3 ms·

This isn't the proper subthread to have the grand gun debate and that isn't the point of my comment. But since I was replying to someone who is likely non-Amer

This isn't the proper subthread to have the grand gun debate and that isn't the point of my comment. But since I was replying to someone who is likely non-American, in the name of accuracy I need to point out what you are saying is directly false. Historically, this right has always been enumerated as individual firearms ownership, and is contextualized as such in the The Federalist Papers by the founding fathers who wrote the text of the Constitution, so there's really no argument to be had here. You can think it's a dumb idea, that it should be restricted or appealed, or any other such things, but to state that the Constitution does not enumerate an individual right of ownership is just patently legally and historically false. There are numerous SCOTUS decisions that also make this abundantly clear.

graypegg 3y ago
Thanks! I have some context being Canadian, but I appreciate your explanation. My thinking was more so that, regardless of legal enshrinement, “freedom” is a pretty universal component of the American ethos. (as I understand it) You’d imagine that politicians would love to use people’s emotions on the topic, regardless if they have a de jure reason to oppose a change like gun control, or not, in the case of cars with remote off switches.
- kube-system 3y ago
  The thing is that this issue is so niche that it is not anywhere close to being on anyone's political radar. Nobody outside of niche technical forums is thinking about the consequences of their cars being internet connected, or even realize that they are.
JohnFen 3y ago
As you say, this isn't the place for this debate, but I don't think your historical analysis is accurate. The plain text of the second amendment does not grant an individual right of ownership. It grants the right for communities to have a well-regulated, armed militia. That's a different thing. But I'll leave that there. I wasn't commenting to put forth a particular political agenda, I was just trying to inject a counterpoint to a thing that I've been hearing more and more that I believe is factually incorrect.
- addisonl 3y ago
  > 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. Actual text from the 2nd amendment—pretty obvious why your comment is being flagged.

graypegg 3y ago

Thanks! I have some context being Canadian, but I appreciate your explanation. My thinking was more so that, regardless of legal enshrinement, “freedom” is a pretty universal component of the American ethos. (as I understand it) You’d imagine that politicians would love to use people’s emotions on the topic, regardless if they have a de jure reason to oppose a change like gun control, or not, in the case of cars with remote off switches.

kube-system 3y ago
The thing is that this issue is so niche that it is not anywhere close to being on anyone's political radar. Nobody outside of niche technical forums is thinking about the consequences of their cars being internet connected, or even realize that they are.

JohnFen 3y ago

As you say, this isn't the place for this debate, but I don't think your historical analysis is accurate. The plain text of the second amendment does not grant an individual right of ownership. It grants the right for communities to have a well-regulated, armed militia. That's a different thing. But I'll leave that there. I wasn't commenting to put forth a particular political agenda, I was just trying to inject a counterpoint to a thing that I've been hearing more and more that I believe is factually incorrect.

addisonl 3y ago
> 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. Actual text from the 2nd amendment—pretty obvious why your comment is being flagged.