Narauko @ Narauko @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

244

Joined

2 yr. ago

Until 75% of the country agrees with you that they don't want or need the right to bear arms, everything listed after step 1 is unconstitutional. The reason being that you cannot add cost or hoops to jump through to exercise rights. Test all of these with any other right and see how fucked up it is. The following should be taken slightly tongue in cheek, but illustrating the difference in treatment people have with the second clear through absurdity.

Step 1: Offer major tax incentives to not vote or wave your right to searches and seizures. Skip the presidential election? $2000 tax write off. Allow the police to search your home and vehicle at any time they want? $5000 tax write off.

Step 2: You have to have a state issued ID for services. Could we charge a license fee to access the polls, or perform any sort of protest action? Want to vote? $200 for your voter ID stamp that lasts 4 years. Want to join a protest or picket? The police might need to keep the peace. $50 per protest.

Step 2b: Along with these fees, before you can vote you need to attend an extensive class on the people and issues on the ballot, run by either the DNC or RNC based on if your state is red or blue (or whomever paid the most for the position). If you want to post politically inclined statements in print or electronically, you need to attend journalism training on safe words and opinions. Understand that if you hurt or offended someone with statements you made, you are legally responsible for that distress.

Step 2c: After initial voter education training, journalism training, and jury process training, you must attend at least biannual refresher courses to ensure you are educated on the recommended politicians and proposed laws, changes in acceptable speech and societal norms, and how to be a good juror to retain the right to a free jury. These can be fun. A get together of all your fellow citizens as you are reeducated on how the government wants you to use your rights.

This might not prevent people from voting for the wrong candidates and laws, but the remaining model citizens will keep the discord in society down. China has a vastly higher number of citizens than the US, but doesn't have all of the political instability and fighting. I think the difference is the mandatory citizen training and reeducation camps.

Now that is a very interesting idea, I've never heard anyone claim that militias are independent private armies not subject to government control. The militia exists purely for the government to mobilize in times of disaster or war, be it state or federal, as outlined in Title 10 Chapter 12 of the US Code. The National Guard and Naval militia are the standing, organized militia. All able bodied men age 17 to 45 are considered part of the unorganized militia, and subject to being called upon by the government through selective service. All or nearly all 50 states have explicit laws banning private citizen militias and/or paramilitary organizations, which as been affirmed at least twice by the supreme court and as recently as 2008. Any overthrow of the government that no longer is of and by the people would be carried out by the people in general, not a militia or any defined organization.

I think I see your point one constitutionality vs legality, though I would say that all law stems from the powers granted by the constitution and thus are intrinsically linked. If something is enumerated in the constitution, it does not fall to the states to manage in my opinion, as the states only get the "everything not outlined" to legislate in my opinion.

I appreciate your viewpoint on this, thank you for engaging with me on this topic. I may fundamentally disagree with your conclusions, but I can see where you're coming from now I think and this has been very enlightening.

I thought it was pretty clear my response on supreme court interpretation changing when rather wrong, either obviously or on new technicality, was directly addressing your statement that the individual right to both own and carry arms changed in 2008. I also think you may want to brush up on what a straw man is, as I am directly engaging with your statements to get a handle on your viewpoint and opinion. I apologize if you were saying that we have a right to own military hardware and NFA regulated weapons, as long as we never use them alone or for personal reasons (this would be taking your statement to a probably absurd degree).

My mention of ownership was because prior to 2008, states could prevent you from buying guns as well as preventing bearing them. I would also like to point out that it is certainly legally shakey to form a private militia or paramilitary organization, with multiple laws and even state constitutions outlawing it. I mention this because outlining an individual right to bear arms to prevent the government from arresting their own soldiers for carrying a gun under military orders just doesn't make sense. I am also curious if you also believe that hunters for the past 200+ years have been breaking the law, using their guns for purposes other than military service. I'm also pretty sure walking down Main Street firing guns randomly is a crime, reckless endangerment at the least, even under the most lax interpretation of the 2nd, and completely different than acting against a credible threat to your life.

