Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[oxmixmudd]

I’m sure the people that wrote the second amendment were quite aware that technology changes and gets better over time. Besides, if we use your logic consistency we’d have to conclude that freedom of the press only applies to papers made on 18th century printing presses and doesn’t extend to the internet or modern printing presses. Good security processes and a few armed and trained personnel does wonders. Just ask failed mass shooters what happened when faced with armed and trained resistance.

Unfortunately, that is not even close to reality. There is no way they could have envisioned where we are today. For example, Jules Verne, the first of the true Sci Fi writers that inaugurate the sort of futuristic thinking we find so common today, wrote his stories nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written and was a product of the Industrial revolution and a significantly quickening pace of invention and human technological advance. I would doubt very much they could have envisioned or even would have given much thought to the possibility of an almost recoil free rifle light enough to be shot reliably by a child and capable of firing 30 rounds in 20 or less seconds (and that only in semi-automatic mode!). Rounds accurate to hundreds of meters, smokeless with a carry of almost 3 miles and a potential lethal range of over 1000m (a .223 round still contains the energy of a standard 22 LR at 1500m)

As I pointed out above, technology advances is something they understood too.

Not in the fantastical mode you are claiming. Understanding technology will advance, and understanding what that might mean to an idea like the 2nd amendment are two completely different things. And there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary - that is, they understood very well that they could not imagine how society might advance or change. And that is why they gave us the capability of amending the constitution.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

And the first amendment was written when only hand operated printing presses constituted mass communication. So I guess things like phones, typewriters, computers, TV and radio aren't covered since they weren't around at the time.

As noted previously:

This 'moving the goal posts' tactic of trying to assume there is some logical equivalence between the 1st and 2nd amendments - that discussions about the reasonableness of one can't be had without impacting the other in a similar way - is absurd.

But using your own flawed logic against you, the right to bear arms is no more about the right to massacre 50 innocent people at a time than free speech is about the right to be able to incite a mob to lynch a black man.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Using lefty logic since words have been responsible for millions of deaths the use of such modern devices obviously should not be covered by the First Amendment.

No rogue. People incited by words used guns, bombs, machete's etc to kill and maim. Free speech does not exist to incite violence or for the purpose of creating chaos. Free speech exists to prevent the government from controlling criticism of itself or from being able to silence information contrary to its own propaganda.

There are limits on free speech. There are things you can say that will land you in jail. likewise their are weapons that are simply too powerful to be allowed to be in the hands of people with a demonstrated mental instability of lack of basic self-control. This is why we don't let felons have weapons. This is why it should be illegal to own any firearm if you require medication to maintain mental stability or conscious awareness of reality, or you have demonstrated serious violent tendencies. The only way to prevent that is to have and enforce a process around the acquisition and ownership of guns that has a reasonable capability of limiting the number of people that have guns that should not.

And I believe you pointed out that some laws are not properly enforced, and sure, that may well be part of the problem. But acting to tighten up enforcement of existing laws would be part of any initiative to crack down on gun violence AND I guarantee you the NRA is in the mix somewhere pushing back against enforcement even of the laws we have.

Honestly, there is a sort of insanity that surrounds the attitude towards guns in this country. Guns are dangerous tools whose only purpose is to kill. Just a fraction of a second's inattention can result in the death of a child or another person in a horrible accident. Guns are one of just a few things in our society that have that much lethal power that are not also carefully regulated and/or licensed.

We can act responsibly on his without undermining what the 2nd amendment is all about.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Words have killed more people than guns ever did.

No Sparko. People incited by words kill. And often using guns. A gun is a tool with only one real purpose - to kill. Like a sword, or a bow and arrow - they are lethal weapons designed to maim or kill. That is a guns primary purpose. Words can be used to love, to help, to motivate to greatness, to make the world a better place. To elevate mankind or to diminish him. A gun can only be used to put a blob of metal into or through some object. They have almost no other practical use, they are quite effective at what they do, and the only reason to put a blob of metal into or through a living thing is to hurt or kill it.

This sort of statement is meant to deflect from the reality of what a gun is. To try to say some other thing that we see as good or that needs to be protected has more destructive capability than the gun does and therefore we should not be so concerned about it.

But that is just so wrong. So completely wrong. To see how wrong that is, try substituting 'atomic bomb' for guns. And guess what, your statement is in fact STILL a true statement as you intend it! Words have in fact motivated the killing of far more people than have ever been killed by atomic bombs! Millions more in fact! And yet - would you argue for a 2nd amendment right for every man women an child in the US to have an atomic-bomb in their basement? Or to say that if I could afford to create a plant to make an atomic-bomb, I should be allowed to do so?

