one to the other.
No, the big quote is saying exactly what I intended it to say, which is that this "The idea of a right to own weapons in the personal sense, especially to the degree that is commonly espoused today, has none of that. There is no moral argument for it. There is no history, no philosophy, nothing." is bunk. Hunt isn't the first guy to write about this. But lots of philosophy touches on it in tangential ways. With Nozick, you have a right to a gun, because you have individual autonomy and you have the right to choose to have one or not.
And Hunts argument is in general terms, is if you have a right to self defense, you must also have a right to the means for it. Which is what then the 2nd follows from. Which is philosophically maybe a bit shaky, but is basically the same underpinnings of any "access" based campaign. I am actually kind of interested in reading what Hunt wrote on that, since when I had him for classes years ago he was pretty down on the idea or a right to the means of a right, idea.
Also every side has litmus tests for their nominees. Obama was never going to nominate a pro-lifer. That doesn't somehow make their pro-choice rulings or them tainted. That the originalism benchmark is suddenly what is being presented as the one, true and only valid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by team Living Document is the same intellectual dishonesty Scalia was guilty of.
And the point of abortion example is simply that if "we" accept the construction of a right to a specific medical procedure, as valid jurisprudence from the right to privacy. Or really about 2/3 of the commerce clause shenanigans. Then treating one of two linguistically valid readings of the 2nd Amendment as somehow beyond the pale judicial activism is laughably dishonest.
And finally, no I'm not asserting the 2nd amendment, I'm making a state based argument. I currently have the right, therefore if you wish me to no longer have it you are taking away my rights. Where it comes from is inconsequential, it is a right I am currently in legal fact enjoying. Claiming the rights are mirages or that I don't currently have them, is just an attempt to disguise what is a removal of individual autonomy as a neutral non-act rather than the transgressive one it is.
Nope. Let me make this clear, you have no moral right to a gun. Try and pick and dodge around that. You're deliberately conflating the concepts of legal and moral rights.
I have a right to self defense. I by extension have a right to access means of self defense. Guns are an effective means of self defense, therefor I have a right to guns.
Also
I have the right to autonomy as an individual. One of my autonomies is to choose to own a gun or not. My owning a gun does not interfere with the permissible goals of the limited state. Therefore it is wrong for the state to curtail my autonomy in this choice.
Or how about this one.
By not owning a gun, I may create a situation where by a police officer will have to kill someone in my defense that I otherwise would have had to kill myself. Them experiencing this trauma of killing someone would be harmful to them. With the goal of minimizing harm to others, I have not just a right, but a moral duty to own a gun I can effectively defend myself with, so as not to obligate others to harm themselves on my behalf.
e: I mean at this point it's basically a libertarian constructivist view on rights vs a utilitarian view on morals. There isn't a provable answer here.
1) no actuall connection between right to self defense and right to "effective means" of self defense. Lots of things are "effective" at self defense... like tanks. But you do not have a right to tanks clearly. That is to say that there must be balance between "defensive effectiveness" and harmful capability. Additionally guns are not actually effective at self defense.
2) you do not have unlimited rights to "autonomy." Additionally owning a gun does interfere with the permissible goals of a limited state. Additionally "limited" can be removed here because what?
3) No. You do not have a moral obligation to kill.
1) We accept this effective means argument all the time. Hell we accept more extensive constructions of it than "the right to buy", You have a right to emergency medical care, that beyond simply being allowed to purchase such care obligates others to provide it for you. This is the basis of every "access to X" type argument.
2) No I don't, but I have substantial rights to autonomy. Nozick lays these out pretty clearly in the seminal Anarchy, State, and Utopia, this is where the "because what?" term "limited state" comes from. Under the limited upotian state I do have that right. Under some Millsian or Singer esk utilitarian theory of Justice I probably don't.
3) What if there's a lever, and a run away trolley?
I've been through enough of these threads at this point I don't really expect any better but. "No, you dont" isn't an argument.
1) No. We don't. Which is why tanks aren't legal despite them being very effective at preventing traffic deaths for the occupants.
