3 ms·

We can hem and haw and guess about what we think the founders would think, or we can look at what they said and what the historical context of firearms ownershi

by pc86 2y ago

We can hem and haw and guess about what we think the founders would think, or we can look at what they said and what the historical context of firearms ownership is. We don't have private ownership of nuclear arms now and pointing there is IMO another explicitly bad faith argument, in part because it's clear you don't particularly care what the founders' intentions were because there are thousands of pages of discussions and arguments showing that regular every-day people were allowed to - encouraged to, in cases required to - own weapons on par or better than military armaments of the day. And despite that, my guess is you have a problem with people owning or carrying AR-15s, or with people carrying handguns on them when they go to a restaurant, etc. I'm happy to be proven wrong though! The start of this little digression was private citizens carrying their personally owned handguns outside of their home as is plainly meant by the word "bear" in 2A. So rather than moving the goalposts to Sam Adams's opinion on private ownership of nuclear weapons or whatever other bad faith things you want to bring up, I'd rather focus on that.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> We can hem and haw and guess about what we think the founders would think, or we can look at what they said and what the historical context of firearms ownership is. "Nothing like machine guns exist, let alone in private hands, let alone widely so" is part of that historical context, yes. > We don't have private ownership of nuclear arms now... As the apocryphal Churchill quote about whores goes, "We've already established that [some arms don't fall under the 2nd]; we're merely haggling over [which]..."
- pc86 2y ago
  Puckle guns existed about 60 years before the revolution and you could absolutely own them privately and they were developed by a private citizen, although they're closer to a Gatling gun than a machine gun. If your argument is that machine guns didn't exist in the late 1700s therefore they're not covered by the second amendment, then surely the internet isn't covered by the first amendment and you should be able to be arrested for any online comments you make, right?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun > its operation does not match the modern use of the term... It was never used during any combat operation or war... Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns... I'm not sure this works any better than the privateers example. > If your argument is that machine guns didn't exist in the late 1700s therefore they're not covered by the second amendment, then surely the internet isn't covered by the first amendment and you should be able to be arrested for any online comments you make, right? It has exactly the same sorts of widely-supported exceptions. I can't exercise my freedom of speech via threats, fraudulent claims, false advertising, lying to a FBI agent, etc. I can, and should be, arrested for such things. (I also like to think modern social media and its societal impact would give the Founders some pause.)
    - pc86 2y ago
      Just like I can't claim 2A freedom to use a gun and murder someone. You're saying since MGs didn't exist, they shouldn't be covered - or at least presenting that as a valid argument? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If that argument holds truth, than the entire internet should be exempt from 1A protections, shouldn't it?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > If that argument holds truth, than the entire internet should be exempt from 1A protections, shouldn't it? Frankly, I think if the Founders had anticipated its rise, they'd have put a few more qualifications on the First. I think we're in the fuck-around-find-out phase of the technology outpacing the societal capacity to cope with it.
        pc86 2y ago
        > I think we're in the fuck-around-find-out phase of the technology outpacing the societal capacity to cope with it. We absolutely agree on this!
Hikikomori 2y ago
Why is it even relevant what they thought? Holding onto the constitution like is no better than following the Bible.
- pc86 2y ago
  Because it is the law, and when you're interpreting the law you can interpret the text in the historical context in which it was written ("the letter") or - when the letter is not 100% clear - what the people who wrote the law were trying to achieve ("the spirit"). Are we arguing we just start ignoring laws when we don't like them. The Constitution has a very clear means for changing it, which we've done dozens of times in the past. If we want to change it we can, nobody is holding onto it for the sake of it. We're following the law.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    People are not holding on to it like it's written in stone like it's a biblical text? That's pretty funny. My argument is that it's old, doesn't really apply well to the modern world. You say you can simply change it if you want to but your system doesn't really allow for that anymore. You have multiple 9/11 in dead schoolchildren and you still don't care. What it does is putting guns in everyday situations, a road rage incident that ends in deaths rather than some bruises. Since there's no room for any exceptions to this right state lawmakers cannot make any laws that excludes people that should not be able to buy guns either.

by pc86 2y ago

ceejayoz 2y ago

> We can hem and haw and guess about what we think the founders would think, or we can look at what they said and what the historical context of firearms ownership is. "Nothing like machine guns exist, let alone in private hands, let alone widely so" is part of that historical context, yes. > We don't have private ownership of nuclear arms now... As the apocryphal Churchill quote about whores goes, "We've already established that [some arms don't fall under the 2nd]; we're merely haggling over [which]..."

pc86 2y ago
Puckle guns existed about 60 years before the revolution and you could absolutely own them privately and they were developed by a private citizen, although they're closer to a Gatling gun than a machine gun. If your argument is that machine guns didn't exist in the late 1700s therefore they're not covered by the second amendment, then surely the internet isn't covered by the first amendment and you should be able to be arrested for any online comments you make, right?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun > its operation does not match the modern use of the term... It was never used during any combat operation or war... Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns... I'm not sure this works any better than the privateers example. > If your argument is that machine guns didn't exist in the late 1700s therefore they're not covered by the second amendment, then surely the internet isn't covered by the first amendment and you should be able to be arrested for any online comments you make, right? It has exactly the same sorts of widely-supported exceptions. I can't exercise my freedom of speech via threats, fraudulent claims, false advertising, lying to a FBI agent, etc. I can, and should be, arrested for such things. (I also like to think modern social media and its societal impact would give the Founders some pause.)
  - pc86 2y ago
    Just like I can't claim 2A freedom to use a gun and murder someone. You're saying since MGs didn't exist, they shouldn't be covered - or at least presenting that as a valid argument? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If that argument holds truth, than the entire internet should be exempt from 1A protections, shouldn't it?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > If that argument holds truth, than the entire internet should be exempt from 1A protections, shouldn't it? Frankly, I think if the Founders had anticipated its rise, they'd have put a few more qualifications on the First. I think we're in the fuck-around-find-out phase of the technology outpacing the societal capacity to cope with it.
      - pc86 2y ago
        > I think we're in the fuck-around-find-out phase of the technology outpacing the societal capacity to cope with it. We absolutely agree on this!

Hikikomori 2y ago

Why is it even relevant what they thought? Holding onto the constitution like is no better than following the Bible.

pc86 2y ago
Because it is the law, and when you're interpreting the law you can interpret the text in the historical context in which it was written ("the letter") or - when the letter is not 100% clear - what the people who wrote the law were trying to achieve ("the spirit"). Are we arguing we just start ignoring laws when we don't like them. The Constitution has a very clear means for changing it, which we've done dozens of times in the past. If we want to change it we can, nobody is holding onto it for the sake of it. We're following the law.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  People are not holding on to it like it's written in stone like it's a biblical text? That's pretty funny. My argument is that it's old, doesn't really apply well to the modern world. You say you can simply change it if you want to but your system doesn't really allow for that anymore. You have multiple 9/11 in dead schoolchildren and you still don't care. What it does is putting guns in everyday situations, a road rage incident that ends in deaths rather than some bruises. Since there's no room for any exceptions to this right state lawmakers cannot make any laws that excludes people that should not be able to buy guns either.