Also rebellion is especially illegal, even if/when benefitial or even necessary. It is definitely an opinion that having an armed populace has no prosocial benefits that can be debated. Minority and oppressed populations are harder to victimize when armed. Anyone who has saved their life thought defensive use of a weapon would also disagree with you. The police have no legal obligation to save or help you or anyone else, so making self defense illegal outside of pure hand to hand combat leaves people vulnerable. If melee arms are allowed under the 2nd and the inferred right to self defense, why wasn't there a distinction made on what kind of arms. Or are they not covered under the 2nd? Genuinely curious on your view of using an available knife or bat or crowbar if someone tries to gravely injure or kill you.

I would also like to argue that no other right in the Bill of Rights requires you to be in or part of a group, either actively or passively, to have them apply or be exercised. Even though a free press is essential for a free society, we don't have to get a degree in journalism or join a newspaper to have freedom of speech and association.

Previous supreme courts have ruled that the constitution only applied to the federal government, allowing states to restrict the rights of their citizens to vote, speak, assemble, etc. Does that mean that it isn't clear that our individual and constitutional rights were intended to apply at a state or local level? I am not saying that it is broadly agreed upon, but I do think that the founder's documents and correspondence surrounding the Bill of Rights, along with contemporary laws like the Militia Act, provide enough context for it being an individual right.

In 1792 the government required that the individual would have their own rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, and ammunition to bring with them if they answered the called to join the militia, which is hard to do if they didn't have the right to individually own said guns and ammo. Same with the fact that every other amendment in the BoR is an individual right.

If it was only the ability to own guns so that they could be brought in case the owner was called to join a militia, but not to use them in any other way why would it specify the right to bear those arms and not just to keep or own them? If the individual right is to own guns and use them as tools for hunting and sport, where does the limitation on using them for defense come from? Are knives or any other tools that can be used in a fight included in any of this? I'd consider knives under the right to bear arms, plus it is a frequent argument that they serve other purposes so get an exception.

You have my perspective slightly backwards. The trained militia is contingent on having an armed populace to draw from, not the other way around. It is not the right to be trained and then armed as a soldier, but the general right to bear arms. I do think that gun safety, training and handling should still be taught in school like it used to because there are more guns than people in this country, but don't believe that any of your natural rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights have any requirements to meet to practice. The "guns as a personality" chuckle fuck has the same right to bear arms that you or anyone else does, until or unless such time as he loses that right through criminal conviction. I also don't support losing voting rights, gun rights, or any rights for non-violent offenses, especially non-violent drug offenses which shouldn't be criminalized anyway. Innocent until proven guilty, without a need to establish a baseline of innocence first through taking a test or being investigated by the police.

Requiring licensure is an infringement that no other constitutional right requires. There is a huge gap between an educated journalist and a wacked out conspiracy theorist making vaccine conspiracy their entire personality too, but even though they indirectly or directly caused or contributed to an unknown percentage of millions of deaths, it is unconstitutional to require them to go take classes and get a license to speak on TV or on the internet or in public. If you have to ask permission from a governing body to exercise it, it's not a right it's a privilege. Freedoms come with risk, the founders knew this and thought it was worth it, which is why it was enshrined in our founding documents.

Pretty sure that the "shall not be infringed" part of bearing arms covers that. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there you go. If you are trying to say that the 2nd is somehow the only non-individual right in the Bill of Rights, I'd argue poor context interpretation. If you are trying to say that it requires militia affiliation, I'd argue that the Militia Act that required the people to supply their own guns and ammo pretty effectively proves the people were supposed to be armed before being called to the militia. If you are arguing that you just don't like the 2nd, then get ~75% of the country and state governments to agree with you and update or repeal it with the required constitutional amendment.

The militia that was comprised of and armed by the people. That well regulated part meaning fully functional by being trained in tactics and doctrine to work with other militias and divisions. The Militia Act further confirmed the individual right to arms, outlining that the members were required to report with their own guns, ammo, and rations. While we may have a standing army now, and the reserves and Guard units, that doesn't change the fact that the Second was and is an individual right to military arms for personal and State protection. If anyone believes that we no longer need this, then find enough people that agree to amend the constitution. Until then, we don't get to pick and choose which rights get defended.

I am completely with you on the f-word being thrown around willy nilly these days, but there are a disturbing number of self proclaimed Christian nationalists in government and among the evangelical populace. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not the only politician to state this on a televised interview, but is the first one to jump out at me.

