5 ms·
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, p
by 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 agoIt'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 agoThat 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 agoPost-hoc?? Defense of the free state is the explicit reason given!
- deogeo 7y agoI'm sure bombs and nerve gas can be used for defense. And we will soon have the ability to make targeted plagues.
- linuxftw 7y ago> 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. It should always be ignored. If the states want to ban people from having tanks and jet fighters, they can adopt a new amendment. There's already a process to account for these types of things.