Parkland, FL High School Shooting

[Moiraine]

nm

Edited February 23, 2018 by Moiraine

[Moiraine]

Just now, zoogs said:

The question Muck is asking is if the AR-15 can be carved out of the 2nd amendment, why can't the internet be carved out of the first amendment? Speak freely, but not online, because it's dangerous. Some will say it's not, that online speech is no different really from other forms of speech -- just as some will say the AR-15 is much like any other rifle.

 

This is not unreasonable, and it's why I just want the 2nd amendment gone, or at least restored. If all the 2nd amendment provided for was militia participation, this wouldn't be an issue. If it literally means "the rights of people to own guns", then banning something like the AR-15 is a restriction on liberty. Personally, I think we should be able to freely choose how to regulate (or not) different kinds of weapons, and each state or city should be able to experiment with their own regulations. It's ridiculous that we have interpreted the 2A in such a way that regulating the AR-15 becomes tantamount to adding more "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" exceptions to liberty.

 

 

 

He shouldn't need others to read his mind and translate for him.

[zoogs]

I know, I know -- I'm not here to defend his manner of posting. I just want to keep making my point that the NRA-warped interpretation of the 2nd amendment, codified by the Supreme Court in 2008, is a fundamental impediment that makes it all too easy to stop anything from moving forward.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, zoogs said:

The question Muck is asking is if the AR-15 can be carved out of the 2nd amendment, why can't the internet be carved out of the first amendment? Speak freely, but not online, because it's dangerous. Some will say it's not, that online speech is no different really from other forms of speech -- just as some will say the AR-15 is much like any other rifle.

 

This is not unreasonable, and it's why I just want the 2nd amendment gone, or at least restored. If all the 2nd amendment provided for was militia participation, this wouldn't be an issue. If it literally means "the rights of people to own guns", then banning something like the AR-15 is a restriction on liberty. Personally, I think we should be able to freely choose how to regulate (or not) different kinds of weapons, and each state or city should be able to experiment with their own regulations. It's ridiculous that we have interpreted the 2A in such a way that regulating the AR-15 becomes tantamount to adding more "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" exceptions to liberty.

 

 

If that really is his question, then it would have been nice for him to just articulate it instead of playing games.

 

Now, to the question.

 

This actually is being played out on the internet as we speak.  Both Twitter and Facebook are doing real soul searching and making major changes to how they operate so that their platforms are not used by extremists.  Twitter just closed down one heck of a lot of accounts that were tied to Russia and other extremist groups such as neo-Nazis.  Facebook is developing ways for them to monitor and block accounts that are used to further extremist views.  Guess what, conservative groups were outraged.  Go figure.

 

These efforts by these companies should be applauded and supported.

Edited February 23, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[TheSker]

5 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Personally, I think we should be able to freely choose how to regulate (or not) different kinds of weapons, and each state or city should be able to experiment with their own regulations.

 

Agreed.  This is very reasonable and provides efficiencies in both enactment and enforcement.

[zoogs]

@BigRedBuster, yeah, I follow a lot of the Twitter/FB stuff and don't really know what to feel about it. It's not really a constitutional issue there, since these are private services and users are all subject to the TOS. On the other hand, they're so big that they perform effectively a public utility. And as much as it seems to me like a good outcome that these Nazi accounts are being shut down, they're not the only ones. I have relatively little faith in the ability of these large companies to effectively arbitrate, and there are accounts on the other side that get shut down as well, sometimes for snapping back at Nazis. Also, the companies have no particular public conscience. They only need do enough to blunt some of the heat they're getting.

 

In general, I agree with the (libertarian?) view that these measures, on balance, are as likely to be deployed by authorities against the left as they are against the right. 

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, zoogs said:

In general, I agree with the (libertarian?) view that these measures, on balance, are as likely to be deployed by authorities against the left as they are against the right. 

 

News flash.

 

There are extremist groups on the left too.

[zoogs]

I don't mean "extremist"

Edited February 23, 2018 by zoogs

[StPaulHusker]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

That woman, the NRA spokesperson, is bats#!t crazy. She fabricated some attack at an event she was speaking at, claimed the crowd was chanting "burn her!" and all kinds of stuff. 

