24 ms·
You're making a few assumptions here: - That the US Constitution matters to me. - That I give any moral value to legal minutia. Frankly, as someone living in
by PoignardAzur 5y ago
You're making a few assumptions here:
- That the US Constitution matters to me.
- That I give any moral value to legal minutia.
Frankly, as someone living in a country where firearm access is strictly restricted (and, as a direct consequence, people aren't regularly shot in their car by a twitchy police officer who thought they were reaching for a gun), I find the whole Second Amendment thing baffling.
Like, I get the practical reasons to want to own a gun, but the knee-jerk way gun advocates will react to any attempt to restrict gun ownership, no matter how meek the attempt or how dangerous the gun (is the right to own a M16 really necessary for public safety?), strikes me as disturbing fanaticism.
Legalese aside, I really don't get the impression that widespread gun ownership is a net-benefit from a consequentialist point of view. I'm open to being proven wrong.
- rsj_hn 5y ago> - That the US Constitution matters to me. > - That I give any moral value to legal minutia. Fair enough, but you are commenting on a post about a judicial ruling, not a post about a constitutional amendment or an act of the legislature. The moment judges decide to ban something or uphold a ban on something based on consequentialist decisions rather than interpreting the law is the moment we go from a rules-based government to government by judicial fiat, and that has some very bad consequentialist repercussions. This was a bad law that needed to be overturned, and it was.
- PoignardAzur 5y agoI guess that's fair. I was commenting more on the language used and the article posted by the FPC than the ruling itself. But I don't think it's a productive debate either way.