5 ms·

How doesn’t include machine guns?

ceejayoz 3mo ago
Keep reading! > In Second Amendment cases, this Court applies the Amendment to semi-automatic handguns even though those did not exist in 1791 or 1868. "Shall not be infringed" apparently applies to unimaginably better weaponry, but they couldn't have anticipated immigrants being pregnant.
- fakedang 3mo ago
  Does the right to bear arms extend to stuff like MANPADS, tanks and fighter aircraft?
  - ceejayoz 3mo ago
    I think that’s the only logical conclusion of the “shall not be infringed” absolutists. They shy away from admitting it, though. “Oh, those aren’t arms. They’re, uh, destructive devices!”
    - lazide 3mo ago
      Most would be happy to allow them. Let god sort ‘em out, and all.
      - ceejayoz 3mo ago
        I tend to doubt it. Reagan and the NRA were quite happy to regulate guns when the Black Panthers showed up with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
        cucumber3732842 3mo ago
        Hint: If someone says "yeah sure manpads are fine" they're not some fox news boomer who adores Reagan.
        ceejayoz 3mo ago
        It's still very much a phenomenon. Look how the NRA and GOP handled the Philando Castile case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile), for example. Suspicious silence, for the most part.
        lazide 3mo ago
        The ‘right’ is a venn diagram, not a solid block. The NRA has a lot of overlap, but Reagan was never particularly pro-gun - he was literally a California Actor, and it was under him that most federal gun laws were passed. (1984 GCA being huge) In many ways, he was just really good at pretending to be/pushing folks on the rights buttons, while being a smokescreen for all the other laws that people needed to pass. In that way, a lot like Trump is right now. Notably, Reagan also had dimentia/Alzheimer’s through a large portion of his terms, not that it is related to our current situation at all…
  - cucumber3732842 3mo ago
    It ought to. If you can afford either of those you have enough invested in the system that you probably won't use it lightly and if you don't you should and that's kind of the system's problem.
    - ubertaco 3mo ago
      Ah yes, that well-known link between having immense wealth and being characterized by restraint and regard for the well-being of others. That's why Elon Musk is both the richest man in modern history and also the most upright, caring, and self-restrained one too!
  - nradov 3mo ago
    It's an interesting legal question. Around the time that the US Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned artillery pieces and even entire warships.
  - camgunz 3mo ago
    The motivations underlying 2A are: Protection Participation in military / national defense Resistance of tyrannical government Hunting Depending upon whether or not you think the Constitution is a living document, a modern reading of 2A could reasonably include things like explosives, drones, radar, etc., but maybe exclude things like nukes, fighter jets, biochemical weapons, other purely offensive things. I'm very pro-gun regulation, but I think this would be a fine reading as long as we're doing the same thing across the Constitution, i.e. substantive due process. But while conservatives love modern readings of 2A, they deny modern readings of anything else. So they have to find some way to fit their desired outcomes into originals/textualism, leading to absurd dilemmas like "either the founders meant muskets or they meant nukes", or tortured standards like scanning all firearm or self-defense laws in effect around the late 18th century to discern intent, which predictably do not emerge from consistent foundational principles because their authorship is scattered across space and time and thus really are no help... unless of course you cherry pick shamelessly.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]

Keep reading! > In Second Amendment cases, this Court applies the Amendment to semi-automatic handguns even though those did not exist in 1791 or 1868. "Shall not be infringed" apparently applies to unimaginably better weaponry, but they couldn't have anticipated immigrants being pregnant.

fakedang 3mo ago
Does the right to bear arms extend to stuff like MANPADS, tanks and fighter aircraft?
- ceejayoz 3mo ago
  I think that’s the only logical conclusion of the “shall not be infringed” absolutists. They shy away from admitting it, though. “Oh, those aren’t arms. They’re, uh, destructive devices!”
  - lazide 3mo ago
    Most would be happy to allow them. Let god sort ‘em out, and all.
    - ceejayoz 3mo ago
      I tend to doubt it. Reagan and the NRA were quite happy to regulate guns when the Black Panthers showed up with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
      - cucumber3732842 3mo ago
        Hint: If someone says "yeah sure manpads are fine" they're not some fox news boomer who adores Reagan.
        ceejayoz 3mo ago
        It's still very much a phenomenon. Look how the NRA and GOP handled the Philando Castile case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile), for example. Suspicious silence, for the most part.
        lazide 3mo ago
        The ‘right’ is a venn diagram, not a solid block. The NRA has a lot of overlap, but Reagan was never particularly pro-gun - he was literally a California Actor, and it was under him that most federal gun laws were passed. (1984 GCA being huge) In many ways, he was just really good at pretending to be/pushing folks on the rights buttons, while being a smokescreen for all the other laws that people needed to pass. In that way, a lot like Trump is right now. Notably, Reagan also had dimentia/Alzheimer’s through a large portion of his terms, not that it is related to our current situation at all…
- cucumber3732842 3mo ago
  It ought to. If you can afford either of those you have enough invested in the system that you probably won't use it lightly and if you don't you should and that's kind of the system's problem.
  - ubertaco 3mo ago
    Ah yes, that well-known link between having immense wealth and being characterized by restraint and regard for the well-being of others. That's why Elon Musk is both the richest man in modern history and also the most upright, caring, and self-restrained one too!
- nradov 3mo ago
  It's an interesting legal question. Around the time that the US Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned artillery pieces and even entire warships.
- camgunz 3mo ago
  The motivations underlying 2A are: Protection Participation in military / national defense Resistance of tyrannical government Hunting Depending upon whether or not you think the Constitution is a living document, a modern reading of 2A could reasonably include things like explosives, drones, radar, etc., but maybe exclude things like nukes, fighter jets, biochemical weapons, other purely offensive things. I'm very pro-gun regulation, but I think this would be a fine reading as long as we're doing the same thing across the Constitution, i.e. substantive due process. But while conservatives love modern readings of 2A, they deny modern readings of anything else. So they have to find some way to fit their desired outcomes into originals/textualism, leading to absurd dilemmas like "either the founders meant muskets or they meant nukes", or tortured standards like scanning all firearm or self-defense laws in effect around the late 18th century to discern intent, which predictably do not emerge from consistent foundational principles because their authorship is scattered across space and time and thus really are no help... unless of course you cherry pick shamelessly.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]