9 ms·

It’s hypocritical to oppose CISPA but support gun control legislation

29 points by rubbingalcohol 14y ago

cpursley 14y ago
This is why I left the right-left paradox a long time ago. Look, either you believe your right to self-ownership, or you don't. Self-ownership includes the right to protect one's self and property and the right of free speech. These are not mutually exclusive. Anyways, the way to decrease 80% of 'gun violence' - whatever that is - is to end the war on drugs.
smosher 14y ago
tl;dr: it's hypocritical to support one amendment without supporting all of them completely.
- adamnemecek 14y ago
  That's how I read it. I can't believe someone would call that an argument.
- dvanduzer 14y ago
  It's unfortunately common to defend the sancticty of the Constitution, rather than recognize it as a means to preserve values of Liberty and Justice for all.
- jwoah12 14y ago
  Yeah, this one really got me: > Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others? Yup.
- hvs 14y ago
  If your argument is that you only support individual items that you "like" in the bill of rights, what is your argument for supporting any of them? Either they all deserve to be defended, or the argument just devolves into "I support that because it might affect me!"
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    This is crazy talk. There's absolutely no reason the constitution couldn't be right about some things and wrong about others.
    - phdp 14y ago
      But our elected officals are sworn to uphold the constitution, not what they feel is right and wrong about it. If something is wrong, it has to be amended. Until then, it isn't crazy.
      - dllthomas 14y ago
        Something isn't amended by divine providence; it's amended by enough people opposing it relative to the number that support it. Saying you have to support it until it's amended is crazy talk. Saying you have to abide by it is something else entirely.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "tl;dr: it's hypocritical to support one amendment without supporting all of them completely." More specifically without supporting every "constitutional literalist"'s interpretation of them. Because, obviously like any proper religion, there's only one possible interpretation and it's held by the person who has it right. All others are heresy and lies.
sethbannon 14y ago
The gun violence legislation that a minority of Senators blocked yesterday would have required background checks on all gun sales, instead of only sales from registered brokers as is currently the case. The reform is supported by nearly 90% of the American public, and 85% of gun owners.* To compare this to CISPA -- which overrides much of existing privacy law to essentially end the notion of online privacy -- seems absurd. *http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03222013x.pdf/ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03222013x.pdf/
- masonhensley 14y ago
  I would argue that a majority of Americans do not understand exactly how a current firearm procurement actually works. It's like asking if cars should have safety features. Of course you the vast majority of people will respond yes. The idea that in order for my father to give me a rifle, we would have to go to a federally licensed dealer (pay $50-100 for them to process us) to avoid becoming felons is absurd. A number of amendments to proposed legislation have sought to deal with this issue, but the champions of gun control really don't care.
  - SeanKilleen 14y ago
    This is indeed an important point to make, and I'd never considered it -- thank you. While I think background checks should be mandatory on all gun purchases, I would agree that as a citizen, to support the second amendment, gun purchasers should not have to pay for these background checks and licenses entirely themselves. This is a time when, though it might not be my personal taste, I believe that a portion of taxes should go to either subsidies or the elimination of fees for these sort of checks. Such a program would ensure that gun owners chip in (through their taxes), and that a portion of everyone's taxes would be used to ensure both safer gun record keeping and the ability of gun ownership & transfers. I know nobody likes the idea of more taxes, but does this seem an equitable solution? Interested in your opinion.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
jonnathanson 14y ago
"Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others?" Yes, we do. This argument raises some interesting points, but it rests on several false equivalencies. The first is that all liberties are equal in weight, impact, those protected and those affected, etc. This is noticeably untrue, even at a passing glance. Consider the First and Third Amendments, for example. Would anyone credibly argue that the right not to have to quarter soldiers in one's home is equal to the rights to protected speech, a free press, and freedom of religion? No. The latter set of rights is much more broad, encompassing, foundational, and frequently relied upon. The former is incredibly specific, and has become less germane over time. Both are protected liberties, but their impact weights are different. The second false equivalency is that all items written in the Constitution are equivalent in validity, timelessness, applicability, and contextual universality. A piece of paper written in the late 18th century isn't a living, adaptive, self-improving organism. Society is the living, adaptive, self-improving organism. We follow the principles of the Constitution, but we amend it (hence, the purpose of Amendments themselves) as situations arise and circumstances require adaptation. The Constitution is the code; we are the recursively self-improving expression of that code. Please note: capital-L Liberty should not be conflated with specific liberties. An intelligent and self-improving society makes its best attempt to preserve all liberties under the rubric of Liberty, but recognizes that some liberties conflict with others, and that some have net-beneficial or net-detrimental social outcomes, and that the status thereof fluctuates over time and within specific contexts.
- crazy1van 14y ago
