The 2nd amendment has become an absurd right because due to technological advancement it must necessarily be severely limited for the good of society - you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction. Retaining a right but in a defunct state is itself dangerous as it makes it possible to contemplate broad limitations to other rights.

Could this line of reasoning be applied to other amendments of the US constitution? For example, could one claim that the right to free speech is only limited to forms of communication that existed at the time the amendment was ratified, which would exclude video or online communication? What about the fourth amendment and what it covers? Should we exclude forms of stored information that weren't available in the 18th century?

I think the poster wasn't making a principled argument that rights granted by the constitution only apply to 18th century technology, but that, at some point, pragmatism must be considered. I know I railed against pragmatism in my post, but that was aimed at over-reliance on it - it doesn't mean it should be (or even could be!) ignored.

While there's a gray area where there can be disagreement as to whether it is sufficient justification, after a certain point, pragmatism must prevail. Using the 2nd amendment as example, lets say we allow guns and rifles. And grenades? RPGs? Tanks? Chemical weapons (nerve gas, not pepper spray)? Biological weapons (smallpox, not guard dogs)? The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a bioengineered plague, is a good guy with a bioengineered plague?

> pragmatism must be considered. I know I railed against pragmatism in my post, but that was aimed at over-reliance on it - it doesn't mean it should be (or even could be!) ignored.

It should always be ignored. If the states want to ban people from having tanks and jet fighters, they can adopt a new amendment. There's already a process to account for these types of things.

It's not that difficult. Conventional arms serve the political autonomy and self-defense of the individual. Weapons of mass destruction and untargetable contagions do not.

That sounds more like a post-hoc justification, and I'm sure you could find similar ones for other rights - I gave just one out of many possible examples. Private property is great, until you're faced with a monopoly or environmental damage, free speech is wonderful, until you run into libel and threats, being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" likewise only applies as long as is "reasonable".

Post-hoc?? Defense of the free state is the explicit reason given!

I'm sure bombs and nerve gas can be used for defense. And we will soon have the ability to make targeted plagues.

"For example, could one claim that the right to free speech is only limited to forms of communication that existed at the time the amendment was ratified, which would exclude video or online communication?"

Yes. Maybe not simply video but what about a deep-fake video designed to deceive people that is indistinguishable from a genuine video? At some point unique cases arise that require careful judgement. This is what the judicial system is for, to provide "judgement" on things which were not anticipated by the law.

Sometimes those unique cases were only once unique but become ubiquitous due to changes in technology, geography, climate, or society.

right to privacy is an example. There's talk about this all over the place but it was only evident that people had an expectation and desire to exercise this right after it started getting abused by technology and technology companies.

The bill of rights contains what it does because the founders had just had experience with many of those rights being curtailed.

Private militarized ships were a thing when the Bill of Rights was written, so private citizens did have the technological capability to level entire villages or sink commerce ships full of unarmed citizens if they felt; hell with a letter of Marque there were endorsed by the government to do so. Beside the original intention of the amendment was a failsafe against government tyranny, which makes it necessary to keep up with their level of technology.

>>the original intention of the amendment was a fail-safe against government tyranny

Citation needed. There's a constant debate about what the "framers' intent" of any part of Bill of Rights actually were. You say it was to prevent government tyranny (presumably including a future tyrannical U.S. government). I say it was specifically to ensure access to a fighting force specifically to fight the British and foreign threats in order to establish a new government.

The framers were obviously varied in their opinions and intentions, but some of them were quite clear:

>"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights

>"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry, contributor to the Bill of Rights

>"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton

>"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, delegate to the Continental Congress

Here's the thing: Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a standing army and saw it as a tool of oppressors. If you want a second amendment, you need to also support defunding the military and a return to militias and mercenaries. But that's not usually the argument presented. Also there's been a federal standing army basically since the US was founded.

Now, let's go to Madison, the father of the Constitution and all that. He firmly opposed a professional (i.e. standing) army when he wrote the constitution. Tool of tyrants, yadda yadda. However, President Madison who exists 30 years in the future, comes out and says "I could never have believed so great a difference existed between regular troops and a militia force, if I not witnessed the scenes of this day." in response to 2 state militias getting demolished by the British Army.

IDK. They put the 2nd amendment in, and then immediately undermine the philosophical point of governance it's meant to make. Democracy is weird, government is hard, and coming up with 100% accurate statements about the unified sentiments of a group of dozens/hundreds of people from 250 years ago is impossible. I guess that's my point?

“If you want a second amendment, you need to also support defunding the military and a return to militias and mercenaries.”

That doesn’t follow from this:

“Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a standing army and saw it as a tool of oppressors.”

Why not? If the 2nd amendment is in place to prevent the need for a standing army by allowing for militias to exist and serve as the defense force therefor the maintenance of a standing army is unneeded. The other option is that you support a standing army which is a tool of oppression.

Either you support the 2nd amendment as a means of national defense or your support handing the tools of oppression to the government, per the founding fathers.

Where did you get the idea that the only purpose of a “well-regulated militia” is to completely replace a standing army? Just because some of the founders were against the idea of standing armies doesn’t mean that they saw it as an “either/or” proposition.

> The 2nd amendment has become an absurd right because due to technological advancement it must necessarily be severely limited for the good of society

No, it became absurd because it's underlying purpose was abandoned and the governments in the US at all levels adopted professional armed internal and external security services, and thebwholet point of having an RKBA to support the viability of well-regulated militias was so that those militias would be what states and the federal government would rely on exclusively, beyond very minimal cadres, for armed security services.

