7 ms·

Great concept. I think it stretches credulity to call the internet a form of "arms", but the point is very well taken -- open access to information and unrestri

Great concept. I think it stretches credulity to call the internet a form of "arms", but the point is very well taken -- open access to information and unrestricted communications, along with the right to assembly in its online forms -- should be a basic part of U.S. freedoms.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago
It also stretches credulity to argue that the right of citizens to defend themselves from tyranny in a militia means it's acceptable to own and keep a semiautomatic high-calibre firearm with a 50-round magazine for personal use.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  It also stretches credulity to argue that the right of citizens to defend themselves from tyranny in a militia means it's acceptable to own and keep a semiautomatic high-calibre firearm with a 50-round magazine for personal use. No, it really doesn't. Especially when you consider that the SCOTUS has found the 2nd Amendment to refer to an individual right[1]. The "militia" stuff is a red-herring these days. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
  - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
    A respectful note from the rest of the world: the current, conventional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is batshit crazy. It would be hilarious if it didn't predictably result in over 30,000 gun deaths a year.
    - refurb 14y ago
      I'm going to guess that Switzerland doesn't share the opinion that America's gun laws are "batshit crazy". Every citizen who has served in the military (most of them due to compulsory duty), is required to keep a fully automatic weapon in their house. You have a country where a young man can do his grocery shopping with a military rifle across his back and no one bats an eye: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg/450px-Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Car... I'll also guess that Israel has similar feelings too.
      - pyre 14y ago
        I'm sure that military service: 1) Is a better filter of those that shouldn't own a gun. 2) Trains a certain level of responsibility / respect for the weapon.
- gregcohn 14y ago
  100% agree. IANAL or constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that history plays a big part in the interpretation of this as an individual right. It seems more likely to me that we could get new laws on the books, or perhaps expand the definitions of the 1st amendment to include electronic communications, that get a radical new interpretation that the internet is a weapon. "The pen is mightier than the sword" has been around a long time -- tell that to the gun nuts though.
- njharman 14y ago
  I assume "defend themselves from tyranny" means revolution. Most revolutions require guns (bigger and/or more than the tyranny has) Killing the tyranny's people until the tyranny gives up or is destroyed. To me it stretches credulity that it's constitutional to deprive U.S. citizens the ability to overthrow their government. That is deprive them of weapons capable of that overthrow.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
rdl 14y ago
The line is a bit fuzzier when it's not simply mathematical equations or stuff for websites but tactical encrypted radio or whatever. Some hardware crypto implementations are still export-restricted. http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/default.htm http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/default.htm
- gregcohn 14y ago
  interesting point! so let's say the US gov't passes a law restricting individual citizens from having and/or distributing a cryptography technology. as a citizen who is prosecuted under this law, I call the ACLU and EFF for help, and they agree to jointly defend me. Which amendment(s) form the basis of our claim that this law is unconstitutional?

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

It also stretches credulity to argue that the right of citizens to defend themselves from tyranny in a militia means it's acceptable to own and keep a semiautomatic high-calibre firearm with a 50-round magazine for personal use.

mindcrime 14y ago
It also stretches credulity to argue that the right of citizens to defend themselves from tyranny in a militia means it's acceptable to own and keep a semiautomatic high-calibre firearm with a 50-round magazine for personal use. No, it really doesn't. Especially when you consider that the SCOTUS has found the 2nd Amendment to refer to an individual right[1]. The "militia" stuff is a red-herring these days. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
- RyanMcGreal 14y ago
  A respectful note from the rest of the world: the current, conventional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is batshit crazy. It would be hilarious if it didn't predictably result in over 30,000 gun deaths a year.
  - refurb 14y ago
    I'm going to guess that Switzerland doesn't share the opinion that America's gun laws are "batshit crazy". Every citizen who has served in the military (most of them due to compulsory duty), is required to keep a fully automatic weapon in their house. You have a country where a young man can do his grocery shopping with a military rifle across his back and no one bats an eye: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg/450px-Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Car... I'll also guess that Israel has similar feelings too.
    - pyre 14y ago
      I'm sure that military service: 1) Is a better filter of those that shouldn't own a gun. 2) Trains a certain level of responsibility / respect for the weapon.
gregcohn 14y ago
100% agree. IANAL or constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that history plays a big part in the interpretation of this as an individual right. It seems more likely to me that we could get new laws on the books, or perhaps expand the definitions of the 1st amendment to include electronic communications, that get a radical new interpretation that the internet is a weapon. "The pen is mightier than the sword" has been around a long time -- tell that to the gun nuts though.
njharman 14y ago
I assume "defend themselves from tyranny" means revolution. Most revolutions require guns (bigger and/or more than the tyranny has) Killing the tyranny's people until the tyranny gives up or is destroyed. To me it stretches credulity that it's constitutional to deprive U.S. citizens the ability to overthrow their government. That is deprive them of weapons capable of that overthrow.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

rdl 14y ago

The line is a bit fuzzier when it's not simply mathematical equations or stuff for websites but tactical encrypted radio or whatever. Some hardware crypto implementations are still export-restricted. http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/default.htm http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/default.htm

gregcohn 14y ago
interesting point! so let's say the US gov't passes a law restricting individual citizens from having and/or distributing a cryptography technology. as a citizen who is prosecuted under this law, I call the ACLU and EFF for help, and they agree to jointly defend me. Which amendment(s) form the basis of our claim that this law is unconstitutional?