4 ms·

>outdated constitutional rights ? surely you are joking?

by forum_ghost 4y ago

tempodox 4y ago
That's obviously not their own opinion, but a view they're arguing against.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
sadly, I'm not. these are very common arguments against the both 1A and 2A - 1A was written at the time of pen and printing press. now there's the Internet - 2A was written at the time of sword and musket. now there are fully semi-automatic assault rifles
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  - 1A was written to make sure citizens beliefs, ideas and thoughts cannot be suppressed and controlled by the state. - 2A was written to allow citizens possess the same tools as any other powerful imperial force of the day. How is any of these concepts outdated? You really think people who drafted those wrote them specifically about the tech of the day, and were smart enough to form a great nation, but too dumb to anticipate advances in technology, and were illiterate w.r.t history of civilizations and how technology advanced through the ages? >fully semi-automatic OK. You likely never held a gun in your hands. Makes sense. Reminder: The nation with oldest gun culture in the world, Czech Republic, issued guns like candy to everyone that asked after Soviets pulled out in 1991. There were only two periods in Czechia that had prohibitions on gun ownership: 1. Occupation by Soviets. 2. Occupation by Germans. For the other 500 years Czechs owned and carried weapons, and still remain the only shall issue country in Europe, with rights secured by the constitution to carry and to use of deadly force in self defence. (FYI: Gun homicides rates in Czechia are on par with much vaunted entirely gunless Asia.) Afghans fought off the US with nothing but goats and AKs, while hiding in caves. Seems these things are still quite relevant in 1991 and 2021.
  - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
    like the other comment above had pointed out, those aren't the views I hold

4 ms·

>outdated constitutional rights ? surely you are joking?

by forum_ghost 4y ago

>outdated constitutional rights ? surely you are joking?

tempodox 4y ago
That's obviously not their own opinion, but a view they're arguing against.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
sadly, I'm not. these are very common arguments against the both 1A and 2A - 1A was written at the time of pen and printing press. now there's the Internet - 2A was written at the time of sword and musket. now there are fully semi-automatic assault rifles
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  - 1A was written to make sure citizens beliefs, ideas and thoughts cannot be suppressed and controlled by the state. - 2A was written to allow citizens possess the same tools as any other powerful imperial force of the day. How is any of these concepts outdated? You really think people who drafted those wrote them specifically about the tech of the day, and were smart enough to form a great nation, but too dumb to anticipate advances in technology, and were illiterate w.r.t history of civilizations and how technology advanced through the ages? >fully semi-automatic OK. You likely never held a gun in your hands. Makes sense. Reminder: The nation with oldest gun culture in the world, Czech Republic, issued guns like candy to everyone that asked after Soviets pulled out in 1991. There were only two periods in Czechia that had prohibitions on gun ownership: 1. Occupation by Soviets. 2. Occupation by Germans. For the other 500 years Czechs owned and carried weapons, and still remain the only shall issue country in Europe, with rights secured by the constitution to carry and to use of deadly force in self defence. (FYI: Gun homicides rates in Czechia are on par with much vaunted entirely gunless Asia.) Afghans fought off the US with nothing but goats and AKs, while hiding in caves. Seems these things are still quite relevant in 1991 and 2021.
  - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
    like the other comment above had pointed out, those aren't the views I hold