Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the
buddy...
no one can predict technology 200 years in the future...especially in armaments.
Obviously this. And imagining how the framers would have crafted the Second Amendment if they were alive today and had visibility into modern weaponry is complete guesswork.
To take the most extreme hypothetical, imagine that a weapon exists that can immediately destroy the entire earth and every living creature on earth. The weapon is ridiculously cheap to manufacture. I obviously can't know for sure what James Madison would have thought of such a weapon, but as a non-insane person, I'm guessing that he wouldn't have wanted the weapon to be sold for a few hundred bucks at every Walmart and Bass Pro Shop in the country.
[QUOTE=Rococo;58990133]Obviously this. And imagining how the framers would have crafted the Second Amendment if they were alive today and had visibility into modern weaponry is complete guesswork.
To take the most extreme hypothetical, imagine that a weapon exists that can immediately destroy the entire earth and every living creature on earth. The weapon is ridiculously cheap to manufacture. I obviously can't know for sure what James Madison would have thought of such a weapon, but as a non-insane person, I'm guessing that he wouldn't have wanted the weapon to be sold for a few hundred bucks at every Walmart and Bass Pro Shop in the country.[/QUOTE]
If that's your take, then the government would be allowed to censor speech on internet because "it's a different technology and we have no idea how they would have crafted the constitution if it existed at the time".
We obviousl can't know for sure what James Madison would have thought of the idea of allowing anyone to reach everyone else on earth with the dumbest possible takes and lies at lightining speed, but as a non-insane person... i'm not going to guess because it's irrelevant.
If they wanted specifics they should have written specifics. They did write specifics for the post office for example, which was relevant at the time. They didn't generalize it to possible future inventions though which is why there is no constitutional obligation to set up federal email services covering the whole public right?
If free speech means "no matter what technological invention appears that allows speech to be disseminated, speech is still free", then "right to bear arms" has no intrinsic limit in the lethality of the weapons existing in the future as well.
Keep in mind that if enough people agree with you that , given current technology, that right has to be limited, *THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION AS IT ALREADY HAPPENED MANY TIMES*.
buddy...no one can predict technology 200 years in the future...especially in armaments.specified how exactly then ?maybe in 100 year fron now a gun will appear enabling to kill 1000 of person per minutes.should they have specified that when they speak about weapons thy should have specified in advanced, how limited killings it was allowed to make ?So easy in insight 200 years
Which is why you know that people who were soldiers could have very well limited the right to bear arms to current technology or indicating a propensity for basic weapons only and so on and on, and explicitly chose not to put any limit.
They wanted the people to be allowed to fight with the same tools the standing army had access to, explicitly. That was the feature not the bug. They wanted the people to be able to overthrow the army if it went rogue. With the same weapons the army could have pointed at them.
[QUOTE=Rococo;58990133]Obviously this. And imagining how the framers would have crafted the Second Amendment if they were alive today and had visibility into modern weaponry is complete guesswork.
Forget about my take. What is your take? In my hypothetical, would you be in favor of such a weapon being sold at Walmart for $300? Do you believe James Madison would have been in favor of such weapons being sold at Walmart for $300?
[QUOTE=Luciom;58990146]
Forget about my take. What is your take? In my hypothetical, would you be in favor of such a weapon being sold at Walmart for $300?
Disregarding american constitutional rights and their interpretation, and being allowed to rewrite them, as a very general rule of thumb whatever weapon police can carry in normal situations should be allowed to private citizens as well in public. Concealed carry should be constitutional guaranteed for those weapons as well.
The notion that anyone at any time could be packed basically should enter the psyche of criminals.
If some weapons are only allowed to police with special training in special pseudo-war-like situation (organized attempt to bring down a cartel gang in a building or special troopers sent to capture a high ranking mafioso and so on) then it can go with "soldiers only" weapons and be regulated.
With regulated i mean you can make it a lot harder to buy them, in various ways, and/or more expensive, but i am not thinking of any bans for a lot of them anyway to be clear.
There are states with open carry of what are basically machine guns and that doesn't appear to cause orders of magnitute more gun deaths vs states with stricter rules so i don't understand people asking for stricter rules on that tbh.
not obvious how to write that down in a non-abusable (by both sides) compact enough form necessary for a constitution though.
//
What's your thought on the 1a and technology, why doesn't your 2a analogy apply to technology for speech dissemination as well?
[QUOTE=Rococo;58990160]Disregarding american constitutional rights and their interpretation, and being allowed to rewrite them, as a very general rule of thumb whatever weapon police can carry in normal situations should be allowed to private citizens as well in public. Concealed carry should be constitutional guaranteed for those weapons as well.The notion that anyone at any t
OK. It's clear at this point that you simply are not going to answer my question, and I think I know why.
But I will answer your question.
I do think that the 1st Amendment should be interpreted in the context of the times. I don't believe that taking such context into account currently points in the direction of significantly curtailing speech, but I am not a literal 1st Amendment absolutist. To take another extreme example, if someone invented a technology that allowed me to convey Fox News talking point into the mind of someone 2000 miles away without that person's consent, I would not be in favor of interpreting the First Amendment in a way that prohibited the regulation of that technology. And I'm pretty sure James Madison didn't intend for the 1st Amendment to protect my right to use my speech to drive an unwilling person crazy.
