5 ms·

The 2nd amendment has become an absurd right because due to technological advancement it must necessarily be severely limited for the good of society - you can'

• tkifnn 7y ago
  The significant limitations on the second amendment are not the ones banning new technology. Laws preventing open carry or conceal carry, requiring permits, red flag laws... They all erode the ability of citizens to defend themselves.
• deogeo 7y ago
  Perhaps. But restricting it must be done carefully, or you will end up with a disarmed populace, against well armed corporate security.
  • wlll 7y ago
    Aren't corporations just the populace too?
    • deogeo 7y ago
      Exactly - so they shouldn't be able to buy themselves more rights by hiring "registered/official" security. Sure it's technically available to everyone, but they can choose their clients, they have to jump through regulatory hoops (and, realistically, political connections), and are unaffordable to most. The end result is a widened power gap.
• u801e 7y ago
  Could this line of reasoning be applied to other amendments of the US constitution? For example, could one claim that the right to free speech is only limited to forms of communication that existed at the time the amendment was ratified, which would exclude video or online communication? What about the fourth amendment and what it covers? Should we exclude forms of stored information that weren't available in the 18th century?
  • deogeo 7y ago
    I think the poster wasn't making a principled argument that rights granted by the constitution only apply to 18th century technology, but that, at some point, pragmatism must be considered. I know I railed against pragmatism in my post, but that was aimed at over-reliance on it - it doesn't mean it should be (or even could be!) ignored. While there's a gray area where there can be disagreement as to whether it is sufficient justification, after a certain point, pragmatism must prevail. Using the 2nd amendment as example, lets say we allow guns and rifles. And grenades? RPGs? Tanks? Chemical weapons (nerve gas, not pepper spray)? Biological weapons (smallpox, not guard dogs)? The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a bioengineered plague, is a good guy with a bioengineered plague?
    • homonculus1 7y ago
      It's not that difficult. Conventional arms serve the political autonomy and self-defense of the individual. Weapons of mass destruction and untargetable contagions do not.
      • deogeo 7y ago
        That sounds more like a post-hoc justification, and I'm sure you could find similar ones for other rights - I gave just one out of many possible examples. Private property is great, until you're faced with a monopoly or environmental damage, free speech is wonderful, until you run into libel and threats, being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" likewise only applies as long as is "reasonable".
        • homonculus1 7y ago
          Post-hoc?? Defense of the free state is the explicit reason given!
          • deogeo 7y ago
            I'm sure bombs and nerve gas can be used for defense. And we will soon have the ability to make targeted plagues.
• tomatotomato37 7y ago
  Private militarized ships were a thing when the Bill of Rights was written, so private citizens did have the technological capability to level entire villages or sink commerce ships full of unarmed citizens if they felt; hell with a letter of Marque there were endorsed by the government to do so. Beside the original intention of the amendment was a failsafe against government tyranny, which makes it necessary to keep up with their level of technology.
  • moate 7y ago
    >>the original intention of the amendment was a fail-safe against government tyranny Citation needed. There's a constant debate about what the "framers' intent" of any part of Bill of Rights actually were. You say it was to prevent government tyranny (presumably including a future tyrannical U.S. government). I say it was specifically to ensure access to a fighting force specifically to fight the British and foreign threats in order to establish a new government.
    • sb057 7y ago
      The framers were obviously varied in their opinions and intentions, but some of them were quite clear: >"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights >"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry, contributor to the Bill of Rights >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, delegate to the Continental Congress
• dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I totally disagree. The people have the right to own whatever they want. It's not about "the good of society" it's about ensuring the populace maintains the ability to check tyranny if tyranny arises. Of course this is gonna have trade-offs.
  • SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    The populace isn't allowed to own tanks, military fighter jets, bombers, bombs, and especially not nuclear weapons. The most effective ways of fighting a modern military are bombs (IEDs), air superiority, and nuclear deterrence.
    • CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      > The populace isn't allowed to own tanks, military fighter jets, bombers, bombs This really isn't true. Look up Destructive Devices and the sale listings for tanks and jets.
      • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        >Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a Federal explosives license or permit. i.e "the kind of explosives most non-experts in non-military settings are best served by are free to use for personal use (state law notwithstanding)" https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
• rayiner 7y ago
  If it had become an “absurd” right you’d be able to secure enough public support to amend the constitution to get rid of it.
  • Invictus0 7y ago
    You're missing parent's point. Parent is merely pointing out that the right exists in a state of limbo because some arbitrary line is being drawn in our national debates that determines the degree of technological advancement that the right permits.
    • UnpossibleJim 7y ago
      I think the parent commenter is also living in a bit of a bubble and thinking that all of America lives in a monoculture. There are still points in this country that are patrolled by a single sheriff and a couple of deputies and can be more than 10 minutes out. This doesn't mean they need an arsenal at their disposal, but supposing that they they need NO guns for farm work, hunting or protection from animals or people is either disingenuous or unimaginative.
• klagermkii 7y ago
  Wouldn't this line of thinking then apply to any rights that have their scope significantly changed by later disruptive technology, including commercial flight? e.g. Free movement across the US was fine while it was on foot, horseback, or even train, but once commercial flight allowed for coast-to-coast movement in a couple of hours one can't apply the same rights.
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Well good news then, because Real ID is a thing.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• jki275 7y ago
  Sure you can. I see it's already been addressed, but private citizens owned warships, cannon, artillery pieces, and even semi-automatic rifles at the time the second amendment was written.
• dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The 2nd amendment has become an absurd right because due to technological advancement it must necessarily be severely limited for the good of society No, it became absurd because it's underlying purpose was abandoned and the governments in the US at all levels adopted professional armed internal and external security services, and thebwholet point of having an RKBA to support the viability of well-regulated militias was so that those militias would be what states and the federal government would rely on exclusively, beyond very minimal cadres, for armed security services. The whole absurd mythology around the RKBA being to provide the ability for citizens to provide a reserve capacity to fight the professional Government forces in the event the government becomes tyrannical is a product of trying to rationalize the amendment once it's underlying premise has been abandoned. > you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction. I'm not convinced there is a fundamental reason why bearing most modern heavy weapons within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions is incompatible with public safety; clearly “carry everything everywhere” maximalism isn't, but then that's never been understood by the courts to be the scope of the RKBA even when it concerns whatever weapons the court felt were within it's coverage.
• jandrewrogers 7y ago
  > you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction You actually can, subject to local regulations, and it is permitted in some States. An American can own a ballistic missile if they register it and store it safely. Even in the 1990s, buying a truckload of high explosives was cash and carry. Most Americans are surprised to the extent this is true because, as a practical matter, it has never been evident in most of the country. Just because you legally can does not mean anyone exercises that right, outside of very rare outliers with money to burn.