3 ms·

Except, of course, the right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment has nothing to directly do with hobbies, and without (major) complaint hobbies like hunting are seri

by hga 11y ago

Except, of course, the right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment has nothing to directly do with hobbies, and without (major) complaint hobbies like hunting are seriously regulated and constrained. One also wonders if police carry guns as a "hobby" ... or if, they're, you know, actually useful. Seeing as civilians in the US report using them more than a couple of million times a year, which trivially swamps the 1% you come up with above, which also ignores that deaths caused by guns are even more concentrated in perpetrators than those by cars.... But let's extend this hobby line of thought. Listening to music is much more "frivolous" than defending you and yours from those who would do them harm, so by the principle you've enunciated above, copyright restrictions could be even more harsh. Are border searches far from the border getting the judicial deference that perpetual copyrights and no right to bear arms are getting in the Federal courts? All I can remember in detail about this is citizens "on the ground" successfully, at least at times, reporting refusing them on the obvious 4th Amendment grounds. Which I assume means the authorities are not eager to test them in court.

Retric 11y ago
I propose we replace guns with bows. Just as deadly for hunting, self-defense, and law enforcement, much harder for a 4 year old to kill someone and a lower risk for mass shootings or bystander’s. PS: In many countries most of the police are generally unarmed, so this is still better defense than that. </only half joking> Still, you really can frame the debate as "let's kill 1 million Americans over the next 100 years!" which IMO needs a stronger defense than "But but FREEDOM !!1!1!!"
- hga 11y ago
  Also much harder if not impossible to use for the physically weaker, e.g. women, the older, elderly and disabled (who just happened to make up most of my Missouri required concealed carry license class; BTW, 5% of the age eligible adults in my county have one). Makes gay bashing a much iffier proposition in most of the country: http://www.pinkpistols.org/ http://www.pinkpistols.org/ As for the problems with "4 year olds", well, since I've been keeping track of the statistics in the '80s, both the population and number of guns owned by it have increased by very roughly 50%, while the absolute number of official fatal gun accidents has dropped by 25%. Is this a problem? Sure, but not as big as swimming pools, buckets before a major effort was made there, etc. etc. As for those unarmed police, that they're backed up by armed police/paramilitaries and the military means something, yes? Getting back to the topic at hand, why not kneecap all digital audio technology like DAT was? Heck, the RIAA was proposing to require all Analog to Digital Converters (ADC) to have circuitry that would cause them to stop working when they perceived a watermark (!). ADDED: Heck, why wasn't there any DRM on CDs, besides them being developed outside the US? Here's some history following them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
  - Retric 11y ago
    Even very low draw weight bows can be deadly weapons especially with neurotoxin's, but we could add a dispensation for the truly enfeebled to use crossbows. (but enough joking around.) Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up killing them. Overall, I am fairly neutral on the gun issue. I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. IMO, we let people drive cars with minimal licensing and take that right away when abused, it seems like guns should follow a similar approach. As to music I really don't care. End copyright, require DRM, outlaw DRM, or even outlaw music, it really does not matter to me.
    - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
      >I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. Well, there are several federal[0] and many state[1] gun regulations on the books, so I don't know where you get the idea that gun ownership has no oversight. Further, in the Heller decision, Scalia writes: >There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.... >Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_...
      - Retric 11y ago
        You’re thinking of negative management, it's presumed that everyone can buy a gun and they lose that right. Positive management would require someone to demonstrate competence ahead of a purchase ex: by taking a class / passing a test etc.

by hga 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

I propose we replace guns with bows. Just as deadly for hunting, self-defense, and law enforcement, much harder for a 4 year old to kill someone and a lower risk for mass shootings or bystander’s. PS: In many countries most of the police are generally unarmed, so this is still better defense than that. </only half joking> Still, you really can frame the debate as "let's kill 1 million Americans over the next 100 years!" which IMO needs a stronger defense than "But but FREEDOM !!1!1!!"

hga 11y ago
Also much harder if not impossible to use for the physically weaker, e.g. women, the older, elderly and disabled (who just happened to make up most of my Missouri required concealed carry license class; BTW, 5% of the age eligible adults in my county have one). Makes gay bashing a much iffier proposition in most of the country: http://www.pinkpistols.org/ http://www.pinkpistols.org/ As for the problems with "4 year olds", well, since I've been keeping track of the statistics in the '80s, both the population and number of guns owned by it have increased by very roughly 50%, while the absolute number of official fatal gun accidents has dropped by 25%. Is this a problem? Sure, but not as big as swimming pools, buckets before a major effort was made there, etc. etc. As for those unarmed police, that they're backed up by armed police/paramilitaries and the military means something, yes? Getting back to the topic at hand, why not kneecap all digital audio technology like DAT was? Heck, the RIAA was proposing to require all Analog to Digital Converters (ADC) to have circuitry that would cause them to stop working when they perceived a watermark (!). ADDED: Heck, why wasn't there any DRM on CDs, besides them being developed outside the US? Here's some history following them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
- Retric 11y ago
  Even very low draw weight bows can be deadly weapons especially with neurotoxin's, but we could add a dispensation for the truly enfeebled to use crossbows. (but enough joking around.) Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up killing them. Overall, I am fairly neutral on the gun issue. I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. IMO, we let people drive cars with minimal licensing and take that right away when abused, it seems like guns should follow a similar approach. As to music I really don't care. End copyright, require DRM, outlaw DRM, or even outlaw music, it really does not matter to me.
  - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
    >I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. Well, there are several federal[0] and many state[1] gun regulations on the books, so I don't know where you get the idea that gun ownership has no oversight. Further, in the Heller decision, Scalia writes: >There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.... >Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_...
    - Retric 11y ago
      You’re thinking of negative management, it's presumed that everyone can buy a gun and they lose that right. Positive management would require someone to demonstrate competence ahead of a purchase ex: by taking a class / passing a test etc.