2) No. Nozick is not an authority on rights
3) There is no lever or trolley.
I get the fact that you do not like "no, you don't" as an argument but there isn't really much of a rebuttal to these since your arguments boil down to "yes, I do" and you've refused to believe the evidence and arguments on the other side.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Search is search, speech is speech, and arms are arms. When we invent mind blasts and virtual snow crash black ice and phasers and projectiles seem silly, the 2nd will still apply.
Yes, because the idea of even easier methods of killing people being propagated amongst the populace with zero effort on controls really puts the warm fuzzies in my belly.
It's not like the Founders were unfamiliar with sweeping technological changes remaking the world around them, particularly in the realm of war. One of the first semi-auto rifles was pitched to the Continental Congress but they declined to buy any.
The first versions of any weapon tend to be shoddy and unreliable. Judging them for not guessing that a heavy easily-jammed prototype would one day allow one old nutcase to kill 50 at a distance so far that no-one could even shoot back is not reasonable. They made laws for their times and expected them to be updated in the future.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
When is the cutoff for ideas?
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Search is search, speech is speech, and arms are arms. When we invent mind blasts and virtual snow crash black ice and phasers and projectiles seem silly, the 2nd will still apply.
Yes, because the idea of even easier methods of killing people being propagated amongst the populace with zero effort on controls really puts the warm fuzzies in my belly.
It's not like the Founders were unfamiliar with sweeping technological changes remaking the world around them, particularly in the realm of war. One of the first semi-auto rifles was pitched to the Continental Congress but they declined to buy any.
And as such, they put a means in the constitution to modify it when it becomes obsolete.
Just a heads up, tanks are legal to own. They are expensive and for the gun to be active you need a tax stamp for a destructive device and a tax stamp for each shell. You also need a significant amount of money and someone looking to sell.
I have been broken into. We were in the bedroom and they (he/she?) came in the sliding glass door and stole a laptop, a camera and my wife's purse.
We hid in the bedroom until we couldn't hear anyone moving around and then called the police.
Insurance got me a new laptop and camera and the biggest pain was my wife's ID.
No one died.
I've taken a few defensive pistol classes, and talked with a few other instructors, and they'd all agree this is the right thing to do even if you have a gun. My first instructor told us that he has a worked out plan with his family. If he hears anything that sounds like people breaking into his house he grabs his kids from the bedroom next to him and his wife's, shuts and locks the bedroom door, and calls the cops. He keeps a pistol with a light on it in a small safe in his nightstand that he'll pull out, but that only gets used if someone tries breaking into the bedroom. And only after he loudly tells them he has a gun and will fire if they don't leave.
Sounds like a very good strategy, because it's de-escalation rather than escalation. This would probably scare off every burglar other than the deranged and psychotic, which are genuinely few in number.
AFAIK thats the way all of those classes are. It makes sense.
Its also another reason that without good study, its near impossible to sort everything out statistic wise. In those cases the gun was not used but very well could have been a strong deterrent to further action by the criminal. (in the sense that yelling "get out of my house, i am armed" could very well make the bad guy decide it isn't worth it and nope out. But it is really hard to nail those incidents down decisively as there isnt a national study.
Posts
Thankfully no one here is doing the bolded, and the constant strawmanning is not helpful.
Also, the 2nd specifies that it is a Right of the People. Those are, in all other cases, individual rights.
Yes.
When is the cutoff for ideas? A hundred years? 150? Racist oppressors were disarming black Americans starting with post-Reconstruction, and it didn't stop until
Actually that's the state of affairs in New York right now.
I've been arguing this online for ages and I would characterize typical NRA/Republican views on gun control as being in favor of unrestricted ownership, save for felons. Most of them seem to believe that the current weak-sauce regulations are onerous and should be repealed. I stand by my comments.
When their intentions are no longer valid, i.e. we no longer have flintlock muskets like they did back then. The ideals of freedom of speech have not changed as speech is still used in the same manner as it was back then, just a lot more instantly with a constant, wider audience.
Firearms have changed dramatically.