  I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument. Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process? The process has been used twenty-something times to great success. I'm frustrated with people advocating reinterpreting an aspect of the Constitution when they don't have the popular support needed to amend it.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    While I am pro gun control, I actually agree with you here: we really should have a constitutional amendment to nullify the second amendment. One of the big problems with that is that culturally, the first ten amendments are bulletproof. If the second amendment had been "the right to own slaves shall not be abridged", I think we might be in the same position today of creatively reïnterpreting it rather than besmirching something we have unwisely clad in the nominative armor "Bill of Rights".
yarrel 14y ago
Err no.
twrkit 14y ago
It's hypocritical to both support and oppose liberty
- dllthomas 14y ago
  That's not what hypocritical means.
  - twrkit 14y ago
    To clarify, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the Twitter 'internet activists' are supporting freedom for their kind and to protect their common ground (the Internet), while simultaneously lamenting that the freedoms of another coalition ('mouth-breathing, NRA-card-holding gun nuts') are not further imposed upon. The Constitution in this case is irrelevant; rather, this boils down to the preservation of individual liberty, regardless of what your beliefs are regarding the 2nd or 4th Amendment rights.
    - dllthomas 14y ago
      If one purports to serve liberty in any form, and secretly opposes pieces of it, this is hypocritical. If one purports to pursue the best society we can manage, one is not necessarily constrained to making decisions based solely on what they do to liberty - even if you believe that the choice that maximally preserves liberty is always what leads to the best society, in your view the person in question would be mistaken, but not hypocritical.
- illuminate 14y ago
  A contextless and monolithic "Liberty" is one of those dumb polarizing concepts, like "you're with us or you're against us". It's fine to support "liberty" but to not take into account your subjective understanding, interpretation, and practice of the concept, come on now. Just saying the word does not make society a better place. It's not a magical power phrase.
SeanKilleen 14y ago
A comment response I posted on the blog. It could use some more fleshing out, links to support, etc. but I think I captured what I feel. Apologies for the verbosity. ---- I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think you have a simplified idea of the context and history surrounding efforts at gun control legislation. The Second Amendment reads: "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." Therefore, I have no problem with people owning as many weapons as they need...in the context of a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, the Second Amendment has, over a long period of time, been co-opted and transformed from "a well-regulated militia" to "everyone should be able to own an assault rifle". This is, by no coincidence, backed by the NRA, who long ago became less about the rights of gun owners and more about the interests of gun manufacturers. (can't blame them; it's where the money is.) I don't see the type of gun control proposed here as eroding the Second Amendment in any way; however, supporters see any legislation that doesn't make it easier to get any gun as eroding the amendment. It has become a symbol, rather than people considering it in its context. Even strict interpreters of the constitution should find it hard to ignore the phrase "well-regulated militia". And it's not an answer to say "oh, in today's context that would totally mean any citizen who wants a gun." Outside this context, I see guns for hunting as fine and guns for personal protection as fine, because I think we can agree that removing those would impede upon safety and liberty. However, outside of the context of a well-regulated militia, I fail to see a scenario where a citizen would need an assault-class weapon designed for a theater of war, even in a distressing scenario of personal attack. Also, background checks are not an invasion of privacy, though that's a convenient claim to make. Whenever someone could impact the lives of others (e.g. teachers, government workers with sensitive information), they are required to undergo a background check. I see no reason to oppose background checks anytime someone is going to own something that could end my life and the main purpose of which is to inflict deadly harm. 89% of Americans agree with me on that, including the majority of both the GOP and the NRA's member base. And yet, the legislation was defeated -- not by a vote, but by the inability to break a standard filibuster practice that now routinely requires 60 votes for a law to pass. The issue of privacy as a civil liberty and bearing arms as a civil liberty are completely separate amendments, and need to be considered in their separate contexts. The issue of privacy could have been applicable, if the gun legislation contained a national gun registry. There's a legitimate argument to be made there, and it would have made me slightly squeamish too. However, the law specifically did not include such a registry and would not lead to one; even John McCain and several other senators (with A ratings from the NRA) said as much. A misinformation campaign was spread to poison the bill based on fear, and it got the minority riled up, and was just enough to cower the senate. I do think that an actual hypocrisy exists in this debate, but from a slightly different perspective -- time and time again, the same groups that claim they need guns to protect against the government, also rally to stop the military's budget from being cut in the slightest, claiming it endangers our security (despite the fact that our military budget outpaces the closest 10+ nations combined). The same folks who envision needing a small arsenal to protect themselves against the government are the same people who are totally OK with drones, seemingly without thought that those are the same weapons that would be used by a hostile government against them. Thus, the fantasy lives on -- folks stockpile weapons in a fantasy to play the hero against the tyrant, and at the same time support all the tools of supposed said tyrant. These are not the majority of gun owners, but they number a large portion of those who rally around the ownership of assault and military style weapons for use by civilians. I understand the inclination to make these sorts of arguments; it's easier to say "it's everyone's fault, really" -- than to get down into it and be drawn in the sometimes vile world of partisan politics. I've been to a shooting range, and I don't demonize those who desire to own guns. But at some point, a reality has to become clear -- people are dying because we're doing nothing. We can argue about what should be done, but when near-universal agreement exists on something as simple as a watered-down background check, and it still can't pass congress, we've gone a little too far my taste.
