4 ms·
I just left my remarks. Here's what I wrote, just for the sake of public record (last time we played this game there was a lot of comments thrown out, unfairly)
by Proziam 7y ago
I just left my remarks. Here's what I wrote, just for the sake of public record (last time we played this game there was a lot of comments thrown out, unfairly).
The internet is a critical part of both military and civilian infrastructure and should not be monitored, limited, or in any way restricted by any entity. Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools which may be used in the defense of the nation are "arms" and therefore protected by the second amendment.
Further, because the internet is ubiquitous in modern society as a means of communication, much more so than letters were at the time of the constitution, the government has no right whatsoever to restrict access or use of the internet. Even if there were a disagreement over this interpretation, there can be no doubt that the general public 'assembles' and 'petitions' using the internet. This petition itself is being written on the internet. All this ignores the simple truth that the internet is the most common means of distribution for the press worldwide.
Finally, because the federal government has singularly supported, with enormous sums of taxpayer dollars, the internet infrastructure which is now (against the interest of the public, for which the federal government is a trustee) owned by private corporations, all internet infrastructure should be treated as public property, and ISP's should act only in a capacity of providing a utility service.
In summary - there should be no privatization of internet infrastructure. There should be no government or corporation monitoring anyone's use of the internet (without a proper warrant, signed by a judge, on a case-by-case basis). A person's digital information should be treated as 'papers' and 'effects' as they are considered to be by the general public and by most experts in the subject. And lastly, there should be absolutely zero limits, restrictions, rationing, throttling, or other mitigation of any person's access to a completely free and open internet.
- cozos 7y ago> Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools which may be used in the defense of the nation are "arms" and therefore protected by the second amendment. I'm not sure about this. What about shovels, nuclear bombs, or meth [0]? Do we have a right to bear nukes? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines#Military_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_subst...
- Proziam 7y agoMy personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Therefore, nukes would not be protected in the same way as precision munitions and firearms. Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believe I have the right to restrict what another human being can or cannot put into their body.
- mattashii 7y agoEU citizen here. > My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Serious question: How is that different from munition and/or firearms? As far as I know, if you exclude weapons whose utility is only self-destructive or offensive, you'll only have (active/passive) shielding left, which precise munitions and firearms to the best of my knowledge are not. Yes, they can be used as a threat, but the same can be said for nukes.
- TheAdamAndChe 7y agoMunitions and firearms make both extreme tyranny and invasion untenable with the application of asymmetric warfare strategies, thus aiding significantly in the defense of the nation.
- Proziam 7y agoEssentially it boils down to this: If someone breaks into your home, you can reliably combat the intruder with a firearm - without harming a bystander. If someone is attacking your town or village, you can at least situationally combat them with precision-guided munitions without killing any civilians (not that they are used ethically in all cases, just speaking to their potential use). Neither of those things is true of WMDs. You have to stretch the bounds of realism pretty far before you can find a way to deploy a nuke effectively without killing innocent people, or yourself.