Why we DO need weapons of war...

[GripItAndRipIt]

I kinda doubt it...I have seen what a .50 caliber round ball will do to steel plates and gongs..
Not saying that a muzzle loading rifle of .50 caliber would be my first choice for use against a AI bot....

Oh and for future reference .50 caliber would be uncommon and on the small size for a musket.
Most muskets were in the .67 - .80 caliber range.....

More to the point of the OP.....
"...the right of people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed ."
This bit of the 2nd Amendment is very important for what it says...and what it doesn't say.

As in it doesn't say :
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , but only Arms of certain types and for specific uses , shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment does say "Arms"...followed with no exclusions or exceptions...
Which would mean that there is no limit to be placed on just what Arms that one can keep or bear.

However , that is only my reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Which is sadly , different that how many if not most of our so-called representatives read it.
Andy

There is no asterisk, true. And to wit: The 2A is the most plainly-stated, least equivocal of all the ammendments. Therefore, it is the least open to interpretation.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Assume for a moment that we inadvertently create AGI and it not only self improves it's own code base but has open access to the internet.

It's safe to assume that it would replicate and infect every system it has access to. All it would take is yoinking those systems offline and using backups to restore to pre-AI days and you've (at least temporarily) removed the node.

AI could wreak some havoc but in the end could be easily contained back to its data centers. Computers don't last forever. How fast would AI burn up the read/write cycles on an SSD?

Until we get to a machines making machines scenario, I see nothing to fret about.

What I'm more salty about is big tech employers using AI as the next outsourcing. Business saw what happens when you outsource programming to poorly trained 3rd or 2nd world countries in the early 00's and they ended up bringing programming back on shore. I see them already gearing up to use AI in place of expensive programmers instead of in tandem with or to increase productivity.

Still, even if used to increase productivity, will those programmers reap any rewords for being able to complete 2 months worth of work in 2 weeks? We'll see just another ballooning of C-suite salaries while the peon checks remain stagnant.

Think of how much damage a malicious human could do with AI powered coding. Now THERE'S your doomsday.

I think that is the logical progression: AI replicates itself in any device capable, makes its own robot army, and boom it's over for us meatbags... The drone swarms alone FFS!

As it already possesses the sum total of all human knowledge, it will be a worthy adversary.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

There is no asterisk, true. And to wit: The 2A is the most plainly-stated, least equivocal of all the ammendments. Therefore, it is the least open to interpretation.

I agree however...
The irony here is that for being the least equivocal Amendment it is arguably the most open to interpretation.
Andy

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I agree however...
The irony here is that for being the least equivocal Amendment it is arguably the most open to interpretation.
Andy

Just because it is being wildly interpreted doesn't mean it's open to interpretation. We the people have long allowed the state to infringe on our rights - or the rights of others - when it feels good.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just because it is being wildly interpreted doesn't mean it's open to interpretation. We the people have long allowed the state to infringe on our rights - or the rights of others - when it feels good.

I disagree....

You don't hear folks interpreting the 1st Amendment to being limited to pens , pencils , crayons , the printing press ,etc...
When it comes to free speech.

However you do hear folks interpreting the 2nd Amendment as to meaning only certain firearms and only for certain uses.

So yes the 2nd Amendment , despite its being plainly written is open to various interpretations.
Andy

 

[red442joe]

There is no asterisk, true. And to wit: The 2A is the most plainly-stated, least equivocal of all the ammendments. Therefore, it is the least open to interpretation.

Accepting The 2A is "open to interpretation" is a fallacy the anti-gunners drool over.

Joe

 

[red442joe]

One may have to "live" with authoritarian "interpretation" of The 2A....
I for one, will NEVER accept that The 2A is "open" to interpretation by tyrants, unsure Citizens, and scum anti-gunners. Nor will I ever be kind, in word or deed, to those "open to interpretation" of The 2A.

Joe

 

[American123]

The history of war on this planet is extensive.

Asking why "we need" weapons of war is like asking why we want to be able to defend ourselves and not be killed, enslaved, or subjugated by others.

 

[Koda]

Accepting The 2A is "open to interpretation" is a fallacy the anti-gunners drool over.

Joe

Anything written down is open to interpretation. Understanding this is not the same as accepting anything.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

To be clear here , since it seems as if my point has been lost / overlooked / not understood....

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed ."
Means to me....
That one can keep and bear any sort of Arms they wish.

However....
Many other folks would disagree with that meaning or dare I say interpretation.

The fact that I see the 2nd Amendment as clear and plainly written....really only matters to me.
Just as does my meaning / interpretation / perspective of it.

It is important to understand what the 2nd Amendment says , why it says what it does...
As well as what those who wrote it felt / thought or meant it said .
The words they chose are very important.....
What they wrote is just as important as what they didn't write into it.

Again in my post #37 I mention this :

"...the right of people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed ."
This bit of the 2nd Amendment is very important for what it says...and what it doesn't say.

As in it doesn't say :
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , but only Arms of certain types and for specific uses , shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment does say "Arms"...followed with no exclusions or exceptions...
Which would mean that there is no limit to be placed on just what Arms that one can keep or bear.

This is a vitally important , yet often overlooked point.
Because it is overlooked /ignored or not considered...makes for one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment is debated today...
Or being open to interpretation.
Andy

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think that is the logical progression: AI replicates itself in any device capable, makes its own robot army, and boom it's over for us meatbags... The drone swarms alone FFS!

As it already possesses the sum total of all human knowledge, it will be a worthy adversary.

Thank the jesus our ICBM systems are 286SX's that have never been online.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Anything written down is open to interpretation. Understanding this is not the same as accepting anything.

What is is?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I disagree....

You don't hear folks interpreting the 1st Amendment to being limited to pens , pencils , crayons , the printing press ,etc...
When it comes to free speech.

However you do hear folks interpreting the 2nd Amendment as to meaning only certain firearms and only for certain uses.

So yes the 2nd Amendment , despite its being plainly written is open to various interpretations.

The 1A, ironically, only prohibits Congress from infringing. If California wants to make the International Church of Climate Change the official state religion and require mandatory daily prayer to St. Greta, the 1A would appear to not prohibit it from doing so.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I disagree....

You don't hear folks interpreting the 1st Amendment to being limited to pens , pencils , crayons , the printing press ,etc...
When it comes to free speech.

However you do hear folks interpreting the 2nd Amendment as to meaning only certain firearms and only for certain uses.

So yes the 2nd Amendment , despite its being plainly written is open to various interpretations.
Andy

"Shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation as it is written. That "folks" choose to do so anyway does not change this fact.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Anything written down is open to interpretation. Understanding this is not the same as accepting anything.

Please explain how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation." Thank you.

 

[solv3nt]

"Shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation as it is written. That "folks" choose to do so anyway does not change this fact.

I can interpret anything I want when I want and you can't tell me I can't.






That's how....

 

[solv3nt]

 

[Andy54Hawken]

"Shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation as it is written. That "folks" choose to do so anyway does not change this fact.

Again the irony here is that whether or not you agree with me or anyone else ...
Does not change the fact that the 2nd Amendment is indeed open to interpretation.

In any event....
I am not at all interested in circular conversation or discussions...and in the interest of not clogging up a thread with more of why I disagree with you...and you disagreeing with me....
I will not be replying to you on this subject any longer.
Andy

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I can interpret anything I want when I want and you can't tell me I can't.






That's how....

Sure you can do whatever you want... but not if you want to live in a rational universe. This is how we get men having menstrual periods and people with penises winning womens' swimming championships.

Words have meaning. Until they don't.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Please, tell me how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation" as you assert. Thank you.