6 ms·
The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonabl
by anovikov 6y ago
The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Which is not to say i am against 2nd Amendment, just that the situation changed and concern of many people are understandable.
Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook - and with well, intellectual majority driving the views and rankings of them so smart content ends up unnoticed coz it's so nerdy - people are right to be concerned.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoWhere can you buy assault rifles?
- BrianOnHN 6y agoAt the local "gun show." It's advertised on billboards all along the highway. No background check required!
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoFully automatic military assault weapons? I don't think so.
- BrianOnHN 6y agoWelcome to FL USA
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoWhere in FL USA can one legally purchase fully automatic weapons without a special federal permit?
- sneak 6y agoJust about any federal dealer. There is no permit required to purchase fully automatic weapons in the United States; you just have to pay a transfer tax. Unfortunately processing the tax payment takes about a year, in their effort to turn it into a form of permit, but that's not what it is. Anyone (without criminal background) can pay the tax and buy one. There is a ban on the import and manufacture of new ones (for civilian use) in place since 1986, so the ones available for purchase (by anyone, again, no "special federal permit" required) cost about 10-20x more than they would cost otherwise, which effectively restricts them to "rich people only". They're freely available, though.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoYou have to pay $200 and send an application to the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms. It takes 8 months to a year; they will do a background investigation and send you an approval form if you pass. Then you can purchase the (used) machine gun. Fully automatic weapons are not currently manufactured in the U.S. Florida, in particular, has banned machine guns like the AK-47 which is to say weapons that fire multiple bullets with one pull of the trigger. Semi-autos are the dominant technology in firearms; when a bullet is fired, the energy released forces a fresh bullet into the chamber, ready to fire but you must pull the trigger again. This is known as "semi-automatic" and is legal everywhere, for now.
- sonotathrowaway 6y agoHow difficult is it for a person to modify a stem-automatic weapon to make an illegal fully-automatic?
- 6y ago
- DennisP 6y agoThe only way no background check is required is if you buy from an individual, not a dealer. The threshold to be considered a dealer is fairly low. If it's someone with a table, they're going to be a dealer. It's just that if an individual sells their personal firearm, they're not required to do a background check, and at gun shows you'll see a few people walking around with a rifle slung over their shoulder and a sign saying they're selling it. But that's semi-auto only (one bullet per trigger pull). Fully automatic weapons have stringent federal requirements.
- sonotathrowaway 6y agoHow effective would you rate those federal requirements on fully automatic weapons? If a person wanted to illegally modify a semi-automatic weapon to create an illegal fully-automatic weapon, how feasible would that be?
- DennisP 6y agoMust weapons that were easy to convert have been pulled off the market. AR-15s used to be easy to convert by buying a little part called an auto sear, but now the auto sear is considered a machine gun by itself, so you have to go through the same hassle to buy that as a full machine gun. Owning this stuff illegally gets you a ten-year felony conviction.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoSome US states allow civilian ownership of automatic rifles, although it's typically a lot of hassle and expense with licensing and taxes.
- dTal 6y agoIn 43 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in...
- karaterobot 6y agoThe person you're responding to asked about assault rifles, and you responded with a link about assault weapons. They're very different things, and this has led to a lot of confusion. Generally, when people talk about "assault weapons" they're actually thinking of automatic, military-style weapons with large magazines. Those are "assault rifles", which have been legislated at the federal level for a long time. The laws are indeed complicated, but in general these weapons are hard to get legally. Here's an decent explainer: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rifle-what-the-difference/LPXLAj8ZcHkPn2rLn3bOGK/ https://www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rif...
- refurb 6y agoWhat’s an assault rifle? A normal rifle with features that scared people but have no impact on the actual lethality?
- jordanbeiber 6y agoA specific compact form-factor and multiple rounds in a magazine that allow for more rapid fire than a bolt action rifle? I know people claim "hunting" with these rifles, but I think there's a shiny toy thing at play more than utility.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoNo, you're describing a semi-automatic weapon, which requires a separate trigger pull for each shot. Fully automatic allows multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.
