• po-lina-ergi
    link
    fedilink
    758 months ago

    For anybody who doesn’t understand the argument, it’s specifically a rebuttal to the idea that “The second amendment only applies to muzzle loaded muskets because nothing more advanced existed at the time”

    “Free speech only applies to newspapers and soapboxes because nothing more advanced existed at the time”

    • Kit Sorens
      link
      fedilink
      English
      338 months ago

      It’s not a bad counterargument to that claim, we’ve just moved so far past that into the cost-benefit-analysis stage. The cost to keep the 2nd ammendment as it is is pretty fucking high.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        These conversations always stunlock me. We are months away from living in a dictatorship in the U.S. and ya’ll are talking about what exactly? Revising the 2nd amendment? Can you please explain that to me?

        Because you simply must be out of your fucking mind if you think disarming yourself in the face of Ya’ll Queda is the course of action.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          I hear you but also: school shooters

          Plus the dictator thing isn’t a guarantee, and even if he does win there’s still the possibility of impeachment when he’s prosecuted for inciting an insurrection

          • @Fal
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -28 months ago

            I hear you but also: school shooters

            Would not be impacted whatsoever with any proposed legislation. The only possible thing that could stop school shooters is going door to door collecting all firearms. If you’re proposing that, see the comment you’re replying to.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              True. I’ve held this position long before Trump was openly fascist, though, and I’m not saying right now in particular is the right time. Just preferably before me and my friend’s kids would be growing up and going to school.

              But if all goes well in the future, I’ll absolutely be voting to round up the guns. And if it comes to it let the military and cops take the…backlash, to put it softly.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  08 months ago

                  How? Trump absolutely could win the presidency again, and I don’t think coming to terms with that is a bad thing. It’s just reality.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    18 months ago

                    Weird when someone cherrypicks their own comment. Here we go.

                    If all goes well in the future … to put it softly.

                    So what you’re essentially saying is that; in order for the problem with guns to be solved we need to be at an indeterminate point in the future where 1) the cops and the military no longer have fascist influences, 2) we use them to corral people who don’t want to give up their guns and kill them.

                    Then you cherrypick your own comment to appear as if you’re just forward thinking by hedging your bets.

                    Allow me to put it this way. You, or anyone else, that has lived through the months following Jan 6th 2021 and seriously discusses the topic of taking guns away (especially in the very fascist manner that you’re invoking) is one of three things.

                    You are either an idiot, a liar, or a bot.

                    I hope for you’re sake that you’re just an idiot. You can fix that.

      • Iceblade
        link
        fedilink
        88 months ago

        Yeah, what needs to happen is changing those laws. The constitution has been changed many times before, and there’s no reason it can’t be changed again.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      158 months ago

      Yup. Also, they aren’t saying “if we lose guns everyone should lose the right to free speech as well”

      They are saying that, since the right to free speech is clearly and self evidently important in modern mediums, the second amendment clearly extends to modern technology as well.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      well you could argue that digital is an extension of signaling using a form of light and sound - which has existed since prehistory.

      However, pedal bicycles and cars are on a similar spectrum (+ horses, tractors, mopeds, powered scooters…) and are subject to different laws.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        68 months ago

        And guns are just a way to transfer stored energy into a projectile that moves much faster than a human can do without the help of tools - which has existed since prehistory