3 ms·
> you still have firebombs, gas attacks, and myriad other weapons All are post colonial-era technology. By analogy to your argument, if we can only address su
by mmooss 2y ago
> you still have firebombs, gas attacks, and myriad other weapons
All are post colonial-era technology.
By analogy to your argument, if we can only address surveillance as if colonial-era technology was used, then we can only address military actions that way. What if someone set off a colonial-era explosive? Not a big deal, right?
- shadowgovt 2y agoAre we talking law or morality? I think I see what you mean if we're talking morality. If we're talking law, this is exactly the rabbit-hole people end up going down trying to justify or un-justify the Second Amendment in an era where the weapon is a 60-to-1 force multiplier for body count, not a 1.5-to-1 (in that if two men approach you with a knife, and you have a colonial rifle, you can probably reliably shoot one of them and then you're on equal footing with the other). The law has all kinds of pockets where they wrote it when people were on horseback... But it still applies.
- mmooss 2y ago> The law has all kinds of pockets where they wrote it when people were on horseback... But it still applies. That's not how it works. It can't be ignored, but even words change meaning over years (and are often imprecise to begin with). The Supreme Court changes intepretations - a lot, recently.