4 ms·

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment,

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment, but I think they would have to acknowledge that, without it, the situation of the armed citizenry today, while not really comparable to that of colonial times, would be much shabbier than it is -- we would have lost as much of the right to bear arms as the British have, or the Canadians. One important function of laws is to delimit and codify the exercise of rights and freedoms. Another is to explicitly limit the government. We should probably be amending the Constitution to accomplish this more often, actually.

pksebben 3y ago
Amending hasn’t really cut it though, has it? I’m convinced we need a page 1 rewrite. Assumptions don’t age well (earth is flat and the center of the universe, diseases are caused by the humors, a weapon only marginally increases the harm a human can do, etc etc). All laws (the constitution included) are created upon assumptions and they should go through a controlled burn once in a while or else we get end-of-empire wildfires. I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable.
- nverno 3y ago
  Which assumptions from the constitution do you think need to be rewritten? They seem to have aged astonishingly well to me, although I think they should be extended in many cases, eg. limiting government ability to mess with encrypted communications. Rewritting them in this day and age would surely limit our rights further.
  - pksebben 3y ago
    Article 1 Section 1 is a good place to start. The system of checks and balances and the concept for the structure and format of representative government has proven itself incapable of being effective in the modern era. We get nothing done, and what we do get done is exclusively to the benefit of those that can afford to finance campaigns. Our legislative branch is an absolute joke (life terms, like, really?) and the whole idea behind the senate is meaningless in a world where we can fly from one end of the country to the other in a day, and have instantaneous communication. Our systems of voting are similarly backwards, designed in a time when you had to send a dude on a horse to communicate. Seriously, page 1 rewrite. The whole damn thing.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  What would you like to see added or removed from the constitution? Personally I'd love an amendment declaring our right to privacy, though we really just need to better enforce illegal search and seizure. > I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable. So are you saying we shouldn't have the right to arm ourselves because we're already so outmatched by our own government? And to clarify here, the goal of an armed citizenry and armed militias was extremely important when we didn't have a standing military. The original goal was much less about actually making sure citizens come uld overthrow their own government, that's a modern view usually held by those who don't realize how terrible a civil war would actually be. I'm of the opinion that we should get rid of this farce that we must have a permanent, massive standing army rather than attempting to disarm all our citizens. Our military needs something to do as long as it's there, we're always going to be looking for a fight to prove why they exist.
  - solidsnack9000 3y ago
    > ...the goal of an armed citizenry and armed militias was extremely important when we didn't have a standing military. The original goal was much less about actually making sure citizens come uld overthrow their own government, that's a modern view usually held by those who don't realize how terrible a civil war would actually be. Yes, this is something more 2nd Amendment advocates should learn about. The militia was instituted for the common defence and was characteristic of the "...organic union of society and government..." that Huntington attributes to many of the late medieval institutions which contributed to the decentralised, self-balancing system of public policy which the founders inherited from the English. https://rentry.co/72dov https://rentry.co/72dov
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      In very layman's terms, I've long viewed the original design as the wanting a educated, trained, and armed citizenry that could actually be trusted to act like adults. If needed they could form militias or even organized armies, but the default state is a nation of adults largely just living out their lives with as few government interventions as possible. We've since destroyed that goal. Our education system is trash, we don't train our citizens how to take care of or defend themselves, and the gun debate has largely devolved into "no one should have guns because we have cops and armies for that" versus "I have a right to bear arms so I can keep this oppressive government in check"
flagrant_taco 3y ago
I don't have any problem with having amendments protecting our rights, though I my opinion they are meant to be moral declarations rather than defining the limit of our rights. It's similar for limiting government. Our original designin the US was that the government only has the powers expli itly given to it by the people. We can have laws limiting the government, but again those are really just moral stances because the government should default to having no power. We lost this somewhere along the way, slipping to a point where it's commonplace for the government to claim to have authority we never gave it while we look for laws that grant us our freedoms rather than fight against laws that limit them.
geocar 3y ago
> Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Lots of countries don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to say harmful things or carry a sidearm, so I'm going to say, just based on other cultural-similarities, it'd probably be a lot like the UK or Canada... > Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment, but I think they would have to acknowledge that, without it, the situation of the armed citizenry today, while not really comparable to that of colonial times, would be much shabbier than it is erm, no, I don't think I do. It sounds a lot like you're saying you think things are "much shabbier" in the UK or Canada than in the USA, but friend this just isn't true.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Having grown up in the US and recently spent a couple years living in a country where free speech isn't guaranteed, I feel even more strongly about the importance of the 1st amendment. The idea that one could be convicted and jailed for saying something deemed offensive in public is completely insane. If I think the PM is being an asshat I would like to be able to say that openly without fear of jail time. I don't have as much experience with the UK, but with regards to Canada I would indeed consider things there to be shabby. A peaceful protest should never be justification for the government to shut down bank accounts of private citizens. Hell even a violent protest shouldn't lead to that kind of intervention, we were shutting down bank accounts during BLM protests which were sometimes anything but peaceful.
- solidsnack9000 3y ago
  The armed citizenry is certainly shabbier in the UK or Canada. Americans retain much more ready access to basic small arms -- in particular, semi-automatic rifles, banned in the UK in the 1980s -- and with some trouble can get machine guns, grenade launchers, rockets, mortars and many other squad and platoon level level weapons. There are at least 600000 machine guns in private hands in the USA today, registered under the terms of the NFA; and there are probably quite a few more, since many people become Class III dealers more or less just to have them. Now, none of this is half as good as colonial times. In the United States, we didn't see much restriction of the arms market until the 1930s. Americans freely traded all classes and varieties of weaponry -- small arms, cannons, swords, &c -- during the colonial era and for more than a century after. Americans today have much less of the freedom promised by the 2nd Amendment than we used to; but we have retained much more of this particular right of the English than any other English speaking country.