mistercow 14y ago
>How is it that we can be enraged over a privacy bill that erodes the Fourth Amendment, but completely fine with a gun control bill that erodes the Second Amendment? Because while just about everybody publicly holds the Constitution up as holy scripture, they really just care about using it to get what they want. I don't care about the right to bear arms. I think it's a dumb, outdated provision that never should have been added in the first place. Speech, privacy, not being forced to incriminate yourself - these are all immensely important rights that every human should have. Owning weapons, on the other hand - what are we, cavemen? And don't tell me that it's so we can fight the government if it ever gets too much out of hand. We're long past that point. Any serious attempt at revolution today would be over in less than a week, the leaders assassinated by unmanned drones. So I will play lip service to the second amendment insofar as I don't want precedent set that will weaken the parts of the Bill of Rights that are actually important. But don't tell me I'm a hypocrite because I care about privacy and also think that violent criminals shouldn't be able to easily buy guns.
- lmickh 14y ago
  Just curious, but why bother fighting a privacy act if you think that the government could not be overthrown in revolution? If the government wants it, they will take it since nothing can stop them.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    This is the idea behind checks and balances. The government isn't usually a unified force. The FBI might want to do something like read your email, but Congress can stop them with legislation. If they do it anyway, the courts will decide what's what. A well functioning government is a framework that fills what would otherwise be a political void with powerful entities pitted against each other so that most of their power is canceled out, allowing the majority to nudge the remainder in whatever direction it sees fit. But if you try to overthrow the government, suddenly all of that power will be united against you, and you will not stand a chance.
    - hga 14y ago
venomsnake 14y ago
And we have a linkbait title of year winner. Now ... if the Congress has decided that some citizens should not have firearms (felons,people with mental health issues) and that is in compliance with the second amendment then a law that only enables better enforcement of said decision is not eroding said amendment. CISPA - the cloud should be codified as an extension of one's home. With all the protections that come from it - if the landlord could not voluntarily open the door of a tenant's apartment without court order for a policeman then google should not be able to give my emails to US without one too.
- hga 14y ago
  "then a law that only enables better enforcement of said decision is not eroding said amendment" That's a debatable point, as long as you're willing to consider the prior restraint issue, but the amendments considered yesterday that had a chance of passing* went a lot further than that modest goal, with provisions that were unacceptable to gun owners (details on request). * That weasel wording because I don't know why Democrats, and only Democrats plus the two independents who caucus with them, voted against Grassley-Cruz-Graham (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00098 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...). Well, they do have the excuse that it dropped that day and no one had time to see what it really said, but that doesn't seem to be a modern hinderance to voting on laws.
aroberge 14y ago
Many (most?) countries have nothing like the U.S. second amendment and in most countries (at the very least, members of the OECD), gun violence is NOTHING compared with that of the U.S. Many (most) citizens of these countries are opposed to any type of CISPA legislation, for very good reasons. Arguments based on comparisons of amendments of the U.S. constitution are looked upon as very parochial and ignoring very important issues as seen from other countries.
- hga 14y ago
  I don't know about you, but I worry a lot more about overall rates of violence vs. "gun violence". Not to mention what denying the right of self-defense does to the balance of power between "citizens" (really subjects) and criminals. Then we might parse the statistics. E.g. what happens if you grade the US minus the South?
  - aroberge 14y ago
    I live in a city, in Canada. I would feel completely safe sleeping with the doors unlocked. I've lived in small villages in Canada where everyone leave their house door and car doors unlocked - and nothing happens. I've lived in Montreal (second largest city in Canada) and felt completely safe walking downtown at midnight - not because I was particularly brave, but because it is safe. I remember visiting Yale and being told "not to go further than a block in that direction as it is not safe".
hga 14y ago
It's also unwise. Anti CISPA types have a lot of natural allies in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) camp, but we've been forced to devote all our political mindshare and effort into beating back the greatest threat we've faced in perhaps a couple of decades. Heck, I only vaguely knew it had come back and was being considered, not that all the House action was happening yesterday with wrap up today, just like the Senate gun-control action on the same days.

