3 ms·
It's _highly_ relevant to this issue. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but: it's my opinion (one widely shared) that one of the reasons this sort of p
by duncan_bayne 9y ago
It's _highly_ relevant to this issue.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but: it's my opinion (one widely shared) that one of the reasons this sort of programme hasn't taken root in the USA already is that your Constitution effectively prohibits it. In principle with the entire document, and in practice with the 2nd.
Furthermore, I think that both the 1st and 2nd Amendments act as handy mineshaft canaries. You should mistrust the motivations of anyone who seeks to abrogate either.
- ybrah 9y agowhy do some comments look invisible :thinking emoji:
- nrb 9y agoNot sure what you're talking about... nothing in our Constitution prevents this outright. This is already in action to some degree in the US: employers are already able to use criminal background, public records, and (in many places) credit checks to make hiring decisions. The difference is that it's primarily private companies doing this research/scoring and some states have protections in place for prospective employees. The 2nd amendment does nothing about these private companies using your information to limit your career options (indirectly restricting your free movement.) Anyone taking arms to protest this would rightly be considered a terrorist in the eyes of the law.