Politics And Current Events

[MWB]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

This is basically my view as well. 2A doesn’t account for the advance of guns (yes, I realize this is a controversial opinion and some thing that it does), and I don’t think the writers foresaw what modern “defenses” would be. The right to bear arms, ostensibly for defense has become the right to own guns for reasons beyond defense. Not really sure how owning a gun to shoot at the range applies, but we’re not turning this boat around.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

Democratic voting has only been around since the 19th Amendment.

So I guess that "right" is fundamentally absurd as well.

Oh. I don’t have a right to vote. I have the right to cast a partial vote while Wyomingers and others get extra votes. Y’all are cool with that one, of course.

Doesn't Pennsylvania have 17 more electoral votes than Wyoming?

Seems like a bit unfair.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

This is basically my view as well. 2A doesn’t account for the advance of guns (yes, I realize this is a controversial opinion and some thing that it does), and I don’t think the writers foresaw what modern “defenses” would be. The right to bear arms, ostensibly for defense has become the right to own guns for reasons beyond defense. Not really sure how owning a gun to shoot at the range applies, but we’re not turning this boat around.

This exact same argument can be applied to the 1st Amendment.

How does the internet square with an inkpen and paper world?

[Freddy Rumsen]

Not the Onion

[PFiDC]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

This is basically my view as well. 2A doesn’t account for the advance of guns (yes, I realize this is a controversial opinion and some thing that it does), and I don’t think the writers foresaw what modern “defenses” would be. The right to bear arms, ostensibly for defense has become the right to own guns for reasons beyond defense. Not really sure how owning a gun to shoot at the range applies, but we’re not turning this boat around.

This exact same argument can be applied to the 1st Amendment.

How does the internet square with an inkpen and paper world?

"The founding fathers didn't know guns would become what they have" does not equal "the founding fathers didn't know free speech would include computers"

[Freddy Rumsen]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

This is basically my view as well. 2A doesn’t account for the advance of guns (yes, I realize this is a controversial opinion and some thing that it does), and I don’t think the writers foresaw what modern “defenses” would be. The right to bear arms, ostensibly for defense has become the right to own guns for reasons beyond defense. Not really sure how owning a gun to shoot at the range applies, but we’re not turning this boat around.

This exact same argument can be applied to the 1st Amendment.

How does the internet square with an inkpen and paper world?

"The founding fathers didn't know guns would become what they have" does not equal "the founding fathers didn't know free speech would include computers"

How does that make sense?

They couldn't imagine semi-automatic firearms with scary pistol grips and also couldn't imagine free speech including computers.

In both cases they are instruments of the underlying principle that have evolved since 1789.

[MWB]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

This is basically my view as well. 2A doesn’t account for the advance of guns (yes, I realize this is a controversial opinion and some thing that it does), and I don’t think the writers foresaw what modern “defenses” would be. The right to bear arms, ostensibly for defense has become the right to own guns for reasons beyond defense. Not really sure how owning a gun to shoot at the range applies, but we’re not turning this boat around.

This exact same argument can be applied to the 1st Amendment.

How does the internet square with an inkpen and paper world?

You can’t kill a person with words, no matter the form; you can with guns. One advancement makes it easier to communicate and the other makes it easier to inflict harm.

[Shyster]

Multi-shot guns existed at the time, such as "pepperbox" firearms, the 22-shot Girandoni air rifle, the Kalthoff repeater, and the Belton flintlock. There were guns with multiple barrels, guns with multiple loads in the same barrel that were fired in sequence, and guns with systems for rapidly loading ball and powder. It was the case that it took the invention and adoption of the percussion cap to make more reliable multi-shot firearms, but they were certainly around, and the percussion cap was well on the market by the 1820s—hardly an extraordinary amount of time after the passage of the Bill of Rights.

People during the founding period owned arms that were state-of-the-art at the time and eagerly adopted anything newer and better.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

This is basically my view as well. 2A doesn’t account for the advance of guns (yes, I realize this is a controversial opinion and some thing that it does), and I don’t think the writers foresaw what modern “defenses” would be. The right to bear arms, ostensibly for defense has become the right to own guns for reasons beyond defense. Not really sure how owning a gun to shoot at the range applies, but we’re not turning this boat around.