That statement is not a valid argument against the regulation of gun ownership, or increased regulation of Guns like the AR15 which have so much capacity to kill a large number of people quickly in the hands of a angry or mentally unstable person.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Unfortunately, that is not even close to reality. There is no way they could have envisioned where we are today. For example, Jules Verne, the first of the true Sci Fi writers that inaugurate the sort of futuristic thinking we find so common today, wrote his stories nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written and was a product of the Industrial revolution and a significantly quickening pace of invention and human technological advance. I would doubt very much they could have envisioned or even would have given much thought to the possibility of an almost recoil free rifle light enough to be shot reliably by a child and capable of firing 30 rounds in 20 or less seconds (and that only in semi-automatic mode!). Rounds accurate to hundreds of meters, smokeless with a carry of almost 3 miles and a potential lethal range of over 1000m (a .223 round still contains the energy of a standard 22 LR at 1500m)

Technological innovinations have been going on since humans lived in caves. The first rapid fire gun was invented in 1712 and is known as ‘the pickle gun’. Second, the founders of our nation contains inventors and their government model was based on historical observations. To claim they were unaware of technological innovinations happen is just ignorance. So your bald assertion that the founding fathers would have done things different is just that, a bald assertion. I can tell you have a lot to learn about firearms I’ve shot both AR’s and military versions and while their recoil isn’t huge, it is noticeable. A child isn’t going to be able to squeeze off 30 rounds in 20 seconds. Most kids are terrified of loud noises. How old of a child are you talking about?

Not in the fantastical mode you are claiming. Understanding technology will advance, and understanding what that might mean to an idea like the 2nd amendment are two completely different things. And there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary - that is, they understood very well that they could not imagine how society might advance or change. And that is why they gave us the capability of amending the constitution.

1000 meters is hardly realistic because you’ll have little accuracy that far out. 600 meters is pushing it. Have you ever tried hitting a target at 600 meters? A man size target looks like a grain of rice. Even at that, it’s rare for engagements to happen at that range. While your freak outs are interesting along with your assertions, that’s just what they are assertions and freakouts. The founding fathers were aware technology changes and mass shooters are rare to the point they almost never happen. To be afraid of mass shooters is fear mongering at its best and being afraid of of one showing up is simply irrational. More people are killed in falls, accidental poisoning, and drowning. What should I be more concerned about?

[rogue06]

Unfortunately, that is not even close to reality. There is no way they could have envisioned where we are today. For example, Jules Verne, the first of the true Sci Fi writers that inaugurate the sort of futuristic thinking we find so common today, wrote his stories nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written and was a product of the Industrial revolution and a significantly quickening pace of invention and human technological advance. I would doubt very much they could have envisioned or even would have given much thought to the possibility of an almost recoil free rifle light enough to be shot reliably by a child and capable of firing 30 rounds in 20 or less seconds (and that only in semi-automatic mode!). Rounds accurate to hundreds of meters, smokeless with a carry of almost 3 miles and a potential lethal range of over 1000m (a .223 round still contains the energy of a standard 22 LR at 1500m)



Not in the fantastical mode you are claiming. Understanding technology will advance, and understanding what that might mean to an idea like the 2nd amendment are two completely different things. And there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary - that is, they understood very well that they could not imagine how society might advance or change. And that is why they gave us the capability of amending the constitution.



Jim

It's doubtful that they envisioned being able to instantly transmit a message along with a moving image to the antipode of where it originated from either. So I guess that shouldn't be covered by the first amendment.

[rogue06]

No rogue. People incited by words used guns, bombs, machete's etc to kill and maim. Free speech does not exist to incite violence or for the purpose of creating chaos. Free speech exists to prevent the government from controlling criticism of itself or from being able to silence information contrary to its own propaganda.

And they wouldn't have been moved to use guns, bombs, machete's etc to kill and maim if it weren't for someone's words incentivising them. As Bulwer-Lytton said "The pen is mightier than the sword."^[1] It is the motivator. The spark that sets off the conflagration

And just like not all use of free speech "exist to incite violence or for the purpose of creating chaos" not every use of a firearm is for murderous or criminal intent. A multitude of studies show that guns are used far more often to protect and defend oneself and others from grievous harm and death than to commit it.

There are limits on free speech. There are things you can say that will land you in jail.

And you don't think there are restrictions already in place covering firearms as well? Why don't you run on down to your local sporting good shop or even gun store and pick up a fully automatic weapon. Or maybe just take an old shotgun (make it a single shot version) and walk by a school with it slung over your shoulder. Or try entering a business or public building with it.

Let me know how well that turns out for you.





1. Or earlier, as Shakespeare stated "many wearing rapiers are afraid of goose-quills and dare scarce come thither." And here in the U.S. Thomas Jefferson once told Thomas Paine to "go on doing with your pen what in other times was done with the sword."

[rogue06]

Technological innovinations have been going on since humans lived in caves. The first rapid fire gun was invented in 1712 and is known as ‘the pickle gun’.

000000000000000000a.png
And it's a... dilly

Sorry couldn't resist

It's the Puckle Gun and I brought it and several other fairly sophisticated firearms up from the time of the writting of the Constitution (mant pre-dating it by decades or a century or so) Here. Their existence blows away any claim that the founding fathers were thinking only of primitive muskets and could never conceive of more advanced weaponry.