It's easier to dehumanize and homogenize the opposition than view them as people with real convictions. It happens on both sides, and it's getting worse and worse as the polarization increases. Driven by the media and the 24 hour news cycle, capitalized on by the DNC and RNC, and keeping everyone fighting amongst ourselves instead of looking too closely at the accelerating wealth gap and banding together by class to restore healthy and competitive capitalism.

It was super shocking to find the Republicans actually knocking the third leg out of their wedge issues stool. All they really have is gun rights now, as the regular culture war stuff isn't nearly as powerful as abortion was. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the next 2 election cycles, but so help me if the Democrats manage to get back control of all 3 and STILL don't codify abortion rights, gay marriage rights, interracial marriage, etc so they can capitalize on these suddenly stronger wedge issues. Again. So God damned pissed off at the Obama admin still because of that. Also the lack of federal legalization/decriminalization. And this is from a pro 2A former classical libertarian who wants the government shrunk by replacing all of the bloated agencies and welfare programs with a simple and solid universal healthcare system and true UBI, funded with a aimple tax code with no loopholes that incorporates something of a Georgist land tax.

110% with you there, but since bribery and graft is legal in the US only corporate tools get selected by the corporate parties. This is further reinforced by keeping the 2 party system entrenched with FPTP voting. I know I'll never get perfect to vote for, but I'd like to at least get an option that would earn a C+ or higher to vote for.

Not personally a fan of general increases in gun control because I don't think many of the ideas floated would help more than they would hurt law abiding citizens, but it really should be free and quick for anyone to request a background check for private party gun sales and thus should be mandatory. My own personal experience is background checks are done at my local gun shows, but yes there should be mandatory universal background checks and this 100% can be improved.

Federally mandated waiting periods would be hard and burdensome to enforce on private party sales, but I'd be open to discussions on how it could be done. Red flag laws are also tricky because we have a presumption of innocence and protection against searches and seizures, but if it requires that you get to face a judge before they take your guns away then once again, an argument worth having. I argue against security theater gun control, and because I believe any restrictions of constitutional rights should by default be argued against since we need damn solid reasons to restrict rights.

I think gun safety training should be mandatory as part of the US education system starting from the beginning of school. There are more guns than people in the US, so odds are good that many children will come into contact with them at some point, and they should know what they are and how to be safe. Unfortunately, the left acts like this will indoctrinate children towards being pro guns like the right thinks sex education will make kids have sex. Leaving these basic life knowledge "up to the family" to teach is just such a shitty idea.

The issue of licensing is tricky because unlike driving a car, gun ownership is a constitutional right and we do not have a good track record of being fair and equitable when we make practicing rights require any "cost of entry". Other than that and as has been mentioned already, many places require licenses and extra training to concealed carry, and if you are reckless with guns or just even with criminal behavior you can lose your gun rights.

Also, even if mass shootings just weren't a thing I think having trauma kits along with AEDs in public areas is just good practice, and adding hostile attacker drills to existing fire, earthquake, tornado, etc drills is also probably good practice. The more emergency situations people are even somewhat trained to "handle", the better they react to both known and unknown emergencies. When the brain is overwhelmed in an emergency, having any ingrained reflex your subconscious can fall back on prevents freezing or panicked random action.

So the issue there is that it directly conflicts with the right to privacy, presumption of innocence, and your right to practice your constitutional rights. The government and law enforcement, hell even your neighbors or your HOA, cannot just check you or your stuff out to make sure you're not doing bad things. We can't mandate that you can only practice your religion at designated churches. You aren't required to go get your free speech pass from City Hall that then allows you to go to approved places to discuss politics. What you are describing is not really a new and interesting way to check and enforce laws, secret police and dictators have been doing that for centuries. "If you don't have anything to hide" is one of the worst things you could hear from law enforcement.

I'm going to throw a curve ball here and say yes, obviously the purpose of a gun is to kill things. Americans have an inherent right to self defense through use of arms, which is the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment. Killing animals for food is of course another common task, along with livestock protection, but self defense against other humans using force was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The founders thought about the fact that these arms could be used in crime and violence, and decided that freedom comes with risk and it was worth that risk. The country was founded on principles that the government is not there to provide perfect safety to all individuals and to dictate their lives, but instead set ground rules and let people live their lives however they see fit. There are consequences for actions, not preventing all actions with negative consequences. There's a reason that the phrase "those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither" is such a famous (or infamous) quote in America.

