5 ms·

I wonder if the author would defend so gleefully the idea of the government restricting access to newspaper ink? Anyone promoting the idea of subverting the con

by staunch 14y ago

I wonder if the author would defend so gleefully the idea of the government restricting access to newspaper ink? Anyone promoting the idea of subverting the constitution through perceived loopholes should really question their principles. Also, the word "cartridge" or "ammunition" is what the author means to be talking about here. Bullets are only the metal part that flies out of the gun, not the whole cartridge.

jmilloy 14y ago
And the author used the term ammunition and cartridge, so...?
- staunch 14y ago
  I don't see "cartridge" anywhere and he misused the term bullet repeatedly throughout the article. It's like an article on technology that repeatedly refers to applications as "source code" or something.
  - jmilloy 14y ago
    Yeah, no mention of cartridge, sorry. Still, among the plethora of problems with this article, this is a strange one to pick out. I think the idea comes across just fine despite incorrectly using bullet and ammunition interchangeably. In what ways were you confused? In what ways do you think someone else could be confused?
rdtsc 14y ago
> Anyone promoting the idea of subverting the constitution through perceived loopholes should really question their principles. What is the purpose of the Constitution? Is it like the 10 Commandments that have been passed down from the sky and now we have to worship it unquestionably? There are large numbers of people in this country that seem to believe so. So take the gun issue. Why is that in the constitution? For hunting? Protecting from bears? Foreign invaders? Maybe. Would it make a difference now if anyone attacked us if we all carried guns? Probably not. We'll probably use our drones and tanks to fight back. Maybe it was for people to protect from an abusive government? Is that realistic today? You'd need to be able to bear tanks, helicopters and fighter planes if this hypothetical militia is ever to even register as a blip on government's threat radar. So why even bother both defending the idea or trying to find a loophole to bypass it. Both seem rather pointless to me. Are people defending themselves better with guns? Canada and other countries have legal guns and don't seem to have issues with such crimes as we saw recently. Some countries outlaw guns and experience much worse violence. Is there any credible study that shows a linkage between legal arms position and violent crime?
- staunch 14y ago
  Arguing about the merits of second amendment (or first amendment, for that matter) is reasonable. Suggesting that the government pass laws that subvert The Constitution is not.
  - arjunnarayan 14y ago
    Right. This is the Scalia philosophy. Don't like the constitution? Go ahead and amend it.
    - staunch 14y ago
      This is the American philosophy. We've been amending The Constitution since shortly after it was created.
      - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        True. Even the gun control issue is hovering around the 2nd Amendment. And then there was the whole amendment to ban alcohol that was then reversed with yet another amendment. So... let's not get locked into some false idea that things can't be changed. We need to focus on what changes (if any) make sense and when. Maybe changes don't make sense right now... but if the first argument is "but the Constitution says so" then look at what actually got it to say so... it was a change.
- Zak 14y ago
  It's about policy and mechanism. Let's assume for a moment that severely restricting ownership of firearms and ammunition is a good policy. The mechanism necessary to do it in the straightforward way - a constitutional amendment - is almost impossibly difficult. Perhaps a roundabout mechanism would be easier. If that sort of thing was allowed by the courts (it isn't), similar end-runs around the constitution could be used to do things you might not be so happy about. The fourth amendment, for example says people have the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". It doesn't say anything about tapping your phone or using a laser microphone on your window, but the courts have held that it means a warrant is required to do those things just as it is to search your house. It's much easier to change policy than mechanism. You probably don't actually want a mechanism for bypassing constitutional rights at will in place.

by staunch 14y ago

jmilloy 14y ago

And the author used the term ammunition and cartridge, so...?

staunch 14y ago
I don't see "cartridge" anywhere and he misused the term bullet repeatedly throughout the article. It's like an article on technology that repeatedly refers to applications as "source code" or something.
- jmilloy 14y ago
  Yeah, no mention of cartridge, sorry. Still, among the plethora of problems with this article, this is a strange one to pick out. I think the idea comes across just fine despite incorrectly using bullet and ammunition interchangeably. In what ways were you confused? In what ways do you think someone else could be confused?

rdtsc 14y ago

> Anyone promoting the idea of subverting the constitution through perceived loopholes should really question their principles. What is the purpose of the Constitution? Is it like the 10 Commandments that have been passed down from the sky and now we have to worship it unquestionably? There are large numbers of people in this country that seem to believe so. So take the gun issue. Why is that in the constitution? For hunting? Protecting from bears? Foreign invaders? Maybe. Would it make a difference now if anyone attacked us if we all carried guns? Probably not. We'll probably use our drones and tanks to fight back. Maybe it was for people to protect from an abusive government? Is that realistic today? You'd need to be able to bear tanks, helicopters and fighter planes if this hypothetical militia is ever to even register as a blip on government's threat radar. So why even bother both defending the idea or trying to find a loophole to bypass it. Both seem rather pointless to me. Are people defending themselves better with guns? Canada and other countries have legal guns and don't seem to have issues with such crimes as we saw recently. Some countries outlaw guns and experience much worse violence. Is there any credible study that shows a linkage between legal arms position and violent crime?

staunch 14y ago
Arguing about the merits of second amendment (or first amendment, for that matter) is reasonable. Suggesting that the government pass laws that subvert The Constitution is not.
- arjunnarayan 14y ago
  Right. This is the Scalia philosophy. Don't like the constitution? Go ahead and amend it.
  - staunch 14y ago
    This is the American philosophy. We've been amending The Constitution since shortly after it was created.
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      True. Even the gun control issue is hovering around the 2nd Amendment. And then there was the whole amendment to ban alcohol that was then reversed with yet another amendment. So... let's not get locked into some false idea that things can't be changed. We need to focus on what changes (if any) make sense and when. Maybe changes don't make sense right now... but if the first argument is "but the Constitution says so" then look at what actually got it to say so... it was a change.
Zak 14y ago
It's about policy and mechanism. Let's assume for a moment that severely restricting ownership of firearms and ammunition is a good policy. The mechanism necessary to do it in the straightforward way - a constitutional amendment - is almost impossibly difficult. Perhaps a roundabout mechanism would be easier. If that sort of thing was allowed by the courts (it isn't), similar end-runs around the constitution could be used to do things you might not be so happy about. The fourth amendment, for example says people have the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". It doesn't say anything about tapping your phone or using a laser microphone on your window, but the courts have held that it means a warrant is required to do those things just as it is to search your house. It's much easier to change policy than mechanism. You probably don't actually want a mechanism for bypassing constitutional rights at will in place.