This is why I left the right-left paradox a long time ago. Look, either you believe your right to self-ownership, or you don't. Self-ownership includes the right to protect one's self and property and the right of free speech. These are not mutually exclusive. Anyways, the way to decrease 80% of 'gun violence' - whatever that is - is to end the war on drugs.

smosher 14y ago

tl;dr: it's hypocritical to support one amendment without supporting all of them completely.

adamnemecek 14y ago
That's how I read it. I can't believe someone would call that an argument.
dvanduzer 14y ago
It's unfortunately common to defend the sancticty of the Constitution, rather than recognize it as a means to preserve values of Liberty and Justice for all.
jwoah12 14y ago
Yeah, this one really got me: > Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others? Yup.
hvs 14y ago
If your argument is that you only support individual items that you "like" in the bill of rights, what is your argument for supporting any of them? Either they all deserve to be defended, or the argument just devolves into "I support that because it might affect me!"
- dllthomas 14y ago
  This is crazy talk. There's absolutely no reason the constitution couldn't be right about some things and wrong about others.
  - phdp 14y ago
    But our elected officals are sworn to uphold the constitution, not what they feel is right and wrong about it. If something is wrong, it has to be amended. Until then, it isn't crazy.
    - dllthomas 14y ago
      Something isn't amended by divine providence; it's amended by enough people opposing it relative to the number that support it. Saying you have to support it until it's amended is crazy talk. Saying you have to abide by it is something else entirely.
illuminate 14y ago
"tl;dr: it's hypocritical to support one amendment without supporting all of them completely." More specifically without supporting every "constitutional literalist"'s interpretation of them. Because, obviously like any proper religion, there's only one possible interpretation and it's held by the person who has it right. All others are heresy and lies.

