But I think it’s fine to revisit parts of the constitution to see if they still make sense in a radically changed world. Note that we’re talking about amendments in the first place.
Freedom of speech is still basically OK as is (I don’t agree with the exact rules and exceptions, but it’s basically there). The right to bear arms OTOH we debate even what the intention of it was in the first place, and clearly it does not work as is in the modern world, where, absent restrictions, any shmoe could acquire the means to kill thousands of innocents.
I have no idea how accurate it is, but the Sharpe novels have guys urinating down the barrels of Napoleonic War rifles to clean the gunk out in an emergency.
It’s only effective if you are already convinced that more and stricter gun control/gun banning is necessary, and you are ignorant of the fact that gun laws HAVE changed…quite radically…since the 2nd was written. Just like communications technology has changed since the days of broadsheets and town criers, and our laws have changed wrt the 1st Amendment as well. This video plays on ignorance and the meme that things, wrt gun controls and laws are exactly what they were 200+ years ago.
You’re ignoring the fact that adaptability can go both ways. Mustn’t you also give credence to the idea that the founding fathers would support limiting the right to bear arms if they were alive today and saw how much said arms have changed?
Judging from their writings, I’d say they’d still be pretty dubious on political grounds of the idea of only troops and gendarmes having weapons, and the “body of the yeomanry” disarmed.
I don’t really give a flying fuck what the FF would do if they were alive today. We agree that we live by the words in the constitution, and if we don’t like them, we can change them ourselves. If not, then so be it.
Hey, I’m all for that. I was just questioning the idea that you can’t interpret the Constitution one way, without considering other alternatives, the flying fuck.
Nothing will change the view of the vast majority of those who want guns.
You cannot compare modern printing machines with modern weaponry. It is a logical fallacy; the comparison is not a logical analogy. There is simply no logical comparison. But the pro-gun people rarely use logic; it’s all a matter of emotion, like little children act when a toy is going to be taken away: they simply have tantrums and repeat the same set of cliche and non-logical reasons over and over again.
This gun control ad presents an actual logical argument against ‘the right to bear arms,’ but the pro-gun side will never accept it.
False analogy. There is no comparison between a modern printing press and a modern firearm.
And I didn’t use an ad hominem. I used a simile in making a point about a thinking process. I didn’t address my criticism toward ‘the man,’ I addressed it toward a thinking process. You don’t know your logic, obviously.
Why is there no comparison? Because you say so? Please show your work. BTW, the actual analogy being used is for all types of mass communication, not just the printing press.
Saying that the pro-gun side “throw tantrums” is attacking the man.
Simply comparing any two things on earth that are modern as opposed to their older, simpler versions is not logical. A modern weapon is many times more dangerous than an earlier one, as those at the time of the American revolution. A printing press and most other objects that have been modernized have not become more dangerous. Also, a printing press’s purpose is not to kill. A firearm’s purpose is to kill. You could just as well have used an outhouse and a modern flush toilet for your attempted analogy. There is no correlation. The point of the advertisement is that the modern firearm is more dangerous. The printing press and toilet are not, neither are they made for the purpose of killing. There is no correlation.
I criticized a thinking process, not the man. Read more carefully.
Simply comparing any two things on earth that are modern as opposed to their older, simpler versions is not logical. A modern weapon is many times more dangerous than an earlier one, as those at the time of the American revolution. A printing press and most other objects that have been modernized have not become more dangerous. Also, a printing press’s purpose is not to kill. A firearm’s purpose is to kill. You could just as well have used an outhouse and a modern flush toilet for your attempted analogy. There is no correlation. The point of the advertisement is that the modern firearm is more dangerous. The printing press and toilet are not, neither are they made for the purpose of killing. There is no correlation.
I criticized a thinking process, not the man. Read more carefully, and look up the definition of Ad Homenim
