arma virumque cano (et alia)
The idea that rights are dependent in available technology is laughable. Even in that era they were developing faster more accurate equipment. If we are going to apply the technology qualifier to the validity of a right, we have to apply it to all rights, which means no computers, Internet ball points pens, not even the lines paper we use today. You can say one right doesn't keep up with technology while others do.
"we have to apply it to all rights"Who says? The restrictions that are appropriate on the Second Amendment need not necessarily apply to the 1st. You guys love to repeat cool sounding phrases that you've read - even though they make no sense at all.
In terms of keeping up with technology, the statement is valid, while you are correct certain restrictions that would be more appropriate on the 2nd amendment would not necessarily apply to the first, they either have to be both read in terms of the technology at hand and commonly accessible to the average person at the time of being read, or both have to be read in terms of the technology available to the average person at the time of being written.
While rational and logical arguments can be made about the extent of the current tethnology may be used no rational logical argument exists to say only a certain era of technology can he used.
The restrictions that are appropriate on the Second Amendment need not necessarily apply to the 1st. Yeah, because shall not be infringed means "go ahead and infringe on it."
The question was about this silly refrain: "we have to apply it to all rights."Even Mike Z agreed it's wrong. And what you had to offer was taken from the 2A, not necessarily applicable to all of them.
I didn't agree to anything Mike, I simply said that there are restrictions that would apply to the 2nd that don't apply to others, such as there are no age requirements to by a computer, tablet or IPhone, but there are age requirements to buying a gun. There are no limitations on how big a hard drive you can have, how much info you can have on that hard drive or how fast you can send that info out, but there are limitations on how big a magazine you can have and how large a caliber and how fast you can shoot those rounds, such as automatic weapons and the like. So the statement remains valid, if any right keeps up with technology all rights have to. And if you claim that the only reason to own a gun was to participate in a militia, as you do below, why not say so? The breakdown of English I sent you sums that up perfectly. And if your interpretations is indeed the correct one, who decided that the militia was no longer neccesary and when? And more importantly why? We run straight into the logical brick wall or having a document whose very design is a limitation on government having a single amendment written solely for service to the government. It makes no sense. As far as the definition of a free state it could be interpreted as being a state meaning a governed body/geographical area or it could be viewed as a condition IE state of being free. But either way there's no rational way to view it as having any other intent than being meant for the people and being intended to function with current technology.
"I didn't agree to anything Mike, I simply said that there are restrictions that would apply to the 2nd that don't apply to others,"What's the matter with you, Mike? Does it hurt you to agree with something I've said?
I never agreed to applying the logic to all rights being wrong which is what you said. Being that they are different devices they function differently so there are standards, and manufacturing standards and training standards associated with them. So if you believe that only older standards of technology apply to the second amendment which is appears is the case, I do not agree by any stretch.
bastardization of the 2ASo to believe that the Second Amendment means now what it meant when firearms technology was less advanced is to "bastardize" it? The utter ridiculousness of that argument doesn't bother you at all?
It's not only about the advancements in weapons technology. It's also about the purpose of owning a gun in 1790, which was to be able to participate in the militia. You gun rights liars have warped the thing to be what you claim it is today.
It's also about the purpose of owning a gun in 1790, which was to be able to participate in the militia.I am the commander of my militia. It's a militia of one, and I regulate it quite well, thank you very much.
I'm sure the founders might have been scandalized at the direction technology has taken in regards to the First and Fourth Amendments, to say nothing of the classes of people who can now demand the protections such as women and minorities. Or perhaps they realized that this kind of thing was bound to happen and were forward thinking enough to include a process to further amend the Constitution, as we have done some seventeen times since the original.http://youtu.be/51clP7JRqv8
I'm sure the founders would be scandalized to see guns become such a killer in America for reasons not related to self defense and would agree with certain limitations.
Even though the murder rate back then was 5x what it is now, you think they'd be scandalized?
YESShow me your reference for that 5x number.
The gun shot death count is around 30,000, so you are telling us over 150,000 a year were dying by gun shot in in the 1770's?
"Show me your reference for that 5x number." TS likely will supply his own source, but here is what I found. A cool chart showing the homicide rate over the long term,http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
"The gun shot death count is around 30,000, so you are telling us over 150,000 a year were dying by gun shot in in the 1770's?" Sammy, first look to the original statement and notice the mention of homicides, which eliminates suicides and accidental deaths. Then look again at the same statement and notice the use of the term homicide rate. Something quite different than your use of total numbers. "2.5 millionIn July 1776, the estimated number of people living in the newly independent nation. Source: Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970 "http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb10-ff12.html
“Show me your reference for that 5x number”Ssgmarkcr’s link is fine by me. That’s the graph I recall seeing. We discussed it here.http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/“The gun shot death count is around 30,000, so you are telling us over 150,000 a year were dying by gun shot in in the 1770's?”Uh, no… the population of the United States was considerably smaller in the 1770’s than today. And I said “murder rates” not “Gun deaths”. When will you gun control supporters ever learn that they are not interchangeable?
"I'm sure the founders would be scandalized to see guns become such a killer in America for reasons not related to self defense and would agree with certain limitations." Besides the fact that the intent of the Second Amendment wasn't to protect the right to self defense from a civilian criminal, the first ten amendments are basically a list of limitations on the government. And there are already a good number of limitations on what arms civilians may own. Limitations on caliber, automatic fire capability, etc. There was even such a ban in place for ten years and it was allowed to sunset because they couldn't even show the ban had an affect on their misuse. To say nothing of the rarity of their use in crimes when compared to other types of firearms used to commit crimes.
To follow that logic would they be scandalized to see that all of the key freedoms mentioned are largely ignored? Free religious excercise, right to life? A virtually non existent 4th amendment? And to use the logic your using one would have to assume guns weren't misued in their era. And in reality now you are less likely to die of a gunshot that youu would have in that era.