sethbannon 14y ago

The gun violence legislation that a minority of Senators blocked yesterday would have required background checks on all gun sales, instead of only sales from registered brokers as is currently the case. The reform is supported by nearly 90% of the American public, and 85% of gun owners.* To compare this to CISPA -- which overrides much of existing privacy law to essentially end the notion of online privacy -- seems absurd. *http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03222013x.pdf/ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03222013x.pdf/

masonhensley 14y ago
I would argue that a majority of Americans do not understand exactly how a current firearm procurement actually works. It's like asking if cars should have safety features. Of course you the vast majority of people will respond yes. The idea that in order for my father to give me a rifle, we would have to go to a federally licensed dealer (pay $50-100 for them to process us) to avoid becoming felons is absurd. A number of amendments to proposed legislation have sought to deal with this issue, but the champions of gun control really don't care.
- SeanKilleen 14y ago
  This is indeed an important point to make, and I'd never considered it -- thank you. While I think background checks should be mandatory on all gun purchases, I would agree that as a citizen, to support the second amendment, gun purchasers should not have to pay for these background checks and licenses entirely themselves. This is a time when, though it might not be my personal taste, I believe that a portion of taxes should go to either subsidies or the elimination of fees for these sort of checks. Such a program would ensure that gun owners chip in (through their taxes), and that a portion of everyone's taxes would be used to ensure both safer gun record keeping and the ability of gun ownership & transfers. I know nobody likes the idea of more taxes, but does this seem an equitable solution? Interested in your opinion.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

jonnathanson 14y ago

"Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others?" Yes, we do. This argument raises some interesting points, but it rests on several false equivalencies. The first is that all liberties are equal in weight, impact, those protected and those affected, etc. This is noticeably untrue, even at a passing glance. Consider the First and Third Amendments, for example. Would anyone credibly argue that the right not to have to quarter soldiers in one's home is equal to the rights to protected speech, a free press, and freedom of religion? No. The latter set of rights is much more broad, encompassing, foundational, and frequently relied upon. The former is incredibly specific, and has become less germane over time. Both are protected liberties, but their impact weights are different. The second false equivalency is that all items written in the Constitution are equivalent in validity, timelessness, applicability, and contextual universality. A piece of paper written in the late 18th century isn't a living, adaptive, self-improving organism. Society is the living, adaptive, self-improving organism. We follow the principles of the Constitution, but we amend it (hence, the purpose of Amendments themselves) as situations arise and circumstances require adaptation. The Constitution is the code; we are the recursively self-improving expression of that code. Please note: capital-L Liberty should not be conflated with specific liberties. An intelligent and self-improving society makes its best attempt to preserve all liberties under the rubric of Liberty, but recognizes that some liberties conflict with others, and that some have net-beneficial or net-detrimental social outcomes, and that the status thereof fluctuates over time and within specific contexts.

crazy1van 14y ago
I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument. Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process? The process has been used twenty-something times to great success. I'm frustrated with people advocating reinterpreting an aspect of the Constitution when they don't have the popular support needed to amend it.
- mistercow 14y ago
  While I am pro gun control, I actually agree with you here: we really should have a constitutional amendment to nullify the second amendment. One of the big problems with that is that culturally, the first ten amendments are bulletproof. If the second amendment had been "the right to own slaves shall not be abridged", I think we might be in the same position today of creatively reïnterpreting it rather than besmirching something we have unwisely clad in the nominative armor "Bill of Rights".

yarrel 14y ago

Err no.

twrkit 14y ago

It's hypocritical to both support and oppose liberty

dllthomas 14y ago
That's not what hypocritical means.
- twrkit 14y ago
  To clarify, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the Twitter 'internet activists' are supporting freedom for their kind and to protect their common ground (the Internet), while simultaneously lamenting that the freedoms of another coalition ('mouth-breathing, NRA-card-holding gun nuts') are not further imposed upon. The Constitution in this case is irrelevant; rather, this boils down to the preservation of individual liberty, regardless of what your beliefs are regarding the 2nd or 4th Amendment rights.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    If one purports to serve liberty in any form, and secretly opposes pieces of it, this is hypocritical. If one purports to pursue the best society we can manage, one is not necessarily constrained to making decisions based solely on what they do to liberty - even if you believe that the choice that maximally preserves liberty is always what leads to the best society, in your view the person in question would be mistaken, but not hypocritical.
illuminate 14y ago
A contextless and monolithic "Liberty" is one of those dumb polarizing concepts, like "you're with us or you're against us". It's fine to support "liberty" but to not take into account your subjective understanding, interpretation, and practice of the concept, come on now. Just saying the word does not make society a better place. It's not a magical power phrase.

