The First Amendment is Obsolete

[Tadpole Jackson]

The First Amendment is an obsolete document from hundreds of years ago, it was intended to protect books and political pamphlets like those of Thomas Paine, not sick video games like StarCraft that legitimize mass murder, or websites full of gore, and Nazism.

The First Amendment was never developed with computers and the internet in mind. You should be free to write whatever you want with quill and parchment, but that's it.

[N3bu]

2/10.

[Wendigo]

The fundamental framework of this argument was, in fact, employed to justify the first phone taps by police. Because of course telephones were never envisioned when enumerating the things which the police were forbidden from searching in the fourth amendment.

It happens that the nature of speech is the same whether conducted using your face, pen and ink, moveable type, semaphore, radio, the internet, or high speed telepathy. The question is one of range.

Killin', now that has changed substantially since 1789. The change from a muzzle-loader to a breech-loader is insignificant, although quite convenient for loading. The change from a single-shot breech-loader to a repeating rifle transforms the battlefield. The change from a repeating rifle to a submachine gun or an automatic rifle transforms the battlefield, as well as organized crime. (The Barrow gang's rampage was facilitated by the Browning Automatic Rifle, which Clyde Barrow stole from military stockpiles; the Thompson SMG was a mainstay of bootleggers during Prohibition, and motivated the very first firearms regulations.)

With killin', it's not a question of range, it's a question of scale. The development in firearms technology over the last few centuries has enabled killing by a single individual on a scale that could not have been conceived in 1789, as it was still not realized in military conflict even in the early 1900s.

[Tadpole Jackson]

Wendigo

The fundamental framework of this argument was, in fact, employed to justify the first phone taps by police. Because of course telephones were never envisioned when enumerating the things which the police were forbidden from searching in the fourth amendment.

It happens that the nature of speech is the same whether conducted using your face, pen and ink, moveable type, semaphore, radio, the internet, or high speed telepathy. The question is one of range.

Killin', now that has changed substantially since 1789. The change from a muzzle-loader to a breech-loader is insignificant, although quite convenient for loading. The change from a single-shot breech-loader to a repeating rifle transforms the battlefield. The change from a repeating rifle to a submachine gun or an automatic rifle transforms the battlefield, as well as organized crime. (The Barrow gang's rampage was facilitated by the Browning Automatic Rifle, which Clyde Barrow stole from military stockpiles; the Thompson SMG was a mainstay of bootleggers during Prohibition, and motivated the very first firearms regulations.)

With killin', it's not a question of range, it's a question of scale. The development in firearms technology over the last few centuries has enabled killing by a single individual on a scale that could not have been conceived in 1789, as it was still not realized in military conflict even in the early 1900s.

by the same can be said of internet communications; Scale: you can reach more people, more easily, than ever before in the history of mankind.

[Wendigo]

Tadpole Jackson

by the same can be said of internet communications; Scale: you can reach more people, more easily, than ever before in the history of mankind.

With communication, two things have changed, and only two. Range (which determines who receives my messages earliest) and speed (which determines how quickly it propagates among successive generations of recipients, if ever). The two have increased together, so that near-instantaneous communication is now possible between two people using the same medium at the same time at any two points on the planet.

For sure, the framers of our Constitution wouldn't have been able to imagine that, although they were in the midst of a revolution in print culture and literacy that was among the earliest stages of that change. (And telegrams came along nice and soon, too.)

With killin', range and speed enable you to kill more people than you could have killed with earlier iterations of the technology. When one side of a "communication" has a more advanced killin' tool, the other side gets much more killed. That is not true of radios.

[Steam Punk Adept]

Tadpole Jackson

The First Amendment is an obsolete document from hundreds of years ago, it was intended to protect books and political pamphlets like those of Thomas Paine, not sick video games like StarCraft that legitimize mass murder, or websites full of gore, and Nazism.

The First Amendment was never developed with computers and the internet in mind. You should be free to write whatever you want with quill and parchment, but that's it.

[The rose in spring]

We never really had the first amendment. Say something that could threaten to change the political direction of the country and you get killed. Don't believe me? Ask the students at Kent State.

[Tadpole Jackson]

Wendigo

Tadpole Jackson

by the same can be said of internet communications; Scale: you can reach more people, more easily, than ever before in the history of mankind.

With communication, two things have changed, and only two. Range (which determines who receives my messages earliest) and speed (which determines how quickly it propagates among successive generations of recipients, if ever). The two have increased together, so that near-instantaneous communication is now possible between two people using the same medium at the same time at any two points on the planet.

For sure, the framers of our Constitution wouldn't have been able to imagine that, although they were in the midst of a revolution in print culture and literacy that was among the earliest stages of that change. (And telegrams came along nice and soon, too.)

With killin', range and speed enable you to kill more people than you could have killed with earlier iterations of the technology. When one side of a "communication" has a more advanced killin' tool, the other side gets much more killed. That is not true of radios.

Any particular reason you call it a "killin' tool" ?

[Wendigo]

Tadpole Jackson

Any particular reason you call it a "killin' tool" ?

Because it is a tool, designed for the purpose of killing. Killing human beings, specifically, although what kills us can also kill most other animals with relatively few modifications.

[Tadpole Jackson]

Wendigo

Tadpole Jackson

Any particular reason you call it a "killin' tool" ?