[QUOTE=Luciom;58990174]OK. It's clear at this point that you simply are not going to answer my question, and I think I know why. But I will answer your question.I do think that the 1st Amendment should be interpreted in the context of the times. I don't believe that taking such context into account currently points in the direction of significantly curtailing speech, but I a
I did answer your question I said it's ok to regulate weapons that only special police or soldiers carry.
you want details on the regulations I would like? a register of all such weapons, no sales to mentally ill people or people who went to jail, no reselling privately (only to official resellers who then will need to register everything and check the buyer), extra accise tax on that and so on would be ok.
maybe even mandatory training like a car license.
anything normal police can carry in the streets on normal patrolling should be completely unregulated same as kitchen knives are.
but I mean I think private rich people and corporations should be allowed to own fully operational tanks to be clear, with significant regulations.
Still less dangerous than a jet if used for nefarious purposes and they are allowed to own a jet.
/
as for your 1a answer I don't understand, you arent allowed right now to shout extremely into the hear of someone with technology that enhances decibels , that's not about speech that's about simply harassing others.
the important thing is that the noise alone (or proximity and so on) should matter, not the content. and that works with any technology.
[QUOTE=Rococo;58990234]as for your 1a answer I don't understand, you arent allowed right now to shout extremely into the hear of someone with technology that enhances decibels , that's not about speech that's about simply harassing others.
the important thing is that the noise alone (or proximity and so on) should matter, not the content. and that works with any technology.
If a person walked back and forth in front of park benches in Central Park right now talking about how glorious he believed the Third Reich was, I have no doubt that many people would find that speech harassing and offensive. But it would be protected under the 1st Amendment. If there were some technological means for that person to project that same message into every park in the country such that the parks effectively became useable only for fans of the Third Reich, I would interpret the 1st Amendment in a way that allowed that technology to be heavily regulated, regardless of whether the person's intent was to harass people.
Which is why you know that people who were soldiers could have very well limited the right to bear arms to current technology or indicating a propensity for basic weapons only and so on and on, and explicitly chose not to put any limit.They wanted the people to be allowed to fight with the same tools the standing army had access to, explicitly. That was the feature not the bug.
So great , we can expect nuclear weapon in the hands of the people in a near future being perfect acceptable in luciom world.
[QUOTE=Rococo;58990133]Obviously this. And imagining how the framers would have crafted the Second Amendment if they were alive today and had visibility into modern weaponry is complete guesswork.
The « power » of speech for mass destruction didn’t increases but the damages of all weapons did .
Speech states speeches like rococo alluded too unless u could forcée your way into people he Ada with a chip then I suppose yeah, rules changes ….
well, duh
States with permissive gun laws experienced a rise in pediatric deaths from firearm injuries between 2011 and 2023, whereas states with stricter laws did not. That's according to a new study published in JAMA Pediatrics.
"We know that the leading cause of death in children is firearm injuries," says Dr. Maya Haasz, an emergency medicine doctor and researcher at the University of Colorado, who wasn't involved in the new study. In a policy brief from 2021, she and her colleagues found that a child or teen is killed in the U.S. every 2 hours and 48 minutes.
Driven largely by blacks
Non-Hispanic Black populations were had the largest increase in firearm mortality in the most permissive and permissive state groupings. Four states (California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island) had decreased pediatric firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago, all of which were in the strict firearms law group.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaped...
and btw this counts adolescents getting killed in drug gangs and the like
Driven largely by blacks Non-Hispanic Black populations were had the largest increase in firearm mortality in the most permissive and permissive state groupings. Four states (California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island) had decreased pediatric firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago, all of which were in the strict firearms law group.
So because it’s black it isn’t a problem .
No, so it's largely an artifact of the fact that red states have more blacks than blue states.
If a state has more blacks than another, more miniors will die of guns with the same permissiveness. Red states have more blacks and are more permissive.
So you have to control by ethnicity if you want to check the incidence of permissiveness on pediatric gun casualties.
Otherwise you are just measuring what we already know, that blacks kill a lot more than all other ethnicities, and that includes their kids.
Maybe we should just outlaw blacks from having guns. I'm sure the current administration would be onboard.
I hate to break it to you, but the ones responsible for most of the deaths are already barred from possessing firearms. For some reason, this doesn't stop them.
:p
I have more (and better) guns (and ammo) then all you MAGATs and would still never vote for anyone who is anti-gun control.
LOL MAGATs
I have more (and better) guns (and ammo) then all you MAGATs and would still never vote for anyone who is anti-gun control.
LOL MAGATs
I doubt that you have more or better guns and ammo than many of the posters here.
I also doubt that you would never vote for an anti gun control candidate
I don’t doubt that your past, present, and future involves lots of trolling on the internet over dialogue.
k
i'll give you that there are def some dumb ass hicks here that spend 10's of thousands on engraved shotguns.
Or more guns let Darwin awards do its thing
I hate to break it to you, but the ones responsible for most of the deaths are already barred from possessing firearms. For some reason, this doesn't stop them.
I hate to break it to you, but you're either reetarded or you're spreading disinformation.
Almost 60% of gun deaths per year are suicides. So yeah, if a kid grabs his parents' handgun and ice's his or her head off or smokes his or her younger sibling by accident or on purpose, then that was a prohibitive person using a firearm.
But the majority of suicide deaths are by the elderly (70%), and you can bet they didn't get their firearm through a straw purchase or "free Saturday night special with your kg order of crack" from a dude in West Vegas.
Don't worry... it's okay to be a gun owner, gun nut, gun whatever, and be honest with the data.
Suicides aren't homicides in the way the public considers them for purposes of analyzing stats, DUCY?
They are, but they aren't a gun problem.
America isn't even top 20 in overall suicide rate, and if anything, you could argue that instantly turning the lights out is preferable to some of the more popular methods in the countries with heavy gun control. You have a much lower risk of taking other people with you or traumatizing strangers, too. A majority of worldwide vehicle-assisted suicides are intentional collisions with another vehicle, for instance. Not people driving into a telephone pole or off a bridge.
