Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project

Post by chrischen » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:09 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #265

treebeard901 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classification of cryptography as munitions was an interesting choice. The first amendment may protect domestic encryption capabilities as stated by the wikipedia article. From a legal standpoint, does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? As information becomes weaponized, it's an interesting thought. The first amendment is arguably more vulnerable these days, so I…

does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? It doesn't much matter. Even if somebody made the case that "crypto is a form of 'Arms', subject to 2A protection," the 2A doesn't grant an unregulated right to own whatever "arms" one chooses. All the rights granted by the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation. So, Congress could simply legislate a restriction on c…

Post by danesparza » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

madengr wrote: post #201

cloudwalking wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not, because the 2nd amendment protects arms, not munitions (for example, bombs).

What's the difference? The 2A certainly applies to cannons. Are those arms or munitions? Grenades are legal to own, just need the tax stamp.

Post by punchclockhero » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

goldenkey wrote: post #259

rdtsc wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how you look at it. What was the purpose. Presumably after fighting in the Revolutionary War the goal was not to give people hunting privileges, they had something else in mind. From that point of view, maybe RPGs should be allowed, but so should attack helicopters, surveillance capabilities, private spy satellites, etc. > IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk…

That flamethrower is awesome. What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?

Post by dfee » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:12 PM UTC

tolgerias wrote: post #276

harimau777 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that fundamental human rights means rights that exist inherently regardless of whether the UN or any given country recognizes them. My feeling is that people have a right to self defense, which would require them to have access to some effective weapon. In theory that could be a club or blade rather than a firearm; however, currently firearms are the only (somewhat) socially acceptable weapon to carry in th…

self defense is a human right only in a lawless society. The existence of the state makes it necessary for it to have the monopoly of the application of force, and all matters should be resolved in a civil court of law. Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense. Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.. while that is the defin…

Post by komali2 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

mr_spothawk wrote: post #289

komali2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you, and I want to make a "times change" argument. This is my perspective, because I read too much scifi: I can conceive of a couple possibilities in 300 years. 1. Humanity is gone or stone-aged. Either because it failed to colonize before being wiped out by disease, because it nuked itself, or because it implemented AI in a way that got itself killed. 2. Humanity has turned peaceful, formed a global community…

there's a dead post from @Ataturk who nails my arguments against your point, but doesn't do so very nicely. history should be a guid here. presuming penis-size conversation is anything more than an intentional dig by a chauvinist powermonger, probably isn't helpful here.