SeanKilleen 14y ago

A comment response I posted on the blog. It could use some more fleshing out, links to support, etc. but I think I captured what I feel. Apologies for the verbosity. ---- I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think you have a simplified idea of the context and history surrounding efforts at gun control legislation. The Second Amendment reads: "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." Therefore, I have no problem with people owning as many weapons as they need...in the context of a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, the Second Amendment has, over a long period of time, been co-opted and transformed from "a well-regulated militia" to "everyone should be able to own an assault rifle". This is, by no coincidence, backed by the NRA, who long ago became less about the rights of gun owners and more about the interests of gun manufacturers. (can't blame them; it's where the money is.) I don't see the type of gun control proposed here as eroding the Second Amendment in any way; however, supporters see any legislation that doesn't make it easier to get any gun as eroding the amendment. It has become a symbol, rather than people considering it in its context. Even strict interpreters of the constitution should find it hard to ignore the phrase "well-regulated militia". And it's not an answer to say "oh, in today's context that would totally mean any citizen who wants a gun." Outside this context, I see guns for hunting as fine and guns for personal protection as fine, because I think we can agree that removing those would impede upon safety and liberty. However, outside of the context of a well-regulated militia, I fail to see a scenario where a citizen would need an assault-class weapon designed for a theater of war, even in a distressing scenario of personal attack. Also, background checks are not an invasion of privacy, though that's a convenient claim to make. Whenever someone could impact the lives of others (e.g. teachers, government workers with sensitive information), they are required to undergo a background check. I see no reason to oppose background checks anytime someone is going to own something that could end my life and the main purpose of which is to inflict deadly harm. 89% of Americans agree with me on that, including the majority of both the GOP and the NRA's member base. And yet, the legislation was defeated -- not by a vote, but by the inability to break a standard filibuster practice that now routinely requires 60 votes for a law to pass. The issue of privacy as a civil liberty and bearing arms as a civil liberty are completely separate amendments, and need to be considered in their separate contexts. The issue of privacy could have been applicable, if the gun legislation contained a national gun registry. There's a legitimate argument to be made there, and it would have made me slightly squeamish too. However, the law specifically did not include such a registry and would not lead to one; even John McCain and several other senators (with A ratings from the NRA) said as much. A misinformation campaign was spread to poison the bill based on fear, and it got the minority riled up, and was just enough to cower the senate. I do think that an actual hypocrisy exists in this debate, but from a slightly different perspective -- time and time again, the same groups that claim they need guns to protect against the government, also rally to stop the military's budget from being cut in the slightest, claiming it endangers our security (despite the fact that our military budget outpaces the closest 10+ nations combined). The same folks who envision needing a small arsenal to protect themselves against the government are the same people who are totally OK with drones, seemingly without thought that those are the same weapons that would be used by a hostile government against them. Thus, the fantasy lives on -- folks stockpile weapons in a fantasy to play the hero against the tyrant, and at the same time support all the tools of supposed said tyrant. These are not the majority of gun owners, but they number a large portion of those who rally around the ownership of assault and military style weapons for use by civilians. I understand the inclination to make these sorts of arguments; it's easier to say "it's everyone's fault, really" -- than to get down into it and be drawn in the sometimes vile world of partisan politics. I've been to a shooting range, and I don't demonize those who desire to own guns. But at some point, a reality has to become clear -- people are dying because we're doing nothing. We can argue about what should be done, but when near-universal agreement exists on something as simple as a watered-down background check, and it still can't pass congress, we've gone a little too far my taste.

