Why is the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct, but not any other? -

Lodoss Warrior

Holding up the Torch for Lodoss
kiwifarms.net
That's pretty much the case with some of them.

Really, people view the 2nd as having way more implicit rights than it actually grants compared to any other amendment aside from the 10th. The second is a nightmare for interpretation because said literally, it invalidates all gun laws, despite the founders making and accepting firearms laws themselves. The drift in intended language also doesn't help with some amendments.
Not to get too tangential from the amendment at hand, but would you say this problem of interpretation and implicit rights is similar to debated existence of a right to privacy?

I know enough to say that it's never explicitly written in the constitution, and this lends some credence to Judge Thomas's view that it doesn't exist as a protected right. Others say it's implied in the 4th amendment.

Fun conversation going on about the 2nd amendment's historical context so far. Can't believe I'm saying that in a Kiwi Farms thread.
 

Meat Target

Your friendly neighborhood misanthrope
kiwifarms.net
All manmade laws are ultimately bullshit and owning weapons has always been the main difference between free men and slaves. The freedom to shoot at any faggot trying to enslave you is the original freedom from which all other freedoms spring. A man without weapons is not free
And this is what the boomercons mean when they say RKBA is a "God-given" right. Your right to defend yourself from an unjust aggressor is your right as a human being. You have that right even if it were not spelled out in the Constitution.

The Constitution/the government does not give you rights. It acknowledges and protects them. Nor are your rights subject to the popular vote; otherwise, the outnumbered become outlaws.
 

Techpriest

Praise the Machine Spirits
kiwifarms.net
Not to get too tangential from the amendment at hand, but would you say this problem of interpretation and implicit rights is similar to debated existence of a right to privacy?

I know enough to say that it's never explicitly written in the constitution, and this lends some credence to Judge Thomas's view that it doesn't exist as a protected right. Others say it's implied in the 4th amendment.

Fun conversation going on about the 2nd amendment's historical context so far. Can't believe I'm saying that in a Kiwi Farms thread.
Yes - it very much is similar to the privacy debate. A lot of it comes down to the push and shove between the founding fathers of how much the constitution should actually concretely lay out as 'this is what this means no changes', and how much wiggleroom should they allow in it. Put simply, the constitution cannot cover every single case ever of every kind of scenario, that's just not possible with any document. This of course leads to issues, and is part of why even the role of the supreme court has some question marks in it. The Judiciary in the original constitution really couldn't do much. The first supreme court managed to actually make itself important through the idea of 'judicial review', essentially the idea that they can declare if a law is constitutional or not, even on the state level. This is not ever explicitly stated to be a power of theirs in the constitution (and some judges don't like it like Thomas despite doing it), but it's something implicitly given to them from interpretation of the constitution. Or well, the interpretation by the supreme court of the constitution.

I'm more of a historical guy than a serious scholar of the constitution, and I really don't think that the founders ever intended the constitution to be an immutable, uninterpretable, literal word of god document where every word must be followed strictly to the letter. Otherwise we wouldn't have the amendment process (which didn't scale well at all compared to what the founders thought the size of the country would be compared to what it became but I digress) or the Supreme Court. They were above all, practical people who wanted practical solutions and a practical system - and for the people to decide what changes could be made later on down the line.
 
Last edited:

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
The 2nd is used as an excuse to carry high powered weapons to make mostly insecure white men feel powerful.

The irony of the 2nd is that it is purported by its religious followers to somehow imply the government can not become overlords. However, even a second rate military is unconcerned by anything under a scud missile, so I am not sure how worried the US Government really is.

I certainly do not see a thousand AR-15's as any match for a cargo bay full of napalm.

Perhaps if they really realized that if the 2nd meant anything then they should be allowed to own tanks, missiles, warplanes and the like.

The AR-15 has been given to them and accepted as a slightly worthy prize when in fact it is an embarrassingly poor bribe. Let them rejoice as a government (red or blue) ridicules them behind closed doors at what they actually accepted rather than what the 2nd actually entitled them to.

All manmade laws are ultimately bullshit and owning weapons has always been the main difference between free men and slaves. The freedom to shoot at any faggot trying to enslave you is the original freedom from which all other freedoms spring. A man without weapons is not free
Since when is there any society that was free because they had weapons? Can you name one? It's certainly not the USA. Seems free, isn't really at all - you've got privilege here, but not actual freedom and you've confused the two. It sounds good what you say scrolled on a toilet wall - but it's bullshit. What keeps you a slave aren't the laws at all - it's your moral compass because almost everyone has one. If you are a thief, you will steal, law or no law, whether the victim has a gun or does not.

If you even believed a word you are saying then you'd already have shot countless people. We live in a society and societies require laws. Even Jesus had to be told by civilization it wasn't OK to have slaves.

What you want is a kingdom; your own patch where everybody thinks like you. You can find such a place - my guess is the day you find it, you'll want out pretty quick. And anyone you've ever liked that you demanded it from, has probably left you long ago - to think for themselves.
 

Similar threads

Top