The whole absurd mythology around the RKBA being to provide the ability for citizens to provide a reserve capacity to fight the professional Government forces in the event the government becomes tyrannical is a product of trying to rationalize the amendment once it's underlying premise has been abandoned.

> you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction.

I'm not convinced there is a fundamental reason why bearing most modern heavy weapons within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions is incompatible with public safety; clearly “carry everything everywhere” maximalism isn't, but then that's never been understood by the courts to be the scope of the RKBA even when it concerns whatever weapons the court felt were within it's coverage.

Wouldn't this line of thinking then apply to any rights that have their scope significantly changed by later disruptive technology, including commercial flight?

e.g. Free movement across the US was fine while it was on foot, horseback, or even train, but once commercial flight allowed for coast-to-coast movement in a couple of hours one can't apply the same rights.

Well good news then, because Real ID is a thing.

> you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction

You actually can, subject to local regulations, and it is permitted in some States. An American can own a ballistic missile if they register it and store it safely. Even in the 1990s, buying a truckload of high explosives was cash and carry.

Most Americans are surprised to the extent this is true because, as a practical matter, it has never been evident in most of the country. Just because you legally can does not mean anyone exercises that right, outside of very rare outliers with money to burn.

The significant limitations on the second amendment are not the ones banning new technology. Laws preventing open carry or conceal carry, requiring permits, red flag laws... They all erode the ability of citizens to defend themselves.

If it had become an “absurd” right you’d be able to secure enough public support to amend the constitution to get rid of it.

You're missing parent's point. Parent is merely pointing out that the right exists in a state of limbo because some arbitrary line is being drawn in our national debates that determines the degree of technological advancement that the right permits.

I think the parent commenter is also living in a bit of a bubble and thinking that all of America lives in a monoculture. There are still points in this country that are patrolled by a single sheriff and a couple of deputies and can be more than 10 minutes out. This doesn't mean they need an arsenal at their disposal, but supposing that they they need NO guns for farm work, hunting or protection from animals or people is either disingenuous or unimaginative.

I totally disagree. The people have the right to own whatever they want. It's not about "the good of society" it's about ensuring the populace maintains the ability to check tyranny if tyranny arises. Of course this is gonna have trade-offs.

The populace isn't allowed to own tanks, military fighter jets, bombers, bombs, and especially not nuclear weapons.

The most effective ways of fighting a modern military are bombs (IEDs), air superiority, and nuclear deterrence.

> The populace isn't allowed to own tanks, military fighter jets, bombers, bombs

This really isn't true. Look up Destructive Devices and the sale listings for tanks and jets.

>Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a Federal explosives license or permit.

i.e "the kind of explosives most non-experts in non-military settings are best served by are free to use for personal use (state law notwithstanding)"

https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives

Perhaps. But restricting it must be done carefully, or you will end up with a disarmed populace, against well armed corporate security.

Aren't corporations just the populace too?

Exactly - so they shouldn't be able to buy themselves more rights by hiring "registered/official" security. Sure it's technically available to everyone, but they can choose their clients, they have to jump through regulatory hoops (and, realistically, political connections), and are unaffordable to most. The end result is a widened power gap.

Sure you can.

I see it's already been addressed, but private citizens owned warships, cannon, artillery pieces, and even semi-automatic rifles at the time the second amendment was written.

Isn't the entire premise of the rule of law that results do sometimes justify taking away rights (albeit through a procedure and with due process?)

It's only part of the premise, not its entirety. A large part is a sense of justice, or ideology, that tempers the pragmatism, and acts as an instictual signal that a law might be harmful in the long term.

Compare it to the 'do no harm' in medicine: say a doctor kills a healthy patient, so that his organs can save five others. At first, many lives are saved, but when this becomes widespread, how long until no-one dares come near a hospital? Or how likely is a patient to admit to having suicidal thoughts, if it results in police going through their private home, confiscating guns, or even committing them for their own good?

Absolutist, 'ideological' positions such as do no harm, and doctor/lawyer-patient/client confidentiality, are important guards against unwanted second-order effects.

It depends on the law. Take the fourth amendment. It doesn’t prohibit searches and seizures. It only prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Or the fifth amendment. It doesn’t prohibit depriving someone of life, liberty, or property, but permits it subject to due process.

Other provisions are less loosey-goosey. The first and second amendments are categorical prohibitions. You can’t establish a national religion even if you think the results will be tremendously beneficial. The taxation clause is similarly clear. We needed an amendment to create the income tax, even though it was necessary to a modern state.

Correct, with everything from speed limits, to smoke free areas, to dumping out toxic chemicals on your own land.

I'll never understand how a significant amount of the population can entertain the idea that "gun rights" are central to liberty, or that unlimited liberty above long term survival of the species is somehow desirable.

Because th long term survival of our species does not depend on gun control. Mass shootings kill few people relative to just about anything. All deaths by rifles and shotguns are still fewer than those by blunt object. We could allow hand grenades and rpgs and still survive as a species. We are harder to kill than roaches. All that said, I am in favor of limiting the number of gums per month that can be purchased to slow mule purhases. And expanding unrecorded background checks universally to the point I can/must do one on my phone if I want to do a private sale.