 

There's video of the event. None of that happened. 

She also claims she is armed with at least 2 guns at all times.  So clearly guns do nothing for personal protection

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, zoogs said:

I don't mean "extremist"

Well, I know your indignation and distrust runs deep with any large company.  But, I fully support these efforts.

 

Are there some accounts that will be caught in the middle?  Sure.  But, the more of the extremist accounts that are shut down, the fewer there will be on line and then the fewer legitimate accounts will be caught in the crossfire.  

We have a massive misinformation and extremist problem on social media.  I fully support efforts to shut that down as much as possible.

[zoogs]

OK, this is going to spin off into another discussion. I mean in general, including (and especially) when it comes to states. The global history of choosing people to silence is a good chunk of unsupportable efforts.

 

As for Twitter and Facebook, they're not equipped to handle this problem and shouldn't really be trusted to. Who doesn't fully support solving the massive misinformation problem? There's a difference between that and believing the companies will take care of it. This is an "us" problem, our susceptibility. And it requires an "us" solution.

Edited February 23, 2018 by zoogs

[Cdog923]

34 minutes ago, zoogs said:

The question Muck is asking is if the AR-15 can be carved out of the 2nd amendment, why can't the internet be carved out of the first amendment? Speak freely, but not online, because it's dangerous. Some will say it's not, that online speech is no different really from other forms of speech -- just as some will say the AR-15 is much like any other rifle.

 

This is not unreasonable, and it's why I just want the 2nd amendment gone, or at least restored. If all the 2nd amendment provided for was militia participation, this wouldn't be an issue. If it literally means "the rights of people to own guns", then banning something like the AR-15 is a restriction on liberty. Personally, I think we should be able to freely choose how to regulate (or not) different kinds of weapons, and each state or city should be able to experiment with their own regulations. It's ridiculous that we have interpreted the 2A in such a way that regulating the AR-15 becomes tantamount to adding more "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" exceptions to liberty.

 

 

My response to that would be that the founders put in methods by which you can interpret and, if necessary, alter the Constitution. The First Amendment has been redefined and interpreted by the courts a number of times throughout history, why can't the Second? 

[VectorVictor]

Interesting argument from a decidedly conservative partisan news site (The Federalist): that Assault Rifles must remain legal and readily accessible, because the Second Amendment protects our right to an armed overthrow of the government. Oh, and the school shootings and Vegas shootings suck, but that's the cost of protecting the Second Amendment. 

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/second-amendment-worth-dying/

 

Quote

Here it must be said that the Second Amendment was not meant to safeguard the right to hunt deer or shoot clay pigeons, or even protect your home and family from an intruder. The right to bear arms stems from the right of revolution, which is asserted in the Declaration of Independence and forms the basis of America’s social compact... 

 

...That might sound academic or outlandish next to the real-life horror of a school shooting, but the fact remains that we can’t simply wave off the Second Amendment any more than we can wave off the First, or the Fourth, or any of them. They are constitutive elements of the American idea, without which the entire constitutional system would eventually collapse.

 

I think we're starting to have the real conversation here--why is there a fringe minority so hell bent on protecting their bastardized interpretation of the Second Amendment at the expense of public safety. Because in their mind, armed insurrection against the Federal Government is a right granted to them, and one that will be taken from their cold, dead hands. 

[Moiraine]

@BigRedBuster, I think zoogs is arguing that it could set a bad precedent. Not that it just shouldn't be used against the wholly innocent left.

 

It (slightly) makes me think of the GOP (and Democrats before them) reducing voting requirements down to a majority instead of 60 votes, or using gerrymandering. If they keep doing the former, and the supreme court says the latter is legal, it could come back to haunt them in the future.

 

The same thing could be said for anyone who wants one group or another to be silenced by Twitter or FB. Yes I want fake news Russian accounts banned. But then these social media companies might take it a step further, then another step, etc.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Moiraine

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

My response to that would be that the founders put in methods by which you can interpret and, if necessary, alter the Constitution. The First Amendment has been redefined and interpreted by the courts a number of times throughout history, why can't the Second? 

 

 

They also made it so there could be amendments in the first place.