This exact same argument can be applied to the 1st Amendment.

How does the internet square with an inkpen and paper world?

You can’t kill a person with words, no matter the form; you can with guns. One advancement makes it easier to communicate and the other makes it easier to inflict harm.

Think about all the suicides that come from online bullying, just as an example.

[MWB]

What makes someone “secure” is a subjective term, which is why there is so much debate about this. “Eagerly adopting” whatever new technology of firearms comes around doesn’t necessarily equate to being secure.

[MWB]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

This is basically my view as well. 2A doesn’t account for the advance of guns (yes, I realize this is a controversial opinion and some thing that it does), and I don’t think the writers foresaw what modern “defenses” would be. The right to bear arms, ostensibly for defense has become the right to own guns for reasons beyond defense. Not really sure how owning a gun to shoot at the range applies, but we’re not turning this boat around.

This exact same argument can be applied to the 1st Amendment.

How does the internet square with an inkpen and paper world?

You can’t kill a person with words, no matter the form; you can with guns. One advancement makes it easier to communicate and the other makes it easier to inflict harm.

Think about all the suicides that come from online bullying, just as an example.

How many of those suicides are by gun?

Yes, easier communication can have negative consequences, but the purpose of words isn’t to kill. Guns were made for the purpose of killing things. That is the intent of that specific machine. The advances in guns are meant to make that intent easier.

[Freddy Rumsen]

[shmenguin]

I think human rights have existed for a few hundred thousand years, and every single gun is an example of modern technology- relatively speaking. Which makes their status as a “right” to be fundamentally absurd. IMO.

Democratic voting has only been around since the 19th Amendment.

So I guess that "right" is fundamentally absurd as well.

Oh. I don’t have a right to vote. I have the right to cast a partial vote while Wyomingers and others get extra votes. Y’all are cool with that one, of course.

Doesn't Pennsylvania have 17 more electoral votes than Wyoming?

Seems like a bit unfair.

Even for a Friday night this is incredibly low effort. I can say why, but you already know it’s a dumb comeback.

Right to bear arms is unrelated to the technology that it is now tethered to. I understand the point. It’s abstractly about defense. Good. Great. But you can’t own several instruments of defense for a variety of reasons, so what’s one or two more? Where is the protest over you not possessing an armed drone to scout out your property?

To your earlier post, voting is a construct. Elections are a construct. Guns are a construct. There’s no such thing as a fundamental right to a construct. So all of these things deserve an honest, fluid, good faith assessment that’s repeated constantly as norms evolve.

[tifosi77]

So there's a White Lives Matter rally scheduled for Sunday in Huntingdon Beach. That should be fun.

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

So there's a White Lives Matter rally scheduled for Sunday in Huntingdon Beach. That should be fun.

At least the destruction level will be less than a BLM "rally" would be

[tifosi77]

?

[NTP66]

‘Black people cause more damage’ is what he’s getting at.

[willeyeam]

Yikes

[Freddy Rumsen]

‘Black people cause more damage’ is what he’s getting at.

Not sure if you remember the BLM riots but those were mostly white people as well.

Though they did cause over a billion dollars in property damage so the fainting goats reacting to LBL will need to deal with that.

[NTP66]

k

[Freddy Rumsen]

Speaking about hating black people...

[Trip McNeely]

‘Black people cause more damage’ is what he’s getting at.

Not sure if you remember the BLM riots but those were mostly white people as well.

Though they did cause over a billion dollars in property damage so the fainting goats reacting to LBL will need to deal with that.

What net positive is there to even remotely defend LBLs comment?

[willeyeam]

Own the libs brah

[Freddy Rumsen]

‘Black people cause more damage’ is what he’s getting at.

Not sure if you remember the BLM riots but those were mostly white people as well.

Though they did cause over a billion dollars in property damage so the fainting goats reacting to LBL will need to deal with that.

What net positive is there to even remotely defend LBLs comment?

Because I'm a person who understands that what LBL posted is factually accurate given what actually happened in real life.

Are you arguing that the BLM protests over the summer did not cause massive amounts of property damage and led to over a dozen deaths?

Pointing that out isn't racist.

[shmenguin]

The equivalent protest for this crew is the group of people who broke into the Capitol and tried to murder their political opponents.

That one is worse. Tell me more about BLM.