The technical difference are fundamental. To interpret the intent of the writers one has to understand the world they lived in and not merely the words they wrote. “arms” in terms of lethality, ease of use, density of population, second order effects, type of society, etc. are much different now and the amendment is obsolete. Particularly since a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the defense do the country. The tenth amendment is not enforced at all in terms of how it was written. It has morphed in terms of how it is interpreted since society grew much more complex. The second amendment needs to be dealt with similarly.
I didn’t say two wrongs make a right and didn’t use past violations of the Constitution as justification for anything. I just pointed out that the idea that we are a nation of laws is incorrect and that adherence to the Constitution is not done in a consistent way.
I understand the meaning of “well regulated” and I disagree with the Court’s interpretation of what that phrase means and how it should be interpreted. The Court is not infallible. Indeed, in recent times we see quite clearly how absurd it’s decisions can be. The Court should be ignored when it’s decisions are absurd. All decent governments rely on a consent of the governed and the Supreme Court has clearly overstepped itself in a slew of areas and it has lost its credibility. As such it’s recent decisions should be ignored.
If tomorrow the Court ruled that people have a right to create and use biological weapons I’m certain you’d say that the decision should be ignored. So don’t act as though the notion of ignoring the court is unthinkable or unprincipled or irresponsible. Particularly when there is historic precedent for doing so.
Accuracy, and reload times, etc. are much different for cannons today than they were 250 years ago. Population density is different and society is much more complex now. A well regulated militia means that the government has the right to regulate firearms. And a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the defense of the country. The second amendment is obsolete and detrimental to the country.
We are not a nation of laws. We have seen our leaders try to overthrow the government with impunity. We have government agencies engage in torture and mass surveillance with impunity. We have police forces that kill legally armed people who have done no wrong with impunity. This is not a nation of laws as you put it. We have a Supreme Court ignore precedent and make up shit with its recent rulings. We recently had a President ignore the Constitution to enrich himself and nothing came of it. We have a Supreme Court decide that it wasn’t important to ensure that the votes for President were counted correctly and appointed Bush as the winner.
The Republic ended when a coup was attempted and nothing happened to the instigators. We will soon live in a country in which a legal act in one city is a death penalty crime in another. We soon will live in a country in which the government can’t meaningfully enforce administrative rules. It’s already over unless the Constitution is drastically rewritten or the Court in its present form is changed.
Obviously, the reference to Lincoln was about him ignoring the Supreme Court and not a call to civil war. Your reading comprehension in this instance was quite bad.
One child was killed by jarts and they were banned. One person tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb and we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. But guns, let’s not ban those. Indeed let’s expand their prevalence.
If lethality and rate of gunfire being much higher today than 250 years ago is not a relevant point then why is it ok to ban machine guns? Shouldn’t I be able to protect my property with a tank or a flamethrower?
Pertaining to your comment on ink jet printers. When they are used for mass killings I’ll be willing to consider proposals for their regulation.
When large numbers of black men walk around with AR-15s there will be calls for gun control. The last time black men overtly armed themselves in 70s there was a call for gun control. Reagan even called for gun control when that happened.
Twice in Minnesota a black with a legal firearm was murdered by police with no consequences for the police. The right to a firearm is not, in practice or in law, at all similar to the right of free speech. The government, with impunity, murders legally armed people. It’s not really a right when people of the wrong race or creed get killed for being armed.
Gun control will quickly occur once black men arm themselves and the courts will concur. Similar to how religious freedom arguments get ignored when the Satanic Church makes them.
The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today. The Supreme Court is on a clear path to destroy the mechanisms by which a modern state can function. We will soon live in a country where a legal act in one city will warrant the death penalty in another. A state that cannot adequately regulate weapons is not functional. What worked 250 years ago no longer works today.
The Constitution isn’t going to be changed because there is too much divisiveness. SCOTUS is doing what it can to foment this divisiveness. It’s time to be like Lincoln and ignore the Supreme Court. Strict adherence to words written 250 years ago is not a good way forward for the country. The U.S. is badly in need of reform for how its federal government works.
Your perspective ignores human nature and how easily influenced people are at scale. Toyota did not put a gun to your head but American society long ago evolved to the point where having a car is a necessity for the vast majority of adults. The real issue is that the negative externalities for those design decisions decades ago have resulted in a lot of harm with little benefit.
Perhaps you don’t understand how words work. Words can have different meanings/connotations depending on situation and context. As I said repeatedly, for me it is correct to say “solved” given the constraints involved. Human societies are complex and one can nitpick the world “solved” and say nothing is solved when it come policies of complex societies. So don’t use that word when it comes to societal issues. I and many others do use that word for certain issues. It’s naive of you to have your pedantic nitpicking on the word and not reflect on what it says about you. Obviously I keep bringing up the U.S. because that’s the context of my starting comment way above. And you yourself have brought up the U.S.
What goal do you wish to accomplish your pedantic nitpicking? You want to get others to believe that my views on national health policies are naive? You want me to realize that in a strict, mathematical sense of the word saying “solved” is incorrect? These are rhetorical questions because I’m not going to read your response. You clearly don’t know much about policy issues and what it means for a society have essentially “solved” an issue (or have found a decent enough solution that it isn’t a dire problem anymore so that some non pedantic people will say it is solved).
Carry forth Don Quixote on your quest to eradicate incorrect usage of what you think “solved” means.
I hope you can break from the the intellectual shackles that bind you. I hope you can visit other countries and read from sources of information outside your comfort zone. Subscribing to a belief about which system of economics you prefer does not make one evil.
It’s a solved problem as far as one can get given the constraints involved. As I said, if you don’t want to use that phrase then don’t. I’m not going to quibble over semantics. Human societies are far more complex than programming and the notion of “solved” means something different in the former than in the latter. Use whatever phrase you want. Just don’t think the U.S. system is in any way better. You are the one who brought up an anecdotal experience in favor of the U.S. system over Canada’s system.
In Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, and elsewhere in the region migrant workers have their passport taken by the employer and thus can’t leave the country. They are stuck. In most other countries the employer does not confiscate your passport. It’s weird to me that one needs a passport to leave a country. In the U.S. you don’t need a passport to leave.
Well, as I said, in my opinion people can be blamed given the readily available information and in regard to the multi-decade irrational fear of socialism. Willful ignorance is a thing.
The naivety is in thinking that if it doesn’t work in Canada then it must not be a solved problem. The naivety is in thinking that if you can find anecdotal evidence that in a particular instance Canada’s system worked worse than the U.S. system then it must be the case that Canada’s system is worse.
The U.S. per capita spends far more on healthcare than any other OECD country. We don’t get correspondingly better outcomes or coverage. Universal healthcare is a solved problem within the context that every system necessarily involves some sort of rationing since there aren’t enough medical resources in any country to do otherwise.
If you don’t want to use the phrase “solved system” then don’t but don’t pretend the U.S. is any way better other than in anecdotal instances. Below is a source for information on per capita spending for OECD nations. You can easily find information on health our outcomes, life expectancy, teen pregnancies, infant mortality, etc.
Yes, I know this. However, in this age of easy information and knowledge about other societies readily available it becomes more a matter of willful ignorance than being duped by propaganda.
I don’t disagree in general with what you wrote. On the bogeyman of “socialism” I do blame the electorate. The irrational fear of anything remotely related to “socialism” in America has been going on far too long.
Assuming by free you mean universal coverage that is (almost) free at the point of usage then this is a solved problem. What the United States lacks in order to realize a solution is political willpower and an electorate that is savvy enough to know that wanting such a system does not make one a communist. (And that being a communist does not make one an evil person.)