7 ms·

>Like: "better having our children killed in school than allowing firearms producers to lose one dollar" This has nothing to do with firearm producers but the

>Like: "better having our children killed in school than allowing firearms producers to lose one dollar" This has nothing to do with firearm producers but the second amendment: the right to bear arms is codified in our constitution. Firearms hold a special legal place.

yardie 4y ago
Yet the right to free speech and assembly have far more restrictions in place.
- koolba 4y ago
  > Yet the right to free speech and assembly have far more restrictions in place. That’s patently false. There’s an incredible number of federal and State regulations involved in the purchase, transfer, transport, and even storage of a firearm. What restrictions on speech and assembly would you consider more onerous than any of those?
  - seanw444 4y ago
    I find that most people that claim guns themselves are the problem, and that there aren't already enough restrictions, don't have much or any experience with them. I don't really know how people manage to read the second amendment any other way than "due to the fact that a militia comprised of every able-bodied person is fundamental to a free society, every person has the right to own, carry, and operate anything that constitutes arms." It's pretty simple, really. Better go renew my warrantless search and seizure immunity permit, and my journalism permit.
- msla 4y ago
  America has an amazing level of freedom of expression, to the point I've seen a lot of Europeans get outright shocked that the concept of "hate speech" doesn't exist in our laws.
  - mcv 4y ago
    But also that you can't say "shit" on American TV.
    - msla 4y ago
      > But also that you can't say "shit" on American TV. Yes, you can. South Park is on American TV, after all.
      - callalex 4y ago
        It is most definitely not on the air in the US. It is only available through “private” cable and satellite networks. We still have, and enforce censorship laws on public over-the-air broadcasts.
        tekknik 4y ago
        Here’s the overview of the rules, and you can in fact say shit on the air: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
    - seanw444 4y ago
      Some channels won't air swearing, so they can reach better deals with providers. That's not a law.
ben_w 4y ago
The US constitution can be changed, which is why it's the second "amendment" rather than the second "article" or the second "clause".
- dahfizz 4y ago
  And yet it hasn't. The fact that the second amendment could be removed, but hasn't, is what gives it it's legitimacy.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    The broader argument, as I understand it, is: 1. The 2A happened 2. Substantial gun industry developed 3. Tech changed, people increasingly concerned 4. Gun industry now big enough to lobby against any changes to the 2A Thus, #4 causes the lack of removal of the 2A. Does it have democratic legitimacy? Probably, but no more so than the 18th had. Does that contradict "(the preference of the USA is that it is) better having our children killed in school than allowing firearms producers to lose one dollar"? Not at all.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      The NRA has 5 million members. Nearly half of American households have a gun. You can't just waive this off as "muh lobbying". Americans like their guns. Gun owners don't care if sig sauer loses a buck. They care about their cool toys.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Size tells you very little. 5 million is bigger by headcount than Big Tech, while half the households is smaller. Big tech lobbies for what serves its interests. NRA lobbies likewise. So does Stonewall, effecting change with fewer members and fewer interested parties. When it comes to guns, what makes the USA different from the rest of the world? Tradition ("we've always had the 2nd A so it must be good") and lobbying ("nothing can prevent this" says only nation on earth where this regularly happens).
badcppdev 4y ago
Question. What will it mean for the 2nd amendment when the police and armed forces of the world consists of semi-autonomous bullet proof robots and drones? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If guns that fire bullets aren't relevant to the security of a free state does it change the legal arguments? I think you guys should probably amend the 2nd amendment already
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  Every man needs a semi-autonomous bullet proof drone.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    Or the means to stop them. EMP of some sort?
- mcv 4y ago
  How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? The US has had a standing army for quite some time now, and by far the most powerful one in the world. And the only thing that looks like a "well regulated militia" is the National Guard. The second amendment could be interpreted as meaning that only members of the national guard can own guns, but it's not.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure Article 1 Section 8 was supposed to prevent us from having a perpetual standing army, but here we are.
  - gameman144 4y ago
    > How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? This is the interesting thing: in the context of the framers, a standing army would not diminish the importance of the rights of militias at all (and might increase its importance). Keep in mind that the US declared independence due to perceived government overreach from Britain, which had a huge standing army. One of the primary functions of the second amendment is to ensure that ad hoc militias are possible, to keep the government and its army from overreach.
mcv 4y ago
You may have noticed that the firearms industry is one of the biggest proponents and lobbyists for the current interpretation of the second amendment. Other interpretations are possible, and of course it can be amended again, if people decide it's harmful. But that's unlikely to happen as long as there's a powerful lobby interested in keeping things the way they are, even if it means hundreds of children are shot in schools every year.
- tekknik 4y ago
  More like it’s unlikely to happen while people like me still exist. Take away the NRA and we’ll just create a new one. Why are some determined to stifle citizens voices?
juve1996 4y ago
Firearm law has not been a constant through the years. There were pragmatic restrictions that have slowly been eroded and left us with where we are now.
- tekknik 4y ago
  You mean like the assault weapons ban that had no effect on safety yet keeps getting pushed for? Or magazine limits that somehow miss that you can carry and load more than one magazine thereby still accomplishing nothing? Or the red flag laws that were just used to take an individual’s property without due process because someone doesn’t like guns? Which gun control laws actually work to stop criminals from getting guns? Especially when they can be 3D printed.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > Which gun control laws actually work to stop criminals from getting guns? This is a terrible argument. Lawmakers codify crimes, not deterrents. The corollary to your point would be that, since criminals exist, that implies laws don't work as crime deterrents, thus most should be abolished.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      > that implies laws don't work as crime deterrents, thus most should be abolished When it’s related to the second amendment, I’m absolutely in favor of abolishing them.
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        Which frankly sounds a lot like “rules for thee, not for me”. I get that some people love their hobbies, and don’t like to be inconvenienced by the law. But, I find trying to justify gun ownership, and their relationship with abolishing tyrannical governments, childish and comedic to an extreme nowadays. Like, I want a drone, but I’m not going to throw a tantrum every time the FAA issues a new ruling. We get it. You like guns. You don’t want to give them up. Stop making shit up, you will never stand in arms against the government, and you will not be part of a “well regulated militia”. Hell, I bet all my savings that, if there was a draft right now, to strengthen the military against a genuine and imminent threat, most gun owners would not volunteer, because shooting at cans, and at the clouds during the 4th of July is pretty much all they really do. I’m wondering why fireworks aren’t constitutionally protected, though.

