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”
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“If all goes well in the future”
This mentality is toxic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Fully automatic assault atlatl when?
Why is the other half of the second amendement always ignored?
It’s not ignored. It’s a justification for the other half, not a requirement
… and if the justification for a thing goes away, that means the thing is completely unaffected. Yeah?
If you can argue that it’s never a concern that the government will illegally exceed its constitutional authority and threaten the country’s status as a free state, maybe. Good luck with that.
Answer the question. Is “exceeding its authority” the justification, in the first half of that sentence?
Ensuring a free state is the why, citizens owning guns is how
‘We need X to do Y, therefore Z’ makes X the how.
We objectively do not do X anymore. Not in any way that requires Z.
If you want MAGAs in government and law enforcement to be the only ones with guns then that’s your decision. The 2nd amendment makes sure everyone else doesn’t have to do that.
Is that what the justification was?
I suppose that’s a convenient way to see it.
The problem is taking the amendments as unchangeable and almost divinely commanded. They were things written by people hundreds of years ago, and they can be changed. They’re literally called amendments. It doesn’t matter whether the second amendment protects gun rights, it’s up to us nowadays to decide if we want people to have the right to a gun, decided based on our ethical arguments, not what an old document says.
I say this as a non American, it’s just pretty weird to me that even the anti gun people defend their position by quoting the second amendment (usually), rather than suggesting changing it.
It’s not even just that amendments happen, its that as written laws the US constitution is terribly drafted. It is vague, doesn’t define many of the terms it uses and is full of edge cases that it doesn’t deal with.
It’s more a statement of ideology than actual law, which means you need a whole system of court decisions that lay out the actual practical interpretations that courts are supposed to follow, which of course are decided based on the political needs of the day so they are a total mess.
Changing it is very difficult. It takes 2/3rds of our legislative branch agreeing. We don’t see that much.
It says something about how fucking nuts Prohibition was that the states agreed to it and then agreed that was a terrible idea.
It was a huge womens rights movement issue at the time. They weren’t all prudes, they just thought it would be a more effective way to cut back on domestic violence than going at it directly (more enforceable and politically viable), iirc. Then everyone hated it.
One reason is you can’t change Amendments, only repeal and add them. Second you need 2/3 of all 50 state legislatures or Congress to ah Gree before even start that process, ratification requires 3/4 of the states to agree, it’s a fucking process from hell
It’s been a long time since I’ve taken a civics class, but my understanding is that you cannot change an amendment. You can repeal it. You can create new amendments. But they actually cannot be changed.
Now, that said, it takes a lot of agreement to create a new amendment: 2/3rds of both the senate and house must agree, or 2/3rds of the states must petition congress. Both of those options, especially in today’s political climate, is highly unlikely.
I’ll take false equivalency for $400, Alex
So no more spewing hate speech disguised as “free speech” and inciting violence on Facebook and Twitter right? Right?
Imagine wanting to own the GOP so much you sell your right to speech. You fucking lunatic
I’m pointing out that whoever made this meme probably didn’t consider that right wing chudds get away with saying a lot of fucked up shit on social because it’s considered “free speech”. See: Libs of TikTok (fuck them).
Restricting the first amendment cuts both ways.
If you are scared of semi-automatic rifles, wait until you find out about fully-semi-automatic rifles.
deleted by creator
You are scared of a strawman?
deleted by creator
What a sexist assumption. Women can and do own firearms as well.
They appear to be saying that if they aren’t allowed to own military style automatic weapons for “home defense” then they want all freedoms of speech revoked across all media platforms. I’m not sure what one has to do with the other, but that seems to be the gist of the message.
Edit: my poor spelling
The Second Amendment does not protect hunting.
It protects against assholes like Trump and his MAGAts taking over.
The first assumed premise is that we all agree that free speech extends across modern mediums, it’s a rhetorical device to show why it’s weird to say the second amendment doesn’t apply to modern technology.
Honestly, as a liberal, I don’t understand why other liberals oppose modern firearms in private hands. The entire purpose of that amendment is to allow the weak in our society to fight against dictatorship and tyranny; the right to own firearms is an eminently liberal value.
In a world where we have this terrible person openly trying to set himself up as dictator, with a nonzero chance of actually achieving his goal, how can you reject the amendment that specifically exists to allow us to resist people like him? It has to extend to effective modern weapons to do us any good.
What you appear to be saying is that both major political ideologies in this country are actively trying to strip our rights and what they disagree on is which should be taken first
Love the “military” argument. LOL, like it’s some kinda gotcha.
American’s have always had equivalent, and usually better, rifles than the military. History lesson. Title sucks, and that premise isn’t asked or answered. Also, heard the presenter is a right-winger. Still, nothing he’s saying in untrue or a half-truth.
And what do we think the guys who put that in there would think if someone had said, “Nah. Let 'em have guns, but they gotta be nerfed against the military. We want the cops and military all powerful.” 😆 “Have you not been to any of the previous meetings?!”
Yup. They literally encouraged people to own and operate private warships that could be used for coastal bombardment. The modern equivalent would be a guided missile cruiser.
They would probably have LOVED everyone having AR-15s if it were an option 😂
We want the cops and military all powerful.” 😆 “Have you not been to any of the previous meetings?!”
So an armed citizenry prevents unjustified government violence? I think you’ve skipped a meeting or two.
*gist
Thank you!
Well it doesn’t “apply” to nuclear weapons so.
And it literally does apply to ALL weapons.
It’s literally communist north Korea’s if I don’t have a nuke detonator up my ass at all times
While the author of the meme seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of causality, the last part doesn’t seem that wrong if you look at Assange, for example…
deleted by creator
