4 ms·
Gun control. Simple. Don't worry about the robots, worry about the guns.
by fouc 8y ago
Gun control. Simple. Don't worry about the robots, worry about the guns.
- esotericn 8y agoKillbots have superhuman strength. You'd need to classify their ability to pull your arms off as a 'gun'.
- mysterydip 8y agoI wouldn't want to cross paths with the StabBot 9000, either.
- dqpb 8y agoHow about a ban on all weapons? If people want to go to war, they can fight with their bare hands.
- whatshisface 8y agoThe incentive to break that rule would be overwhelming.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoEnforcement would be tricky.
- krapp 8y agoThere's nothing in the Second Amendment that says the right to keep and bear arms applies only to humans, and not also to the arms themselves.
- dTal 8y agoThat's a ridiculous interpretation of both letter and spirit. Killer robots are not people.
- krapp 8y agoIt's a straightforward interpretation. At the very least, they count as "arms," just autonomous arms, which makes them necessary for a free state. Let's not twist the Founder's intent here, or underestimate their foresight. They thought very carefully about these issues, and understood that a government's monopoly on violence going unchecked by a disarmed populace inevitably leads to tyranny. Therefore, we must deploy an autonomous militia of killer robots programmed to enforce an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution with ruthless efficiency as soon as possible. The cause of Liberty demands no less.
- segfaultbuserr 8y agoI'm curious. Can you elaborate in which ways the Constitution permits its enforcement through "an autonomous militia of killer robots programmed to enforce an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution"? If people agree the Constitution should be enforced in this way, what are the necessary legislative, executive or judicial procedures to enable it?
- krapp 8y agoThe Second Amendment claims that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for a free state, and that the Federal government cannot abridge this right. Autonomous, weaponized robots can be considered arms - certainly, their autonomy doesn't make them any less of an armament than a rifle or a handgun. Therefore, the right to keep and bear armed autonomous robots is necessary for a free state. >If people agree the Constitution should be enforced in this way, what are the necessary legislative, executive or judicial procedures to enable it? There are none. The Second Amendment already allows it, and provides the means to enable it - we build an army of killer robots and use them against the government should it try to abridge our right to deploy an army of killer robots against them. If Ben Franklin were alive, I think he would fully support it.