yardie 4y ago

Yet the right to free speech and assembly have far more restrictions in place.

koolba 4y ago
> Yet the right to free speech and assembly have far more restrictions in place. That’s patently false. There’s an incredible number of federal and State regulations involved in the purchase, transfer, transport, and even storage of a firearm. What restrictions on speech and assembly would you consider more onerous than any of those?
- seanw444 4y ago
  I find that most people that claim guns themselves are the problem, and that there aren't already enough restrictions, don't have much or any experience with them. I don't really know how people manage to read the second amendment any other way than "due to the fact that a militia comprised of every able-bodied person is fundamental to a free society, every person has the right to own, carry, and operate anything that constitutes arms." It's pretty simple, really. Better go renew my warrantless search and seizure immunity permit, and my journalism permit.
msla 4y ago
America has an amazing level of freedom of expression, to the point I've seen a lot of Europeans get outright shocked that the concept of "hate speech" doesn't exist in our laws.
- mcv 4y ago
  But also that you can't say "shit" on American TV.
  - msla 4y ago
    > But also that you can't say "shit" on American TV. Yes, you can. South Park is on American TV, after all.
    - callalex 4y ago
      It is most definitely not on the air in the US. It is only available through “private” cable and satellite networks. We still have, and enforce censorship laws on public over-the-air broadcasts.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        Here’s the overview of the rules, and you can in fact say shit on the air: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
  - seanw444 4y ago
    Some channels won't air swearing, so they can reach better deals with providers. That's not a law.

ben_w 4y ago

The US constitution can be changed, which is why it's the second "amendment" rather than the second "article" or the second "clause".

