6 ms·

> The accepted solution is to have a constitution that says otherwise. Constitutions don't enforce themselves. The US constitution has a crystal clear right to

> The accepted solution is to have a constitution that says otherwise. Constitutions don't enforce themselves. The US constitution has a crystal clear right to bear arms but multiple jurisdictions ignore it and multiple supreme court rulings and make firearm ownership functionally impossible anyway. Free speech regulations have, thankfully, been more robust. The only thing that stops bad things happening is a critical mass of people who believe in the values the constitution memorializes and who have enough veto power to stop attempts to erode these values. The US has such a critical mass, the gun debate notwithstanding. Does the EU have enough people who still believe in freedom?

fsckboy 1y ago
i think making your argument on free speech grounds would be stronger
- quotemstr 1y ago
  How so? My point is that US constitutional protections on firearm ownership have undeniably eroded. The presence of text on the page did not prevent this erosion. I'm using gun rights as an example of a situation in which text granting a right becomes irrelevant if people stop believing in the values behind the text. People do believe in freedom of speech in the US, thankfully, even if they've stopped defending gun rights in some places. EU free speech protections are in the same position gun rights are in the US, and for surprisingly similar reasons.
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    when you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights (like the people in the US who also favor eroding them, wording of the rules be damned) HN is to a large extent a popularity contest, and people here are more in favor of free speech than guns. the US record on protecting free speech is very good.
    - dmitrygr 1y ago
      > you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights You have accidentally properly identified the european problem and precisely the reason that chat control will pass: shortsightedness. If people only rise up to protect rights "they need", soon no rights will be left.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        In the EU you can have guns, you just must pass some tests, that you know how to use them and you need to store them in separate ways. But guns are vastly insufficient in this century to overthrow the state, you basically only harm your fellow citizens with them.
  - hellojesus 1y ago
    Most of the erosion is done through court challenges. Historically, courts have maintained that legislation is pursued under "good faith". This was the justification for not overturning ACA on the grounds of it being an unconstitutional tax: the lawmakers didn't mean to make it an unapportioned tax, even though it effectively is, so it's okay yall. Washington St just did this with income taxes on capital gains in direct violation of their state constitution a year or two ago. Where I live, you cannot open carry. That is a direct violation of 2A, but the courts have said it's okay baby because it's not an undue burden to pay a fee and waste a day of your life. Pure nonsense. Just change the constitution for goodness sake.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    This simply isn't true. If anything, constitutional protections have dramatically expanded since the amendment was passed. This is because until the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal government, not the States. Prior to the that, state and local governments could (and did) restrict not just firearms, but other rights as well. Hell, the Bill of Rights still hasn't been fully incorporated, so for instance, despite the 7th Amendment stating otherwise, you don't have the right to a jury trial in civil cases in every state nor the right to indictment by grand jury (5th Amendment). Of course, some states copied parts of the constitution into their own and had some form of protection, but it was by no means universal. Massachusetts even had a state church until 1833.
platevoltage 1y ago
I'm not here to argue about the right to bear arms in the USA, but the 2nd amendment is anything but crystal clear in its language.
- _9ptr 1y ago
  Seems pretty clear to me, although I'm neither an american nor a lawyer.
KPGv2 1y ago
> The US constitution has a crystal clear right to bear arms It looks like it was drafted by an ESL speaker. It's by far the worst-drafted amendment, grammatically speaking: > 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. It's not even a valid English sentence, and it certainly never bothers to define "Arms." Not to mention that, as written, it appears to make it illegal for me to tell you that you cannot come to my house with a gun, because that's me infringing your right. It doesn't constrain Congress. It constrained anyone who wants to take away your right to bear arms. Sheer lunacy as written. Ungrammatical and implies some insane shit. But no, you're right, it's crystal clear. Much like how the First Amendment says > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press which in crystal clear terms makes it legal to mass-distribute child pornography. To prohibit it would restrict the freedom of the press.
- _9ptr 1y ago
  Remove the first and last comma and the sentence works splendidly
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    Ok, get a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate to approve a proposed edit removing those commas, and then get 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve it. Until then, the commas are officially part of the text.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      Comma rules change over time.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        But the text of the Constitution only changes through amendments. That said, the effective meaning of the Constitution is "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is." And to a degree, given the power to impeach Supreme Court justices, "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is, and with Congress sufficiently on board to not impeach sufficient justices to force a shift in the balance of the Court."

