4 ms·

Exactly. The point of the constitution isn't to protect the popular rights; popular opinion will do that. The constitution is there to protect the unpopular r

by Lazare 14y ago

Exactly. The point of the constitution isn't to protect the popular rights; popular opinion will do that. The constitution is there to protect the unpopular rights; the ones that, for whatever reason, seem out of place, outdated, downright silly. (The same argument applies to individual rights. The right to free speech protects both popular and unpopular speech, but you don't actually need protections to talk about how awesome a cure for cancer would be. It's the unpopular opinions that need protection. And people say "well, I support free speech, but that shouldn't mean these people get to spill their filth and hate in public venues!" But that's exactly what it means; the only purpose a right to free speech serves is to protect what is (for now) deemed dangerous, stupid, crazy speech. Because just because something is unpopular now doesn't mean it will always be.) There's always some wonderful reason why abridging some fundamental right is a good idea. Terrorists. Communists. Neo-nazis. Actual nazis. School shootings. Pearl Harbour. The 1919 Anarchist Bombings. And in retrospect, sometimes they were good reasons, but not always. And so we have constitutional rights specifically to stop us from enacting the really obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day. That's the point.

rdtsc 14y ago
Well ok but what is the purpose of the gun amendment? This is getting back to my original question, do we know the purpose and use of the Constitutions or are we just following it like a holy commandment passed down from above? I can see the purpose of the "Free Speech" it makes sense today more than ever. What is the purpose of the "right to bear arms" how does it apply? You say: > The constitution is there to protect the unpopular rights What if unpopular rights are those that kill children. What if there was other crazy stuff written in there. Would you still defend it because it was signed by a few guys that started a country a while back in 200+ year ago? > And so we have constitutional rights specifically to stop us from enacting the really obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day. > And so we have constitutional rights specifically to stop us from enacting the really obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day. Ok but doesn't that imply that the founding fathers somehow foresaw the advent of nuclear arms, school shootings, the internet and created a concise set of laws that would prevent us from sneaking in laws by creating loopholes. I doubt they did.
- Zak 14y ago
  Well ok but what is the purpose of the gun amendment? To reduce the likelihood of a totalitarian state. It was written by people who had recently participated in a violent secession from the world's largest empire. Self defense against ordinary criminals was another factor, and the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to own weapons for that purpose. I can see the purpose of the "Free Speech" it makes sense today more than ever. Limitations on the right to free speech are active political issues today. There has recently been a major push to limit "blasphemous" speech in western Europe and the US, for example. Source code as speech when the code does something governments want to regulate, like cryptography or DRM circumvention is not an entirely settled question, to provide another example. What if unpopular rights are those that kill children I count at least six out of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights as likely to have led directly to children dying. Free speech has led to violent action. Availability of weapons makes violent people more deadly. Four more amendments protect the rights of those accused of crimes, some of whom are required to be released when they would otherwise have been jailed. Some of those have killed children after their release. Rights that are just a little unpopular don't need so much protection. The important rights all have the potential to get people killed, as does the lack of them. Ok but doesn't that imply that the founding fathers somehow foresaw the advent of nuclear arms, school shootings, the internet and created a concise set of laws that would prevent us from sneaking in laws by creating loopholes. Of course not. That's why we have courts. The courts try to apply the original intent of the Constitution to modern situations. The authors of the Fourth Amendment probably couldn't have imagined laser microphones, but the courts have held that using one (or anything else high-tech) to eavesdrop on conversations you have in a private place is just like a search and requires a warrant. In other cases, the courts have limited the application of rights to new, unforeseeable technologies. The Supreme Court ruled, for example, in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to unusual and dangerous weapons; it protects the right to own handguns, but not nuclear warheads. It is, of course perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about whether a right protected by the Constitution has a place in a modern society or if it should be eliminated or changed. My original point in this discussion is that we should not want it to be trivial to bypass Constitutional rights, e.g. by banning ammunition instead of guns because it would then become trivial to bypass any of them, at any time, for any reason.

by Lazare 14y ago

rdtsc 14y ago

Well ok but what is the purpose of the gun amendment? This is getting back to my original question, do we know the purpose and use of the Constitutions or are we just following it like a holy commandment passed down from above? I can see the purpose of the "Free Speech" it makes sense today more than ever. What is the purpose of the "right to bear arms" how does it apply? You say: > The constitution is there to protect the unpopular rights What if unpopular rights are those that kill children. What if there was other crazy stuff written in there. Would you still defend it because it was signed by a few guys that started a country a while back in 200+ year ago? > And so we have constitutional rights specifically to stop us from enacting the really obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day. > And so we have constitutional rights specifically to stop us from enacting the really obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day. Ok but doesn't that imply that the founding fathers somehow foresaw the advent of nuclear arms, school shootings, the internet and created a concise set of laws that would prevent us from sneaking in laws by creating loopholes. I doubt they did.

Zak 14y ago
Well ok but what is the purpose of the gun amendment? To reduce the likelihood of a totalitarian state. It was written by people who had recently participated in a violent secession from the world's largest empire. Self defense against ordinary criminals was another factor, and the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to own weapons for that purpose. I can see the purpose of the "Free Speech" it makes sense today more than ever. Limitations on the right to free speech are active political issues today. There has recently been a major push to limit "blasphemous" speech in western Europe and the US, for example. Source code as speech when the code does something governments want to regulate, like cryptography or DRM circumvention is not an entirely settled question, to provide another example. What if unpopular rights are those that kill children I count at least six out of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights as likely to have led directly to children dying. Free speech has led to violent action. Availability of weapons makes violent people more deadly. Four more amendments protect the rights of those accused of crimes, some of whom are required to be released when they would otherwise have been jailed. Some of those have killed children after their release. Rights that are just a little unpopular don't need so much protection. The important rights all have the potential to get people killed, as does the lack of them. Ok but doesn't that imply that the founding fathers somehow foresaw the advent of nuclear arms, school shootings, the internet and created a concise set of laws that would prevent us from sneaking in laws by creating loopholes. Of course not. That's why we have courts. The courts try to apply the original intent of the Constitution to modern situations. The authors of the Fourth Amendment probably couldn't have imagined laser microphones, but the courts have held that using one (or anything else high-tech) to eavesdrop on conversations you have in a private place is just like a search and requires a warrant. In other cases, the courts have limited the application of rights to new, unforeseeable technologies. The Supreme Court ruled, for example, in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to unusual and dangerous weapons; it protects the right to own handguns, but not nuclear warheads. It is, of course perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about whether a right protected by the Constitution has a place in a modern society or if it should be eliminated or changed. My original point in this discussion is that we should not want it to be trivial to bypass Constitutional rights, e.g. by banning ammunition instead of guns because it would then become trivial to bypass any of them, at any time, for any reason.