pksebben 3y ago

Amending hasn’t really cut it though, has it? I’m convinced we need a page 1 rewrite. Assumptions don’t age well (earth is flat and the center of the universe, diseases are caused by the humors, a weapon only marginally increases the harm a human can do, etc etc). All laws (the constitution included) are created upon assumptions and they should go through a controlled burn once in a while or else we get end-of-empire wildfires. I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable.

nverno 3y ago
Which assumptions from the constitution do you think need to be rewritten? They seem to have aged astonishingly well to me, although I think they should be extended in many cases, eg. limiting government ability to mess with encrypted communications. Rewritting them in this day and age would surely limit our rights further.
- pksebben 3y ago
  Article 1 Section 1 is a good place to start. The system of checks and balances and the concept for the structure and format of representative government has proven itself incapable of being effective in the modern era. We get nothing done, and what we do get done is exclusively to the benefit of those that can afford to finance campaigns. Our legislative branch is an absolute joke (life terms, like, really?) and the whole idea behind the senate is meaningless in a world where we can fly from one end of the country to the other in a day, and have instantaneous communication. Our systems of voting are similarly backwards, designed in a time when you had to send a dude on a horse to communicate. Seriously, page 1 rewrite. The whole damn thing.
flagrant_taco 3y ago
What would you like to see added or removed from the constitution? Personally I'd love an amendment declaring our right to privacy, though we really just need to better enforce illegal search and seizure. > I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable. So are you saying we shouldn't have the right to arm ourselves because we're already so outmatched by our own government? And to clarify here, the goal of an armed citizenry and armed militias was extremely important when we didn't have a standing military. The original goal was much less about actually making sure citizens come uld overthrow their own government, that's a modern view usually held by those who don't realize how terrible a civil war would actually be. I'm of the opinion that we should get rid of this farce that we must have a permanent, massive standing army rather than attempting to disarm all our citizens. Our military needs something to do as long as it's there, we're always going to be looking for a fight to prove why they exist.
- solidsnack9000 3y ago
  > ...the goal of an armed citizenry and armed militias was extremely important when we didn't have a standing military. The original goal was much less about actually making sure citizens come uld overthrow their own government, that's a modern view usually held by those who don't realize how terrible a civil war would actually be. Yes, this is something more 2nd Amendment advocates should learn about. The militia was instituted for the common defence and was characteristic of the "...organic union of society and government..." that Huntington attributes to many of the late medieval institutions which contributed to the decentralised, self-balancing system of public policy which the founders inherited from the English. https://rentry.co/72dov https://rentry.co/72dov
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    In very layman's terms, I've long viewed the original design as the wanting a educated, trained, and armed citizenry that could actually be trusted to act like adults. If needed they could form militias or even organized armies, but the default state is a nation of adults largely just living out their lives with as few government interventions as possible. We've since destroyed that goal. Our education system is trash, we don't train our citizens how to take care of or defend themselves, and the gun debate has largely devolved into "no one should have guns because we have cops and armies for that" versus "I have a right to bear arms so I can keep this oppressive government in check"

flagrant_taco 3y ago

I don't have any problem with having amendments protecting our rights, though I my opinion they are meant to be moral declarations rather than defining the limit of our rights. It's similar for limiting government. Our original designin the US was that the government only has the powers expli itly given to it by the people. We can have laws limiting the government, but again those are really just moral stances because the government should default to having no power. We lost this somewhere along the way, slipping to a point where it's commonplace for the government to claim to have authority we never gave it while we look for laws that grant us our freedoms rather than fight against laws that limit them.

geocar 3y ago

> Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Lots of countries don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to say harmful things or carry a sidearm, so I'm going to say, just based on other cultural-similarities, it'd probably be a lot like the UK or Canada... > Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment, but I think they would have to acknowledge that, without it, the situation of the armed citizenry today, while not really comparable to that of colonial times, would be much shabbier than it is erm, no, I don't think I do. It sounds a lot like you're saying you think things are "much shabbier" in the UK or Canada than in the USA, but friend this just isn't true.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
Having grown up in the US and recently spent a couple years living in a country where free speech isn't guaranteed, I feel even more strongly about the importance of the 1st amendment. The idea that one could be convicted and jailed for saying something deemed offensive in public is completely insane. If I think the PM is being an asshat I would like to be able to say that openly without fear of jail time. I don't have as much experience with the UK, but with regards to Canada I would indeed consider things there to be shabby. A peaceful protest should never be justification for the government to shut down bank accounts of private citizens. Hell even a violent protest shouldn't lead to that kind of intervention, we were shutting down bank accounts during BLM protests which were sometimes anything but peaceful.
solidsnack9000 3y ago
The armed citizenry is certainly shabbier in the UK or Canada. Americans retain much more ready access to basic small arms -- in particular, semi-automatic rifles, banned in the UK in the 1980s -- and with some trouble can get machine guns, grenade launchers, rockets, mortars and many other squad and platoon level level weapons. There are at least 600000 machine guns in private hands in the USA today, registered under the terms of the NFA; and there are probably quite a few more, since many people become Class III dealers more or less just to have them. Now, none of this is half as good as colonial times. In the United States, we didn't see much restriction of the arms market until the 1930s. Americans freely traded all classes and varieties of weaponry -- small arms, cannons, swords, &c -- during the colonial era and for more than a century after. Americans today have much less of the freedom promised by the 2nd Amendment than we used to; but we have retained much more of this particular right of the English than any other English speaking country.