4 ms·
So certain things, like details of the latest US nuclear weapon designs should probably remain secret as well as the more common approaches to making a nuclear
by bb88 8y ago
So certain things, like details of the latest US nuclear weapon designs should probably remain secret as well as the more common approaches to making a nuclear warhead.
And it's probably not too far off in the future that DNA strains of viruses like ebola can easily be replicated and constructed in someone's basement.
The founding fathers never envisioned free speech as a way to disseminate information that can be used to kill swaths of people. It was a check on the government as well as a way to preserve political speech.
- stale2002 8y agoSure. But you would be hard pressed to argue that "information that could be used to build a gun" is among that category of information that the founders would be opposed to allowing people to have. Pretty much anyone could just buy a gun back then. The founders even made sure to put this right in the Constitution. And before someone goes on and says "but the founders never envisioned that semi automatic rifles would exist!" You should know that you are 100% incorrect. Semi automatic rifles existed for a hundred years prior to the Constitution. Go google the "kalthoth repeater". Not a lot of people owned them, because they were fairly expensive, but they existed, and I'm sure the founders could have envisioned them.
- bb88 8y agoGuns typically kill a few people here and there. I'm talking about the deaths of large swaths of people from technology that wasn't envisioned in the 1700's. But since you mentioned it, that's the problem with taking an originalist view of the constitution. Nuclear weapons didn't exist back then, neither did DNA sequencing. And in your view for any X it must be legal, because the founding fathers were silent about X. I am pretty sure that if you could go back in time and ask whether George Washington whether the common man should be allowed to have and use nuclear weapons, the common sense answer would be a resounding "NO".
- jfnixon 8y agoIt is also the answer today for originalists. The standard interpretation is the 2A applies to any weapon which can be carried by a common soldier. It doesn't cover a F22, nor a battleship, nor a tank (although you can buy a tank, but for other reasons).
- bb88 8y agoI'm not against that definition of the second amendment, but a nuclear weapon does not need to be a large thing at all and could be in fact carried by a soldier.
- stale2002 8y agoWell this thread is not about people 3d printing nukes. It is instead about people 3d printing guns. Or in other words, the "controversy" here is entirely overblown, as firearms are very much something that everyone has been able to imagine for a long time, and this is not a "tricky situation". It is a clear and obvious situation covering rights that are clearly covered in the constitution.
- bb88 8y agoAnd I was asking a direct question to OP's comment about what information should be actually made illegal if any. I even clarified the question to "large swaths of people" which exempts plastic guns from the question. Next time, please read the full comments.