mistercow 14y ago

>How is it that we can be enraged over a privacy bill that erodes the Fourth Amendment, but completely fine with a gun control bill that erodes the Second Amendment? Because while just about everybody publicly holds the Constitution up as holy scripture, they really just care about using it to get what they want. I don't care about the right to bear arms. I think it's a dumb, outdated provision that never should have been added in the first place. Speech, privacy, not being forced to incriminate yourself - these are all immensely important rights that every human should have. Owning weapons, on the other hand - what are we, cavemen? And don't tell me that it's so we can fight the government if it ever gets too much out of hand. We're long past that point. Any serious attempt at revolution today would be over in less than a week, the leaders assassinated by unmanned drones. So I will play lip service to the second amendment insofar as I don't want precedent set that will weaken the parts of the Bill of Rights that are actually important. But don't tell me I'm a hypocrite because I care about privacy and also think that violent criminals shouldn't be able to easily buy guns.

lmickh 14y ago
Just curious, but why bother fighting a privacy act if you think that the government could not be overthrown in revolution? If the government wants it, they will take it since nothing can stop them.
- mistercow 14y ago
  This is the idea behind checks and balances. The government isn't usually a unified force. The FBI might want to do something like read your email, but Congress can stop them with legislation. If they do it anyway, the courts will decide what's what. A well functioning government is a framework that fills what would otherwise be a political void with powerful entities pitted against each other so that most of their power is canceled out, allowing the majority to nudge the remainder in whatever direction it sees fit. But if you try to overthrow the government, suddenly all of that power will be united against you, and you will not stand a chance.
  - hga 14y ago

venomsnake 14y ago

And we have a linkbait title of year winner. Now ... if the Congress has decided that some citizens should not have firearms (felons,people with mental health issues) and that is in compliance with the second amendment then a law that only enables better enforcement of said decision is not eroding said amendment. CISPA - the cloud should be codified as an extension of one's home. With all the protections that come from it - if the landlord could not voluntarily open the door of a tenant's apartment without court order for a policeman then google should not be able to give my emails to US without one too.

hga 14y ago
"then a law that only enables better enforcement of said decision is not eroding said amendment" That's a debatable point, as long as you're willing to consider the prior restraint issue, but the amendments considered yesterday that had a chance of passing* went a lot further than that modest goal, with provisions that were unacceptable to gun owners (details on request). * That weasel wording because I don't know why Democrats, and only Democrats plus the two independents who caucus with them, voted against Grassley-Cruz-Graham (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00098 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...). Well, they do have the excuse that it dropped that day and no one had time to see what it really said, but that doesn't seem to be a modern hinderance to voting on laws.

aroberge 14y ago

Many (most?) countries have nothing like the U.S. second amendment and in most countries (at the very least, members of the OECD), gun violence is NOTHING compared with that of the U.S. Many (most) citizens of these countries are opposed to any type of CISPA legislation, for very good reasons. Arguments based on comparisons of amendments of the U.S. constitution are looked upon as very parochial and ignoring very important issues as seen from other countries.

hga 14y ago
I don't know about you, but I worry a lot more about overall rates of violence vs. "gun violence". Not to mention what denying the right of self-defense does to the balance of power between "citizens" (really subjects) and criminals. Then we might parse the statistics. E.g. what happens if you grade the US minus the South?
- aroberge 14y ago
  I live in a city, in Canada. I would feel completely safe sleeping with the doors unlocked. I've lived in small villages in Canada where everyone leave their house door and car doors unlocked - and nothing happens. I've lived in Montreal (second largest city in Canada) and felt completely safe walking downtown at midnight - not because I was particularly brave, but because it is safe. I remember visiting Yale and being told "not to go further than a block in that direction as it is not safe".

hga 14y ago

It's also unwise. Anti CISPA types have a lot of natural allies in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) camp, but we've been forced to devote all our political mindshare and effort into beating back the greatest threat we've faced in perhaps a couple of decades. Heck, I only vaguely knew it had come back and was being considered, not that all the House action was happening yesterday with wrap up today, just like the Senate gun-control action on the same days.