Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
God QI is such perfection.
Riders and Pork, are one thing. And should be done away with as much as possible. Too much simplicity is what opens up a lot loopholes, by allowing lawyers, lawmakers & the courts to start 'interpreting' simple language for more complex situations, in either direction of the political spectrum.
Case in point: The Second Amendment.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't know how much clearer "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be. Just a bunch of squeamish prevarication has muddled the issue. That, and our washingtonian overlords only believe in enforcing the law, or indeed, the very concept of the rule of law, when it suits them.
Kind of like how now we've decided we're going to supply arms to known and avowed terrorist groups, declaring a "time out" on the AECA to get around that whole "this is actually committing treason" thing. With bipartisan support, by the by.
By that logic, that sentence alone is enough. It doesn't say you can also buy bullets, though, for example. There's also no definition at all included of "arms" - do laser guns count? And hey, no age restrictions, or disallowing proisoners, or anything. Too much simplicity and brevity is not a good thing. The opposite is possibly worse.
GasBandit
Staff member
"Prisoners" is a strawman - all their other rights are already curtailed. But hey, I owned ("kept and bared") my first rifle when I was 10. Bullets is also splitting hairs - though many people already make/remanufacture their own.
And fuck yes laser guns count. You know as soon as that technology becomes viable to the point of combat portability, there'll be a shift to it. The whole idea, clearly laid out by the discussions of the time, was that if you'd expect a regular soldier to carry it, it must be available for private purchase and ownership. That's the real meaning of the term "well REGULATED militia."
This is one of the main things Gas and I always agree about: it's really all or nothing. The entire intent behind the amendment was for the common man to be able to defend himself against a state sanctioned group looking to oppress him. This means that he needs to have the opportunity and right to possess all the tools a typical soldier would have available to them. Otherwise those who would be oppressed do not have the means to fight those that would oppress.
The founding fathers did not imagine a world where the assault rifle would exist. However, they already lived in one where those willing to use it against them unjustly existed. The 2nd amendment was simply a device to prevent such an inequality again.
Assume a scifi future where current-tech guns are next-to-useless due to other technological improvements (for all I care through genetic modification we've all become fast enouh to dodge bullets effortlessly, I dunno - I'm talking hypothetics here for a second). The only things still useful/feasible in any sort of fight-the-power way are lightsabers orbital lasers power armor Doohickies. The problem being that Doohickies are prohibitively expensive for normal individuals. The state has a small army which are supplied with these - cost is not as much a factor since casulaties are so low and all that. Say each Doohicky would cost $5.000.000 modern-day-equivalents. Not because of taxes or crap, simply the production process (Doohickies can only be made with Expensivium, found in select asteroids in the Kuyper Belt).
Would the fact that only 1% of the population can afford a Doohickey break the 2nd Amendment? Would you ask for government intervention (subsidies or elsewise) to lower prices to keep Doohickies available for the common man?
Would the fact that only 1% of the population can afford a Doohickey break the 2nd Amendment? Would you ask for government intervention (subsidies or elsewise) to lower prices to keep Doohickies available for the common man?
No it isn't. There's a huge difference between "capability to kill a person" and "capability to stand against an armed soldier/be armed in a simila manner".
Heck, plenty of SF universes where such is the case. Take Starship Troopers. Sure, you can have all the funs you want - but one cap trooper will make mincemeat out of a thousand people with regular guns, because he's practically impervious to anythign up to antitank weaponry.
Besides, I've neevr heard the 2nd Amendment applied to knifes or pillows, both perfectly capable murder weapons.
No. The second ammendment (all of the Bill of Rights really) is about government restrictions and preventing excess involvement. Now if the government were to tax the cost of arms to be insanely prohibitively expensive you would start getting into infringing territory.
But this very difference is what I'm asking about. I can have a million full automatic guns, if the opponent has just one Dune-style kinetic shield, he can cut me to ribbons. In such a world, applying the 2nd amendment to rifles would be useless - they'd be a hunting tool, a murder weapon, but not a weapon giving the capacity to stand up to the Man. Would that mean everyone should be able/allowed to acquire a shield, while the uzi could be retired and restricted, or not? Or is it open for uinterpretation at that point? Where or how does one draw the line is all I'm saying - people clinging to a vision of the Founding Fathers having foreseen everything, completely and utterly, with no possibility for error or for being overtaken by science/society evolving are even more blind than those thinking the Bible or Qoran is to be taken literally and as 100% complete and utter truth - for no-one claims the FF were anything but fallible humans.
But no, this is not the right thread.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Heh, the American Revolution being fought by Aussie knife-nuts and college girls with pillows. That's my mental image of this debate from now on
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't see why this is confusing for you. The fact that we have body armor and automatic weapons now doesn't mean people still can't buy/keep bows and arrows, regardless their continued lethality despite obsolescence and relative uselessness against an army. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And yes, that means dune shields and doohickeys.
Just had to get my last 2 cents in now that we're all agreeing this isn't the thread
The government (city, state, fed, whichever) already habitually engages in the practice of onerous licensing fees/procedures for plenty of the things it doesn't like, thankyewverymuch.
--Patrick
I'm not confused - sure, you could have everything you wanted...But if what was required to go toe to toe with a soldier was impossible to afford for Jope Trader, the 2nd Am. fails, is all I'm saying.I don't see why this is confusing for you. The fact that we have body armor and automatic weapons now doesn't mean people still can't buy/keep bows and arrows, regardless their continued lethality despite obsolescence and relative uselessness against an army. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And yes, that means dune shields and doohickeys.
Just had to get my last 2 cents in now that we're all agreeing this isn't the thread
No it doesn't. The right to own something in that case is not impeded, you just can't afford it.
Right. The amendment is not stating your right to be armed. Instead, it is stating your right not to be disarmed.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not sure what "Jope Trader" is, but if you're thinking that the army outfits grunts in with weapons that cost millions per unit, you're overestimating even our military budget just a tad. Remember, the AR-15 is the civilian lookalike of the M-16, which is still our standard issue, and costs about $1000. The only difference is that the AR-15 doesn't come with a full auto setting. It's technically possible to convert it up, but accepted (if unconstitutional, imo) laws currently on the books make that illegal.[DOUBLEPOST=1379800431,1379800351][/DOUBLEPOST]
Exactly. I often bring this up when people talk about the "right" to healthcare. Of course you have a right to healthcare. Whatever healthcare you can afford. I have a right to a gun, it doesn't mean the government has to buy it for me.
The only differences between a full size M16 and an AR15 are...
- Shot selector: Single or Full Auto
- A single, small plate in the receiver. The AR15 ones prevent the gun from doing a part of the process necessary for it to fire in full auto.
Anyone with basic metal working tools can make a new one and install it for a few bucks, returning the gun to full auto. However, ownership of the modified plates is illegal. Coincidentally, this is why the receiver is the only part of the gun that is considered a "gun" for legal reasons. You can buy every other part for a gun without any kind of ID checking.
GasBandit
Staff member
"This is my body, given for you. Do this in rememberence of me. Because I'm so freakin' delicious."
Transubstantiation aside, I think the thing you're missing...is the fact that it's a cake.
--Patrick
Your spouse?cross post from my political thread:
figmentPez
Staff member
Not a picture, but a quote that's been going around Tumblr
Buying bullets was a strategy that worked in Oregon Trail, at least on the Apple II version. Skilled hunting and savvy trading could get you a lot more resources than you could have otherwise.
