News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of Ameri... by taeric on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @07:34PM (#31512268)
This feels silly. Explosives are general arms for an armed service. Good luck stockpiling c4. Or having a military vehicle. Cannons that can shoot depleted uranium? Surface to air missiles? All arms that would be needed to fend off a real threat.

So the idea that guns are special is idiotic. You can already get in trouble for using a gun with too many rounds when bird hunting. Is that actually illegal?

Re:Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of Ameri... by Vecr on Thursday May 26, 2022 @12:56AM (#31514752)
Yes, all those bans are illegal. If I want to mount a robotic machine gun turret behind my front door, I should be able to without anyone complaining.
Re:Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of Ameri... by taeric on Thursday May 26, 2022 @09:06AM (#31517838)
All the abortion bans are also currently unenforceable. But that can change with a simple precedent reversal from the supreme court. And note that the precedent to overturn for the guns is not as long standing.
Re:Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of Ameri... by YATA2 on Thursday May 26, 2022 @02:21AM (#31515278)
Those are considered destructive devices, not arms, and are regulated totally differently. They are by definition not considered "arms".
Re:Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of Ameri... by SigmundA on Thursday May 26, 2022 @09:04AM (#31517819)
Arm: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense.

Firearm: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.

Small arm: portable firearms, especially rifles, pistols, and light machine guns.

The second amendment as strictly read says only "arms" the definition which has not changed since it was written only the lethality of the arms has increased through technological advancement culminating in nuclear arms.

A "destructive device" is a type of arm as defined by the 1934 Firearms act nearly 150 years after the second amendment was written.

A machine gun is not considered a destructive device but is still regulated and obviously still a type of arm.

So clearly you are ok with adding restrictions on arms not specifically laid out in the constitution if you are ok with the regulation of "destructive devices" and "machine guns" semantic word games aside. Otherwise if you strictly adhere to the wording of the amendment then there should be no regulation on the type of arms a citizen may own up to including nuclear arms.