3 ms·

I'm curious. Can you elaborate in which ways the Constitution permits its enforcement through "an autonomous militia of killer robots programmed to enforce an O

• krapp 8y ago
  The 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.
  • fouc 8y ago
    There are probably weight limits to directly bearing arms, I doubt most people could bear more than 60lbs for an extended period of time. Fortunately, we can work around that limit by making the armed autonomous robot also an exoskeleton that lets people bear the weight of the arm.