Yeah. Imagine if technology had changed so that a technological item could make you absurdly persuasive, so that people would believe whatever you said, instantly, like a D&D "Charm" spell. This would cause huge social problems, and the device would get instantly banned or restricted, because it would be extremely dangerous. It would be useful for things like police in calming a fraught situation, but civilians would need special permissions to use it. It would not be protected as "free speech."
The way our military works bears no resemblence to the original intention, as well.
Some things that can be defined as human qualities change little over time, but something specific like firearms change dramatically over time.
As far as I know, out of all of the bill of rights, only the 2nd deals with the legality of ownership of a physical good.
I'm less concerned about the idea itself, then i am of people using it as an argument from authority.
The founding fathers were fallible people, creatures of their time.
And as we have done away with slavery and given the vote to people other than land owning men, maybe we should examine the idea of militia as a basis for national defense.
Imagine if a technology had developed that allowed you to spread your speech instantly to the entire world without any control for content or intent without a significant financial or time investment like a printing press. This would cause huge social problems that may even be discussed using that technology. There would likely be attempts to regulate it in such a manner as to control content and access technology wide. I imagine this would meet significant resistance from users of that technology to that regulation though.
Yeah, enshrining the 2nd amendment as infallible and the founding fathers as divine is one of the most dangerous strains of constitutional originalism we have.
The 2nd amendment worked great for a little nation constantly under the threat of siege from European nations and the native Americans they stole the land from, but it seems antiquated and quite frankly dangerous today.
We certainly have! In fact, it has been almost entirely dropped. The US military would not be so terrifying and powerful a force if it entirely relied on semi-trained young farmers turning up with their personal guns to fight in between harvests. Although it would certainly deter foreign adventures!
Youtube and Twitter are now analogues for mind control.
Maybe I should nope out of this for a bit while people get their shit sorted.
Please point out where I stated such.
Let's not pretend that technology which we consider entwined with speech has not changed just because we like to discuss movies, tv, and video games on the internet.
To point the first, I was replying to your rebuttal of mind control being illegal, so it would seem you were trying to compare the two.
The methodology in which speech is delivered has changed.
Speech has fundamentally not changed at all.
We just recently had a thread where people were arguing that the 1st is too unrestrictive as well and people are harmed in ways they never have before.
The ideal of the security of a free state is no less important today than it was! I know it's popular to argue that America is invincible and unassailable from within and without but I'm not so sanguine about things given that, if you happen to be brown, we've only had free States for like 60 years.
So you're saying there's been a significant technological development in the realm of speech since 1789. By the same frame you are using 1A only covers technology available in 1788-89.
Also, it wasn't a rebuttal because the point being made was dumb (and I imagine specifically used to avoid making the connection to the internet and technological change surrounding civil liberties) and I was pointing out that arguing that a right should be limited solely due to technological change is also dumb. Because we all love to use the internet and generally want our speech on the internet to be protected in the same way we would expect our speech using older technologies to be protected. We also want protection from unwarranted search and seizure to include our motor vehicles and not just our horse drawn buggies.
Search and seizure is search and seizure and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Speech is speech and exists regardless of the technology surrounding it.
Guns are literally technology and cannot be separated from technology.
Now military training now is super effective, we wouldn't really want a militia. Psychologically, Joe average makes a terrible soldier because they don't really want to kill anyone, honestly naturally only about 2% of the population's default instinct is to shoot to kill. We are just hard wired not too. Our military training uses some skinner box techniques to short circuit that natural impulse so that we respond to threats before we can process our actions, there are also thoughts that this has contributed to the increase in PTSD and some other post combat problems, but it is way different than farmers on the weekends, however areas seem to treat it like that.
I'm not making a point I'm just thinking out loud so I'm not sure what conclusion I want to draw yet.
When they're no longer applicable and modified for the current century. The Founders were flawed individuals who never dreamt of what would happen in our time period. They had no conception of tanks, nuclear weapons, machine guns, mini-guns, social media, drones etc. Back then a militia stood a chance at standing up to the government, that is not true now. Also, wth the slavery and not letting women vote.