[rogue06]

This 'moving the goal posts' tactic of trying to assume there is some logical equivalence between the 1st and 2nd amendments - that discussions about the reasonableness of one can't be had without impacting the other in a similar way - is absurd.

But using your own flawed logic against you, the right to bear arms is no more about the right to massacre 50 innocent people at a time than free speech is about the right to be able to incite a mob to lynch a black man.


Jim

What you fail to see is that your solution is to restrict access to rope because some might use it in a lynching.

[Sparko]

This 'moving the goal posts' tactic of trying to assume there is some logical equivalence between the 1st and 2nd amendments - that discussions about the reasonableness of one can't be had without impacting the other in a similar way - is absurd.

But using your own flawed logic against you, the right to bear arms is no more about the right to massacre 50 innocent people at a time than free speech is about the right to be able to incite a mob to lynch a black man.


Jim

So do you think if the founding fathers had AR15's to use against the British, they would have thrown them away as barbaric and stuck to their muskets?

[Sparko]

No Sparko. People incited by words kill. And often using guns. A gun is a tool with only one real purpose - to kill. Like a sword, or a bow and arrow - they are lethal weapons designed to maim or kill. That is a guns primary purpose. Words can be used to love, to help, to motivate to greatness, to make the world a better place. To elevate mankind or to diminish him. A gun can only be used to put a blob of metal into or through some object. They have almost no other practical use, they are quite effective at what they do, and the only reason to put a blob of metal into or through a living thing is to hurt or kill it.

This sort of statement is meant to deflect from the reality of what a gun is. To try to say some other thing that we see as good or that needs to be protected has more destructive capability than the gun does and therefore we should not be so concerned about it.

But that is just so wrong. So completely wrong. To see how wrong that is, try substituting 'atomic bomb' for guns. And guess what, your statement is in fact STILL a true statement as you intend it! Words have in fact motivated the killing of far more people than have ever been killed by atomic bombs! Millions more in fact! And yet - would you argue for a 2nd amendment right for every man women an child in the US to have an atomic-bomb in their basement? Or to say that if I could afford to create a plant to make an atomic-bomb, I should be allowed to do so?

That statement is not a valid argument against the regulation of gun ownership, or increased regulation of Guns like the AR15 which have so much capacity to kill a large number of people quickly in the hands of a angry or mentally unstable person.


Jim

People were killed en masse by words for centuries before guns were ever imagined. People will use whatever they have at hand but they are nearly always incited or encouraged by words and speeches to do those things. One man can control an entire country with his words. So if the 2nd can't be regarded as including semi-auto weapons because they can kill more people then the 1st can't be used on the internet because you can enrage more people. Your logic is what is flawed. They wrote the 2nd amendment after they just finished fighting a war for their lives and freedom from the British. They would have loved to have an AR15 or machine guns to use. The 2nd was written to make sure that the government can never do what the British did to them: oppress the citizens. The point was to give the citizens the power and the weapons to wield that power to keep the government in check. They didn't even want a standing army. They wanted a citizen army. So the 2nd does cover AR15s and any other firearm. And they HAD some mutlishot weapons back then so they did know about them and the possibility of them being developed. They put no restrictions in the 2nd. In fact, they specifically said that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

they were lawyers Jim, they know the importance of wording things correctly. They argued about it and finally wrote what they wrote because that is what they meant. Don't you try to change it now.

[Tassman]

Words have killed more people than guns ever did.

Inflammatory "words" are dealt with by legislation against hate speech and the authors of inflammatory language can be held legally responsible for criminal or anti-social activities resulting from their "words". The same approach against gun violence has been taken in NZ and Australia. But not in the US.

[oxmixmudd]

What you fail to see is that your solution is to restrict access to rope because some might use it in a lynching.

You are far too intelligent under normal circumstances to think that makes sense. Rope has thousands of peaceful, useful things that it can be used for. It is a necessary element of modern life. It can be turned into a means of murder if some one choses to do so, but the so can almost any object or substance on the planet, including things necessary for life like water.

First, im not proposing banning guns. I am proposing a system of gun control measures that restrict access to guns for the people most likely to misuse them, and very strict controls on guns like the ar15 which, if they do get into the wrong hands can kill tens or scores in just a few seconds.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

So do you think if the founding fathers had AR15's to use against the British, they would have thrown them away as barbaric and stuck to their muskets?

Again, you just are not thinking these comments through. A trained and disciplined military needs sufficient weaponry to defeat its enemies. I am talking about weapons rhat give untrained, undisciplined and in many cases mentally unstable people the same power as that traIned, disciplined military person in a civilian setting. And it is too much power, too many people in the general population too unstable mentally or morally to allow that.

If your goal is a backdoor civilian army. Which is essentially what the 2nd amendment is about, then in our day you must compensate for the order of magnitude more lethality of the weapons and the increased number of people that are not capable of wielding that power responsibly.

Jim

[Sparko]

Inflammatory "words" are dealt with by legislation against hate speech

Yes because we have had hate speech laws for 10,000 years now.