dahfizz 4y ago
And yet it hasn't. The fact that the second amendment could be removed, but hasn't, is what gives it it's legitimacy.
- ben_w 4y ago
  The broader argument, as I understand it, is: 1. The 2A happened 2. Substantial gun industry developed 3. Tech changed, people increasingly concerned 4. Gun industry now big enough to lobby against any changes to the 2A Thus, #4 causes the lack of removal of the 2A. Does it have democratic legitimacy? Probably, but no more so than the 18th had. Does that contradict "(the preference of the USA is that it is) better having our children killed in school than allowing firearms producers to lose one dollar"? Not at all.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    The NRA has 5 million members. Nearly half of American households have a gun. You can't just waive this off as "muh lobbying". Americans like their guns. Gun owners don't care if sig sauer loses a buck. They care about their cool toys.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Size tells you very little. 5 million is bigger by headcount than Big Tech, while half the households is smaller. Big tech lobbies for what serves its interests. NRA lobbies likewise. So does Stonewall, effecting change with fewer members and fewer interested parties. When it comes to guns, what makes the USA different from the rest of the world? Tradition ("we've always had the 2nd A so it must be good") and lobbying ("nothing can prevent this" says only nation on earth where this regularly happens).

badcppdev 4y ago

Question. What will it mean for the 2nd amendment when the police and armed forces of the world consists of semi-autonomous bullet proof robots and drones? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If guns that fire bullets aren't relevant to the security of a free state does it change the legal arguments? I think you guys should probably amend the 2nd amendment already

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
Every man needs a semi-autonomous bullet proof drone.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Or the means to stop them. EMP of some sort?
mcv 4y ago
How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? The US has had a standing army for quite some time now, and by far the most powerful one in the world. And the only thing that looks like a "well regulated militia" is the National Guard. The second amendment could be interpreted as meaning that only members of the national guard can own guns, but it's not.
- seanw444 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure Article 1 Section 8 was supposed to prevent us from having a perpetual standing army, but here we are.
- gameman144 4y ago
  > How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? This is the interesting thing: in the context of the framers, a standing army would not diminish the importance of the rights of militias at all (and might increase its importance). Keep in mind that the US declared independence due to perceived government overreach from Britain, which had a huge standing army. One of the primary functions of the second amendment is to ensure that ad hoc militias are possible, to keep the government and its army from overreach.

mcv 4y ago

You may have noticed that the firearms industry is one of the biggest proponents and lobbyists for the current interpretation of the second amendment. Other interpretations are possible, and of course it can be amended again, if people decide it's harmful. But that's unlikely to happen as long as there's a powerful lobby interested in keeping things the way they are, even if it means hundreds of children are shot in schools every year.

tekknik 4y ago
More like it’s unlikely to happen while people like me still exist. Take away the NRA and we’ll just create a new one. Why are some determined to stifle citizens voices?

juve1996 4y ago

Firearm law has not been a constant through the years. There were pragmatic restrictions that have slowly been eroded and left us with where we are now.

tekknik 4y ago
You mean like the assault weapons ban that had no effect on safety yet keeps getting pushed for? Or magazine limits that somehow miss that you can carry and load more than one magazine thereby still accomplishing nothing? Or the red flag laws that were just used to take an individual’s property without due process because someone doesn’t like guns? Which gun control laws actually work to stop criminals from getting guns? Especially when they can be 3D printed.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > Which gun control laws actually work to stop criminals from getting guns? This is a terrible argument. Lawmakers codify crimes, not deterrents. The corollary to your point would be that, since criminals exist, that implies laws don't work as crime deterrents, thus most should be abolished.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    > that implies laws don't work as crime deterrents, thus most should be abolished When it’s related to the second amendment, I’m absolutely in favor of abolishing them.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      Which frankly sounds a lot like “rules for thee, not for me”. I get that some people love their hobbies, and don’t like to be inconvenienced by the law. But, I find trying to justify gun ownership, and their relationship with abolishing tyrannical governments, childish and comedic to an extreme nowadays. Like, I want a drone, but I’m not going to throw a tantrum every time the FAA issues a new ruling. We get it. You like guns. You don’t want to give them up. Stop making shit up, you will never stand in arms against the government, and you will not be part of a “well regulated militia”. Hell, I bet all my savings that, if there was a draft right now, to strengthen the military against a genuine and imminent threat, most gun owners would not volunteer, because shooting at cans, and at the clouds during the 4th of July is pretty much all they really do. I’m wondering why fireworks aren’t constitutionally protected, though.