Many people may feel they do not need to protect themselves with force of arms in modern society and would prefer more safety over more freedom, but until such time as over 3/4s of the population agree to cede their right to self defense to the government and change the 2nd with an overriding amendment, these tools are doing the job they are designed for. This argument that cars and knives and what have you serve another purpose so it's "different" just strikes me as odd. Hell, the amount of people killed by cars when killing people is in fact the opposite of it's purpose, is more concerning if you think about it because cars kill so many more people than the guns that are actually designed specifically for killing. But to do that we need to limit cars to traveling at 35mph and have internal and external airbags and giant soft air tube tires that can safely run over people without causing harm, but no one is advocating to make laws mandating such and no one would buy a car like that if it was available.

While non-Americans may not have the standing or skin in the game, I think taking an interest in how other governments and cultures work and evolve is a worthwhile endeavor. I think we can all learn something from each other regardless of nationality. We Americans like to criticize other countries and societies for things we think are backwards or harmful like humanitarian issues in certain countries and regions, but freak out when we get the same in return. I hope we are strong enough to rise above that as a country, but there are a lot of thin skinned individuals and ideologues out here.

There are also arguments to be made about interpretations of 200 year old amendments, such as the current courts originalist interpretation. Under originalism, the court tries to rule based on what the founders and signatories intended, rather than change interpretations as vocabulary drifts and evolves. There are some supporting documents like the Federalist Papers and other first and second hand documents, but it's not exactly clear cut all the time and there is a lot of guesswork involved. I lean towards interpreting based on original intention for stability reasons and to avoid circumventing the legal processes by changing the meanings of words. Breaks the spirit of the law IMO. But that's just like, my opinion man.

I personally tend to agree that the intent of the 2nd was for private ownership of all contemporary weapons of war to protect the Republic from both foreign invasion and internal tyranny if the government becomes co-opted and no longer is "of the people". That probably needs to evolve and be updated as war has fundamentally changed, along with human society, and nukes are way to expensive for anyone to afford short of like the top 100 wealth list (who we shouldn't trust anyway on oligarchal principles). The original militias were forged into the National Guard and Reserves (and to a degree the police forces), and there isn't the same national drive for local/state militias for common protection and defense, but if we want to do away with the right of the people to do so then we need to come up with a modifying amendment that a super majority of the people and State governments can agree on and ratify.

Sure, I agree with that as well. We have a process to amend the constitution, it just requires 75% of Congress and the State legislators to agree instead of a simple majority to change it so it is a stable source of law. If it could be changed every 4-8 years as power changes, it would wreck havoc across all levels of society.

Law enforcement only gets to check that you comply with driving laws and regulations if you break them in front of them. They don't just get to pull people over randomly and run checks on them because they feel like it because of the 4th amendment. There is also the difference between a privilege like driving, and a constitutional right. No other right requires that you allow law enforcement to keep tabs on you or your property. No one should live in a police state like that

As to your understanding of the 2nd, the "well regulated" part means operating smoothly and in good order. It's fallen out of every day parlance, but a well regulated clock or well regulated engine used to be in more common parlance and still is used in the military I believe. So a plain English reading would be "A fully functional and well operating militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is backed up by the Militia Act passed 2 years following the ratification, that confirmed that to join a militia require the militia member to provide their own arms and minimum starting ammunition. Without an individual right to keep and bear arms, that would make it hard to form said militia.

Unfortunately the odds of self reflection and cooperative action to fix the system is probably lower than disenfranchised radicalization leading to further divides and violence. Really hope to be wrong about that, but if 20-30% of the country stop believing in the system altogether, we could be a repeat of Iran in the 70's.

Just wanted to point out that it's never a good thing for any society for a statistically significant percentage of the population to lose faith in the systems underpinning said society and it's social compacts. That's what the CIA did/does to countries to destabilize them, and those never end well.

I'm not claiming there is necessarily a better option in this case, because all authority needs to be kept to a higher standard and punished when they fail, from the town treasurer up to the President. Trippley so for the police, but I won't be holding my breath there either