National What is 2A absolutism?

[Alexx1401]

Just saying where it started to snowball from.

The real problem is not 100 years ago though. Its right here every couple years when it comes time to vote. Instead of clawing back freedom we keep giving more up. A LOT of the people supporting more loss are the first ones to scream when it bites them in the butt.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The real problem is not 100 years ago though. Its right here every couple years when it comes time to vote. Instead of clawing back freedom we keep giving more up. A LOT of the people supporting more loss are the first ones to scream when it bites them in the butt.

I'm referring of course to NFA,which every Court have upheld consistently, and used as an example of "why ""some"" restrictions on 2A are OK"... And which has given us the 68 GCA, and then the Hughes Amendment, and every State level gun control law.

 

[Alexx1401]

I'm referring of course to NFA,which every Court have upheld consistently, and used as an example of "why ""some"" restrictions on 2A are OK"... And which has given us the 68 GCA, and then the Hughes Amendment, and every State level gun control law.

That is just one of the "compromises" that go on and on and on. "Rights" mean nothing other than what some black robe tells you they mean. Sadly a LOT of gun owners just keep voting for more loss. We did not get in this mess quickly and if we were to climb out it would not be quick. Only really sad part to me is we are still losing steady. We as a whole are getting just what we ask for and deserve. I used to think we would reach a point were most would wake up and start to vote better. I no longer think that will happen. If I am still this side of the soil in a couple decades I fully expect we will have laws like the UK that too many of "us" asked for.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

As I said in my first post here...
We already have over 20,000 firearm laws , bans , restrictions , regulations , etc...in place.
If those were the answer...then there wouldn't be a problem.

Limits and the like on a Right do nothing but undermine that Right.

I am sick and damn tired of being the one who has to deal with the consequences of someone else's actions.

I have not harmed anyone with my firearms....yet I have to :
Deal with a waiting period...magazine and firearm restrictions ...needing a permit to carry concealed ...require a licensed FFL to conduct a firearm transaction....and not only that , I have to pay for the background check.....
All because of some criminal...and their actions..

I have not broken the law...yet I am coerced into obeying laws , bans and the like , that punish me...not the criminal
Again...I am tired of having to "Grin and bear it....in order to enjoy a Right.
Andy

 

[obesechess]

2a absolutism means you think 2a says what you want it to and not what it actually does. Also tends to come with a dramatic flair.

I think that's how most constitutional absolutism works though.
"My job fired me because I called a customer a f***ing f***-*** piece of s*** motherf***er! Whatever happened to the first amendment!?"
"Of course the cops can search your car if they don't like your bumper stickers! What's that got to do with the fourth amendment?"
etc etc

 

[monkeybutler]

I think that's how most constitutional absolutism works though.

Yeah.

Anything I don't like is against the constitution.

I find malted milk balls repulsive. They are unconstitutional.

 

[obesechess]

2A Absolutism: If any Federal, State, or Local police or government agency is allowed to own/possess/use any device, then so are the citizens of the US.
Without exception. Period.

honestly I'd tend to agree with this, though I would prefer for there to be a correction in the other direction as I am very wary of the amount of firepower the government is allowed to wield against its citizens. There should be stuff that nobody gets to have, or everybody gets to have, but no "I get to have this but you don't."

For example, if you were in downtown Portland in 2020, even if you were far away from the protests/riots, you were exposed to hexachloroethane gas, which has been banned in Europe since 2003 because it's potentially lethal in large enough doses, and poses a severe risk of lung cancer if you are exposed to smaller doses. Again, this is regardless of whether or not you were at the riots, because chemical weapons don't pick targets, they just linger in the air. People got sick just sitting in their apartments minding their own business or going to work, because their apartments or offices happened to be nearby.

I don't think the government should be able to use potentially lethal chemical weapons against citizens, but if they can, then fair's fair.

 

[mithrandir]

Inciting to violence is not protected speech, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not protected speech.


It's not protected from CONSEQUENCES, but nothing keeps one from actually doing those things except fear of the CONSEQUENCES of abusing your rights.


Same thing applies to the 2A, misuse and/or abuse your rights, you lose your rights.... and maybe your life. Just like the 1A

Inciting to violence is a good example. Iirc, fire in a theater was the rationale used to curtail communist advocacy. I'm no fan of commies, but political speech is core 1A and I think that was a bad SCOTUS decision.

I find malted milk balls repulsive. They are unconstitutional.

Take it back!