Because it is a tool, designed for the purpose of killing. Killing human beings, specifically, although what kills us can also kill most other animals with relatively few modifications.

So, do you mean to say that This is a 'killin' tool' ?

But, that's a side track, why does it matter if it's designed for killing people? I mean, that's what the second amendment is all about.

Still, i've fired almost 100k rounds without killing anybody.

So why the panties in a twist about what you think something is 'designed for' anyway? shouldn't it matter *more* what it's *actually used for* ?

[Wendigo]

Tadpole Jackson

So, do you mean to say that This is a 'killin' tool' ?

If you pointed it at a person and squeezed the trigger, would it expel a pellet that would pierce their body and cause important fluids to pour out of them in quantities that would threaten their life? If so then yes.

Quote:

But, that's a side track, why does it matter if it's designed for killing people? I mean, that's what the second amendment is all about.

The second amendment was all about ensuring that the militia was armed in order to repel invasions and suppress insurrections. The militia is defunct, kaput. The reasoning for which the amendment exists, also kaput.

I don't personally advocate the complete revocation of said amendment, but we're operating outside reasonable limits on the right to bear arms in many respects. Most particularly regarding its application to weapons which can allow one person to easily kill a crowd of people in a short time.

Quote:

So why the panties in a twist about what you think something is 'designed for' anyway? shouldn't it matter *more* what it's *actually used for* ?

Let's try it.

Killing (Multiple legal purchases by a single sociopath.)

Killing (Legal purchase by a single sociopath.)

Killing (Multiple legal purchases by a single sociopath.)

Killing (Multiple legal purchases by the mother of a single sociopath.)

What did you have in mind, plinking? I don't feel that plinking warrants major regulatory attention.

[Tadpole Jackson]

Wendigo

Tadpole Jackson

So, do you mean to say that This is a 'killin' tool' ?

If you pointed it at a person and squeezed the trigger, would it expel a pellet that would pierce their body and cause important fluids to pour out of them in quantities that would threaten their life? If so then yes.

Quote:

But, that's a side track, why does it matter if it's designed for killing people? I mean, that's what the second amendment is all about.

The second amendment was all about ensuring that the militia was armed in order to repel invasions and suppress insurrections. The militia is defunct, kaput. The reasoning for which the amendment exists, also kaput.

I don't personally advocate the complete revocation of said amendment, but we're operating outside reasonable limits on the right to bear arms in many respects. Most particularly regarding its application to weapons which can allow one person to easily kill a crowd of people in a short time.

Quote:

So why the panties in a twist about what you think something is 'designed for' anyway? shouldn't it matter *more* what it's *actually used for* ?

Let's try it.

Killing (Multiple legal purchases by a single sociopath.)

Killing (Legal purchase by a single sociopath.)

Killing (Multiple legal purchases by a single sociopath.)

Killing (Multiple legal purchases by the mother of a single sociopath.)

What did you have in mind, plinking? I don't feel that plinking warrants major regulatory attention.

The supreme court ruled that the 'militia' is everyone, and that the second amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.

To that end, it is not 'kaput' just because you say it is.

as for your examples, they are just that, examples.

they are huge attention getters, but they are statistically insignificant.

[Wendigo]

Tadpole Jackson

The supreme court ruled that the 'militia' is everyone, and that the second amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.

Correction, they ruled that the militia was everyone. "Comprised" is past tense - what comprised the militia was defined in contemporary legislation. For able-bodied white males to comprise such a militia, their being armed was required, ergo an individual right to bear arms was required.

Of course, the Court agreed with my stance in the case you're speaking of:

Quote:

[1](f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

Quote:

To that end, it is not 'kaput' just because you say it is.

as for your examples, they are just that, examples.

they are huge attention getters, but they are statistically insignificant.

And yet, we do have laws against murdering people, although you're significantly more likely to die of heart attack, car accident, in-home accident, or falling down.

[Tadpole Jackson]

Wendigo

Tadpole Jackson

The supreme court ruled that the 'militia' is everyone, and that the second amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.

Correction, they ruled that the militia was everyone. "Comprised" is past tense - what comprised the militia was defined in contemporary legislation. For able-bodied white males to comprise such a militia, their being armed was required, ergo an individual right to bear arms was required.

Of course, the Court agreed with my stance in the case you're speaking of:

Quote:

[1](f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

Quote:

To that end, it is not 'kaput' just because you say it is.

as for your examples, they are just that, examples.

they are huge attention getters, but they are statistically insignificant.

And yet, we do have laws against murdering people, although you're significantly more likely to die of heart attack, car accident, in-home accident, or falling down.

And your point?

Second amendment is not a right to commit murder, just the right to bear arms.


also, that picture i linked, that particular firearm was designed with the express intent of being a TARGET PISTOL.

[Wendigo]

The point is obvious. Laws are made for the purpose of making one's populace safe, happy and prosperous. It doesn't make people safe to allow them to be indiscriminately killed by heavily armed sociopaths, or happy to have their friends and family killed by those heavily armed psychopaths. We have about twenty such shootings per year, mainly gang-related.

This demands a response from our legal apparatus, and a response with more teeth than shrugging and saying "What you gonna do, people got rights." Because, as you say, gun ownership does not constitute a right to use a gun to harm another person.