71–80 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...
Ontario, Canada has stunt driving laws that extend past the road to parking lots, farmer's fields, and more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basic English skills? Why would the prefatory clause limit the latter? Even the most left-leaning [current] SCOTUS justices didn't/don't attempt to make this argument. 'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.' Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll believe that the moment I see it. Seems to me like most of the 2nd amendment crowd is more likely to cheer on the destruction of freedoms than defend them. There are a whole lot of freedoms being violated in the US right now including violations of people's first amendment rights. You can even go on youtube and find countless examples, but somehow all the bullets seem to be mostly going into suicides, school chi…
It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical. But on deeper reflection…
Mutually assured destruction is what makes the literal nuclear option a valid deterrent. That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc.
Violent revolutions are a part of our history, but back at a time when having muskets was enough to get the job done. It's completely unrealistic to expect that to work out in today's environment and the government knows that. Hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight when you're fighting against planes and drones that can drop bombs while flying higher than bullets fired upwards can ever reach.
That said, while the success of outright revolution (at which point the constitution doesn't really matter) can be reasonably debated, what can't be argued is that the 2nd amendment has been effective at protecting our rights. Our rights are routinely violated. The 2nd amendment is total failure when it comes to protecting our rights and when it comes it preventing violations of those rights. The government does not fear the people and that becomes increasingly clear as the mask slips away and they stop even pretending to be anything but openly corrupt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical. But on deeper reflection…
> It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Mutually assured destruction is what makes the literal nuclear option a valid deterrent. That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc. Violent revolutions are a part of…
What are they going to do, level factories and skyscrapers when their logistics are threatened thus destroying their own logistics and economy that is supporting them? An insurgency is not like a nation state war, it is asymettrical warfare where even telling who the enemy is is incredibly difficult and many exist among your own personnel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's the first amendment. this article is about the second amendment.
The second protects the first
Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work. "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.
Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?
Of course, Chinese cars in the US are effectively banned by regulations. Proof that VIN can be used for banning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical. But on deeper reflection…
> It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Mutually assured destruction is what makes the literal nuclear option a valid deterrent. That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc. Violent revolutions are a part of…
I don't want to be too blunt, but this is the "uninformed" I was talking about. The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ability to level cities is not actually that helpful when the goal is to control the population. Modern revolutions don't involve standing armies that you can kill will tanks.
> outright revolution (at which point the constitution doesn't really matter)
It doesn't matter beyond the point of revolution. It matters a lot that it was in effect before the revolution.
> what can't be argued is that the 2nd amendment has been effective at protecting our rights. Our rights are routinely violated.
I'm not sure if you just don't understand the concept of a last resort or if you actually think that we're at the point of last resort already, in which case my only question is: Do you own a gun yet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Mutually assured destruction is what makes the literal nuclear option a valid deterrent. That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc. Violent revolutions are a part of…
Tanks and planes require logistics and people. You don't shoot at the tanks directly, you shoot at the people loading them, or the refinery towers that fuel them, or the people that have to eventually get out of them. What are they going to do, level factories and skyscrapers when their logistics are threatened thus destroying their own logistics and economy that is supporting them? An insurgency is not like a nation…
They've already got planes and tanks. They can also be strategic about what they target, protecting what's important to them while targeting what's important to the population. The people flying the planes and drones won't have homes in the communities they bomb. Our government has already opened fire on Americans, already dropped bombs on American cities. Like I said though, how well they'd do in a revolt is theoretical. What isn't theoretical is the failure of the 2nd amendment to protect our freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"Bullshit" - also known as: "settled jurisprudence I don't agree with."
This is you.
'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'
Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?
This is the other guy.
"A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and use Toasters, shall not be infringed."
Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?
Looks like a bullshit example that makes an apples to steam engines comparison employed by two posters shilling for the same reason - support of a conclusion they both believe in.
You don't know me. You will never know me.
You totally misunderstood that I was pointing out that your bullshit example looks a lot like a poorly formed drunk asshole's talking point that some illiterati group has contrived to be used on uninformed, semi-literate readers every time they find someone challenging something about the second amendment.
You did a better job with your other post laying out all those quotes from contemporaries who were actively involved in deriving the final language of the amendment. I do think that you could have improved that by adding context, like the other side of the conversation, for example. It isn't unusual though for people to cherry-pick anything that fits their desired conclusion so I am not surprised.