fsckboy 1y ago

i think making your argument on free speech grounds would be stronger

quotemstr 1y ago
How so? My point is that US constitutional protections on firearm ownership have undeniably eroded. The presence of text on the page did not prevent this erosion. I'm using gun rights as an example of a situation in which text granting a right becomes irrelevant if people stop believing in the values behind the text. People do believe in freedom of speech in the US, thankfully, even if they've stopped defending gun rights in some places. EU free speech protections are in the same position gun rights are in the US, and for surprisingly similar reasons.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  when you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights (like the people in the US who also favor eroding them, wording of the rules be damned) HN is to a large extent a popularity contest, and people here are more in favor of free speech than guns. the US record on protecting free speech is very good.
  - dmitrygr 1y ago
    > you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights You have accidentally properly identified the european problem and precisely the reason that chat control will pass: shortsightedness. If people only rise up to protect rights "they need", soon no rights will be left.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      In the EU you can have guns, you just must pass some tests, that you know how to use them and you need to store them in separate ways. But guns are vastly insufficient in this century to overthrow the state, you basically only harm your fellow citizens with them.
- hellojesus 1y ago
  Most of the erosion is done through court challenges. Historically, courts have maintained that legislation is pursued under "good faith". This was the justification for not overturning ACA on the grounds of it being an unconstitutional tax: the lawmakers didn't mean to make it an unapportioned tax, even though it effectively is, so it's okay yall. Washington St just did this with income taxes on capital gains in direct violation of their state constitution a year or two ago. Where I live, you cannot open carry. That is a direct violation of 2A, but the courts have said it's okay baby because it's not an undue burden to pay a fee and waste a day of your life. Pure nonsense. Just change the constitution for goodness sake.
- Aloisius 1y ago
  This simply isn't true. If anything, constitutional protections have dramatically expanded since the amendment was passed. This is because until the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal government, not the States. Prior to the that, state and local governments could (and did) restrict not just firearms, but other rights as well. Hell, the Bill of Rights still hasn't been fully incorporated, so for instance, despite the 7th Amendment stating otherwise, you don't have the right to a jury trial in civil cases in every state nor the right to indictment by grand jury (5th Amendment). Of course, some states copied parts of the constitution into their own and had some form of protection, but it was by no means universal. Massachusetts even had a state church until 1833.

platevoltage 1y ago

I'm not here to argue about the right to bear arms in the USA, but the 2nd amendment is anything but crystal clear in its language.

_9ptr 1y ago
Seems pretty clear to me, although I'm neither an american nor a lawyer.

KPGv2 1y ago

> The US constitution has a crystal clear right to bear arms It looks like it was drafted by an ESL speaker. It's by far the worst-drafted amendment, grammatically speaking: > 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. It's not even a valid English sentence, and it certainly never bothers to define "Arms." Not to mention that, as written, it appears to make it illegal for me to tell you that you cannot come to my house with a gun, because that's me infringing your right. It doesn't constrain Congress. It constrained anyone who wants to take away your right to bear arms. Sheer lunacy as written. Ungrammatical and implies some insane shit. But no, you're right, it's crystal clear. Much like how the First Amendment says > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press which in crystal clear terms makes it legal to mass-distribute child pornography. To prohibit it would restrict the freedom of the press.

_9ptr 1y ago
Remove the first and last comma and the sentence works splendidly
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  Ok, get a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate to approve a proposed edit removing those commas, and then get 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve it. Until then, the commas are officially part of the text.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Comma rules change over time.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      But the text of the Constitution only changes through amendments. That said, the effective meaning of the Constitution is "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is." And to a degree, given the power to impeach Supreme Court justices, "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is, and with Congress sufficiently on board to not impeach sufficient justices to force a shift in the balance of the Court."