- detaro 6y agoI don't see how this addresses anything in the parent comment? Are you trying to say they can't define assault weapons as including semi-automatics?
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoYes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons which are the majority of firearms manufactured and sold today in the U.S. The anti-gun lobby has conflated the terms to push a blanket ban on anything that looks remotely military. But functionally, it's two separate categories and fully automatic weapons require a federal permit that takes about a year.
- detaro 6y agoIf you think that's the definition, why not clearly say that instead of playing this "let others guess what your definition is" game? > Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons What's the clear legal definition of an assault weapon? E.g. as referenced elsewhere in the comments here, the federal assault weapons ban clearly talked about "semi-automatic assault weapons", suggesting the legal definition was not so clearly "only full-automatics"?
- kiba 6y agoThe problem is with facebook making a post viral. Anyone can post anything online, but it won't do any good or bad if nobody reads it.
- lldbg 6y agoSo free speech was good, when it was restricted to the elite (those of means and intellect). Now that the unwashed masses, the plebs, have access to it, it's no longer good?
- anovikov 6y agoExactly! And so was the democracy itself (in Washington's times, only 3% of people could vote and it was great, in Andrew Jackson's, 15%, and it was still sort of OK, but anything more was a disaster waiting to happen)
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoNow that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook... people are right to be concerned. People always had the right and capacity to make conspiracy theories. They deeply believed myths, and could just as easily be manipulated. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the conspiracies that sprung up from the moon landing or the assassination of JFK.
- heyoo 6y agoThe difference is in Facebook amplifying the content's reach just because it is controversial and generates interactions. Most serious media outlets care about the truth of the content they share. Facebook simply does not.
- short_sells_poo 6y ago> Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this is also a very dangerous approach in my opinion. What you seem to be saying is: "as long as only the well-off - and therefore likely to be educated - people had the means of mass expression, dangerous ideas could not proliferate". Should it be one group of people, preferably "us", who decides what the other groups are allowed to think and discuss? To me this is much more ripe for abuse than the other extreme. Doubly so because the dangers in free speech can be much better solved with education and removing the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. So I disagree vehemently that the solution is to limit free speech. That to me is akin to cutting off our own noses because we have a flu. The root of the problem is elsewhere. What does pretty much every malicious and totalitarian regime start with? 1. Ban free speech 2. Institute the concept of thought crimes 3. Limit education Concentrating knowledge and intelligence in the hands of a few, and reducing information and idea flow to the masses. Dangerous and radical ideas can proliferate mostly among marginalized groups who have been excluded from welfare for one reason or another. People who are gripped by existential fears and see little to no possibility of improvement or solution to their problems will naturally gravitate towards radical opinions because they have nothing to lose, no other options and nobody else listens to them. Banning their voice will do nothing just push them further away and radicalize them even more.
- anovikov 6y agoThat's the thing: the concept of "human rights" was born in 1700s exactly because it was technologically limited to the people who invented it: the elites (more often then not, slaveholding elites!). It's just now it backfires because technology changed in the way everyone can use it. And then again, it is mass democracy, which was always a mistake, and if it didn't exist many of the problems we have now won't exist either, it's entirely fair if voting is limited to landowners who have land giving no less than $X annual rent, the way it was in late 1700s-early 1800s America. And even more so when we have massive social programs so democracy becomes a death trap of freeloaders voting for even more free stuff. What is the realistic exit from it? I believe that Chinese way relies too much on individual obedience so culturally impossible in any Western country. Returning to democracy for the elites and human rights for the (sub)elites too, is impossible because it's a catch-22: people won't vote for it. Maybe something like Putinism is a good way out: keep democracy on paper but make sure actual voting is irrelevant, keep free speech on paper but make sure "right" content is ranked better than "wrong" (this is how Russian social media, which is KGB-owned, works, after VK.com acquisition). Of course it can't also work without some countries remaining true democracies - just kept afloat, with their social programs, with massive amounts of stolen money - because the elites need safe places to live in, after all. This way, we will return to the "good old" American system of 200 years ago - except geographically, rather than racially, segregated.
- travisoneill1 6y ago> While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit When the 2nd amendment was written there were privately owned battleships