 

[wired]

honestly I'd tend to agree with this, though I would prefer for there to be a correction in the other direction as I am very wary of the amount of firepower the government is allowed to wield against its citizens. There should be stuff that nobody gets to have, or everybody gets to have, but no "I get to have this but you don't."

For example, if you were in downtown Portland in 2020, even if you were far away from the protests/riots, you were exposed to hexachloroethane gas, which has been banned in Europe since 2003 because it's potentially lethal in large enough doses, and poses a severe risk of lung cancer if you are exposed to smaller doses. Again, this is regardless of whether or not you were at the riots, because chemical weapons don't pick targets, they just linger in the air. People got sick just sitting in their apartments minding their own business or going to work, because their apartments or offices happened to be nearby.

I don't think the government should be able to use potentially lethal chemical weapons against citizens, but if they can, then fair's fair.

You mean a smoke bomb? Chemical weapons? OK.

 

[obesechess]

Inciting to violence is a good example. Iirc, fire in a theater was the rationale used to curtail communist advocacy. I'm no fan of commies, but political speech is core 1A and I think that was a bad SCOTUS decision.

Take it back!

I am both a free speech absolutist and a communist, but you and I are united in our affinity for malted milk balls. Every day we find new common ground with our neighbors.

 

[obesechess]

You mean a smoke bomb? Chemical weapons? OK.

No, I mean hexachloroethane (HC) gas, which is very different than tear gas or smoke bombs.

 

[wired]

No, I mean hexachloroethane (HC) gas, which is very different than tear gas or smoke bombs.

I was a chemical weapons technical escort in the Army. Its a smoke bomb.

 

[Jay Walk]

Name one restriction that is constitutional.

I'll wait

 

[wired]

Name one restriction that is constitutional.

I'll wait

According to SCOTUS? Who determines the constitutionality of laws in our country? I'll wait.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'll be the first to say I don't think illegal immigrants have any constitutional rights. But that's just me.

The Constitution is pretty cool in that it uses the words "the people" and "citizens" when talking about different things, so not "just you" but you are not in the same group as the founding Fathers and the writers of the Constitution

 

[obesechess]

I was a chemical weapons technical escort in the Army. Its a smoke bomb.

With all due respect, do you feel that this is a useful distinction?

Is there something I said that you specifically take issue with other than the semantics of whether or not a "chemical" being used as a "weapon" in the form of a "bomb" that emits "smoke" is a "chemical weapon" or a "smoke bomb?" Feels like you're just kinda bustin' my balls here.

 

[Jay Walk]

Get used to it.

 

[wired]

With all due respect, do you feel that this is a useful distinction?

Is there something I said that you specifically take issue with other than the semantics of whether or not a "chemical" being used as a "weapon" in the form of a "bomb" that emits "smoke" is a "chemical weapon" or a "smoke bomb?"

Its a smoke agent not a chemical weapon. Will it make you sick if you breathe in smoke from a short distance away? Of course it will. It will burn you if you pick it up because its burning inside. If you get hit on the head with it when it is launched in your direction it will hurt. It is NOT a chemical weapon . Having breathed in a metric crapload of that stuff I'd much rather breathe that in than CS gas which they should have used. CS is not a chemical weapon either. Is it banned in Europe? Everything's banned in Europe.

 

[mithrandir]

Name one restriction that is constitutional.

I'll wait

Tentatively, I think (1) restrictions on large arms are/could be constitutional under any of strict scrutiny, Heller, or Bruen/Rahimi, e.g. artillery, nukes, and (2) procurement, possession, and use of small arms is the core right contained in the 2A. Something I'm still thinking through, so I hold this provisionally.

 

[obesechess]

Its a smoke agent not a chemical weapon. Will it make you sick if you breathe in smoke from a short distance away? Of course it will. It will burn you if you pick it up because its burning inside. If you get hit on the head with it when it is launched in your direction it will hurt. It is NOT a chemical weapon . Having breathed in a metric crapload of that stuff I'd much rather breathe that in than CS gas which they should have used. CS is not a chemical weapon either.

I guess I define "chemical weapon" as "a chemical that is being used as a weapon" and don't really understand the distinction.

My larger point is that I don't think anyone should have certain types of weapons, especially not those that cause indiscriminate harm to people, and I'd prefer if the government and law enforcement were LESS militarized, but if the government can use them against its citizens then its citizens should be able to have those things too. Seems consistent to me, but would probably have to think on it more.