2 ms·

I want nothing at all to do with a 2A debate, but ... The "nuclear weapons" argument is actually a useful and substantive retort from gun control advocates - I

by rsync 11y ago

I want nothing at all to do with a 2A debate, but ... The "nuclear weapons" argument is actually a useful and substantive retort from gun control advocates - I don't think it should be waved away as if it's absurd or silly. But at the same time, I think there is a very, very simple solution to the "nuclear weapons" problem, and that is to cap firearms capability at whatever the highest capability employed by the state and local law enforcement that one is subject to. No SWAT team or sheriffs department will have a nuke, so the problem is solved. Because of posse comitatus[1], you can't end up with a situation where local law enforcement disarms itself completely (and thus, disarms all citizens) and hands over larger tasks to the military, since they can't do that. On some level, local law enforcement in the US needs firearms, so that unintended consequence is skirted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

mindslight 11y ago
but ... we jumped right in! Your test seems like a good one too, but federal domestic law enforcement would need to be included as well. Organized police would flip their bacon, but getting rid of that power asymmetry is kind of the entire point. It could devolve into police using only bureaucracy-approved expensive weapons or network DRM, so it would have to be by general weapon class and we'd need non-corrupt courts for actual implementation. Ultimately I don't think such "debates" come down to much besides showing how out of hand the government has gotten, through both attrition and precession. The Bill of Rights should be viewed more as a bunch of (failing) test cases than something with hypothetical legal force.