5 ms·
And yet it hasn't. The fact that the second amendment could be removed, but hasn't, is what gives it it's legitimacy.
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoSize 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).
- dahfizz 4y agoIn the context of democracy, size is everything. Like, by definition. If the majority of Americans want guns, then you're never going to get a super-majority to vote to take guns away. > Big tech lobbies for what serves its interests. NRA lobbies likewise. The difference is that the NRA isn't a trillion dollar corporation. Its millions of individual Americans participating in the democratic process. Do you think that people should never campaign for what they believe in? That people should not participate in the democratic process? Or do you only think that when the people in question disagree with you?
- ben_w 4y ago> In the context of democracy, size is everything. Like, by definition. But (a) not in the context of lobbying, and (b) that still demonstrates a preference for dead children over lower gun sales. > Do you think that people should never campaign for what they believe in? That people should not participate in the democratic process? Or do you only think that when the people in question disagree with you? You're putting words in my mouth there. They're free to campaign for things that I'm free to denounce as dangerous and myopic.
- tekknik 4y ago> (b) that still demonstrates a preference for dead children over lower gun sales. How in the world, when the left supports abortion, can you come to this opinion? We prioritize personal safety, not dollars.
- varnaud 4y agoBy understanding that a fetus isn't a grown children and that the woman bodily autonomy and medical care are no one else business except hers. Also abortions aren't performed in primary schools 7 years after birth using an AR-15.
- tekknik 4y agoThey still result in the same. A child is still dead. So yes, to me they are the same.
- varnaud 4y agoLet's assume the thing growing inside the womb is a child. Imagine a person you've never met. They will die if not for a miraculous treatment that requires some of your blood everyday for 9 months. But for the treatment to work, it also requires that everyday the person blood is mixed in your body. There is a small chance you'll die because of this treatment. Should we force you to accept the treatment or should you have the option to not do it? If you refuse the treatment and the person dies, would it be fair to equate you to a murderer?
- aaaaaA3 4y agoPassing any kind of a constitutional change in the US is by design a herculean task, you don't even need gun industry lobbying against changes.