4 ms·

The GP comment is still wrong. They didn't take away firearms from anyone. Limiting sale != taking away what is already owned.

rayiner 8y ago
I didn’t say they took away guns, I said they took away gun rights. Restricting the kinds of guns you can buy, or ability to sell ir transfer existing proprty, is taking away part of your rights.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Meh. It's more of a clarification of rights. When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. I'm curious how the conversation will turn when we have 'laser guns', hand-held railguns and other weapons in the future that we cannot even comprehend today. Will folks complain about the government taking away their rights to owning an automatic railgun? Probably. Did the writers of the second amendment mean for it to apply to massively overpowered weapons? Probably not. If you believe it did, then why aren't you complaining about the government not letting you own ICBMs?
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    >When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. When the first amendment was written, the press was quite rudimentary by today’s standards. TV, radio, and internet were not envisioned. Maybe the government is allowed to regulate all news that isn’t physical printed. Also, it should be able to ban automatic printing presses. The printing presses of the timer were manual, one press one page. Nowadays the printing presses can spew thousands of pages with a single press of a button.
    - krapp 8y ago
      Thomas Jefferson wanted a revolution every 20 years, but we don't string up, draw and quarter our entire government every other decade. It isn't ridiculous to question whether eighteenth century political and cultural standards should always apply to a 21st century state. The Constitution isn't holy writ. Somehow much of the rest of the world manages to have free, democratic states without a 2nd Amendment or its thesis that a free state requires an armed and violent populace and a lack of any regulation on firearms.
      - cuboidGoat 8y ago
        >Thomas Jefferson wanted a revolution every 20 years, but we don't string up, draw and quarter our entire government every other decade. Not your own one. Jefferson did get his wish granted in some ways however. Possibly by a malignant genie with a keen sense of irony.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        > It isn't ridiculous to question whether eighteenth century political and cultural standards should always apply to a 21st century state. The Constitution isn't holy writ. The appeal to the text and original meaning of the Constitution is not about giving deference to 18th century attitudes over 21st century ones, it’s about resolving a dispute amongst two contemporary views. If everyone agreed that the framers were out to lunch on the 2A, it would be trivial to change it. But people don’t agree that the 2A is obsolete. If you saw the word “arms” in a contract, would you think it was limited to a particular type of gun. If someone sells just automatic weapons, are they not an “arms dealer?” Like in a contract, if both sides agreed to change the word “arms” to something narrower, they could do it. But just like a contract, where the sides don’t agree, one is entitled to have the contract enforced as written.
        cuboidGoat 8y ago
        'Arms', in the general sense, is up to and including nukes though.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        rayiner 8y ago
        Maybe. The Constitution protects the right of "people" to "keep and bear" (i.e. keep and carry) "arms." There is at least a textual basis for interpreting "arms" to exclude weapons (like nukes and attack aircraft) that are not ordinarily carried by individuals. But note, at the time of the founding, it was perfectly legal for private citizens to own armed warships. These ships had dozens of cannons that could fire over a mile (thus sieging a city). Canons moreover could fire grapeshot, causing massive casualties to groups of people. These weapons were far more destructive than an AR-15.

rayiner 8y ago

I didn’t say they took away guns, I said they took away gun rights. Restricting the kinds of guns you can buy, or ability to sell ir transfer existing proprty, is taking away part of your rights.

craftyguy 8y ago
Meh. It's more of a clarification of rights. When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. I'm curious how the conversation will turn when we have 'laser guns', hand-held railguns and other weapons in the future that we cannot even comprehend today. Will folks complain about the government taking away their rights to owning an automatic railgun? Probably. Did the writers of the second amendment mean for it to apply to massively overpowered weapons? Probably not. If you believe it did, then why aren't you complaining about the government not letting you own ICBMs?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  >When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. When the first amendment was written, the press was quite rudimentary by today’s standards. TV, radio, and internet were not envisioned. Maybe the government is allowed to regulate all news that isn’t physical printed. Also, it should be able to ban automatic printing presses. The printing presses of the timer were manual, one press one page. Nowadays the printing presses can spew thousands of pages with a single press of a button.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Thomas Jefferson wanted a revolution every 20 years, but we don't string up, draw and quarter our entire government every other decade. It isn't ridiculous to question whether eighteenth century political and cultural standards should always apply to a 21st century state. The Constitution isn't holy writ. Somehow much of the rest of the world manages to have free, democratic states without a 2nd Amendment or its thesis that a free state requires an armed and violent populace and a lack of any regulation on firearms.
    - cuboidGoat 8y ago
      >Thomas Jefferson wanted a revolution every 20 years, but we don't string up, draw and quarter our entire government every other decade. Not your own one. Jefferson did get his wish granted in some ways however. Possibly by a malignant genie with a keen sense of irony.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > It isn't ridiculous to question whether eighteenth century political and cultural standards should always apply to a 21st century state. The Constitution isn't holy writ. The appeal to the text and original meaning of the Constitution is not about giving deference to 18th century attitudes over 21st century ones, it’s about resolving a dispute amongst two contemporary views. If everyone agreed that the framers were out to lunch on the 2A, it would be trivial to change it. But people don’t agree that the 2A is obsolete. If you saw the word “arms” in a contract, would you think it was limited to a particular type of gun. If someone sells just automatic weapons, are they not an “arms dealer?” Like in a contract, if both sides agreed to change the word “arms” to something narrower, they could do it. But just like a contract, where the sides don’t agree, one is entitled to have the contract enforced as written.
      - cuboidGoat 8y ago
        'Arms', in the general sense, is up to and including nukes though.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        rayiner 8y ago
        Maybe. The Constitution protects the right of "people" to "keep and bear" (i.e. keep and carry) "arms." There is at least a textual basis for interpreting "arms" to exclude weapons (like nukes and attack aircraft) that are not ordinarily carried by individuals. But note, at the time of the founding, it was perfectly legal for private citizens to own armed warships. These ships had dozens of cannons that could fire over a mile (thus sieging a city). Canons moreover could fire grapeshot, causing massive casualties to groups of people. These weapons were far more destructive than an AR-15.