The NRA aren't with the black American's now, either. See their reaction once Obama got in office, they couldn't wait to sound the alarms for the Dems takin' their guns to the hilt. And what happened? Nothing.
Also, as new technologies involving speech, or atleast the expression of ideas, have come about, those have been regulated.
Printing Press, Radio, Movies, Television, Internet...
All are regulated to lesser or greater extent.
Search is search, speech is speech, and arms are arms. When we invent mind blasts and virtual snow crash black ice and phasers and projectiles seem silly, the 2nd will still apply.
I mean, if people want to be Billy Badasses by doing military training and wrecking their psychological health, then they can have at it.
I almost checked in to the ER because of my anxiety during last years 4th of July causing DANGER CLOSE to flash across my brain constantly despite me knowing they were just fireworks.
Actual real training to be able to kill someone will fuck you up, and the fact that 99% of the population has never engaged in it and still wants to pretend like they could do it just feels like the most dishonest chest-pounding I can recall.
The NRA are *still* trying to scare their members with the guv'mint taking their guns - even though the guv'mint is entirely in Republican hands and working on weakening gun control, not strengthening it.
Paranoid fuckers, all of them.
I've taken a few defensive pistol classes, and talked with a few other instructors, and they'd all agree this is the right thing to do even if you have a gun. My first instructor told us that he has a worked out plan with his family. If he hears anything that sounds like people breaking into his house he grabs his kids from the bedroom next to him and his wife's, shuts and locks the bedroom door, and calls the cops. He keeps a pistol with a light on it in a small safe in his nightstand that he'll pull out, but that only gets used if someone tries breaking into the bedroom. And only after he loudly tells them he has a gun and will fire if they don't leave.
One of the first things all the defensive pistol classes I've taken try and teach you is that having a gun does not make you Jason Bourne, and taking said gun to 'check out that noise I heard downstairs' is generally a pretty stupid move. (Unless you happen to be a member of Seal Team 6, at which point you probably know what the hell you're doing). That's why cops exist.
Guns kill innocent people, generally, because the people using them are irresponsible and stupid. But that's not unique to guns. Last I looked a lot more people were killed by cars than by guns. Usually because the drivers were irresponsible and stupid.
Yes, but only one is meant to kill something.
The evolution of hearing soundwaves shaped by teeth, tongue, and lips does not line up in any way with the evolution of modern small arms.
I wonder how public support would change if instead of guns the arms in question were, I dunno, an app.
Yes, because the idea of even easier methods of killing people being propagated amongst the populace with zero effort on controls really puts the warm fuzzies in my belly.
Yep.
Too many people directly, and indirectly, are influenced by the NRA on gun rights.
Sounds like a very good strategy, because it's de-escalation rather than escalation. This would probably scare off every burglar other than the deranged and psychotic, which are genuinely few in number.
It's not like the Founders were unfamiliar with sweeping technological changes remaking the world around them, particularly in the realm of war. One of the first semi-auto rifles was pitched to the Continental Congress but they declined to buy any.
1) No. We don't. Which is why tanks aren't legal despite them being very effective at preventing traffic deaths for the occupants.
2) No. Nozick is not an authority on rights
3) There is no lever or trolley.
I get the fact that you do not like "no, you don't" as an argument but there isn't really much of a rebuttal to these since your arguments boil down to "yes, I do" and you've refused to believe the evidence and arguments on the other side.
The first versions of any weapon tend to be shoddy and unreliable. Judging them for not guessing that a heavy easily-jammed prototype would one day allow one old nutcase to kill 50 at a distance so far that no-one could even shoot back is not reasonable. They made laws for their times and expected them to be updated in the future.
And as such, they put a means in the constitution to modify it when it becomes obsolete.
The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and archaic.
AFAIK thats the way all of those classes are. It makes sense.
Its also another reason that without good study, its near impossible to sort everything out statistic wise. In those cases the gun was not used but very well could have been a strong deterrent to further action by the criminal. (in the sense that yelling "get out of my house, i am armed" could very well make the bad guy decide it isn't worth it and nope out. But it is really hard to nail those incidents down decisively as there isnt a national study.