The 2nd Amendment says the government can’t infringe your right to possess arms. It does not say that it’s legal for you to use your arms against others to make a point.
“Digital arms” are legal to possess in the U.S. as far as I know. Again, that is not the same thing as legalizing any use of them.
Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it?
One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempts to enforce them are illegal.
Of course, this is a highly unpopular opinion, as most of the population has surrendered itself to creeping authoritarianism.
> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them.
That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it.
> One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempts to enforce them are illegal.
The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.
>"The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights."
The Bill of Rights was never supposed to bestow rights, just protect them, as per the preface:
>"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
> That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it.
That's like saying "The right to own a pair of pants does not mean you have the right to wear them." or "The right to own that Rembrandt doesn't mean you have the right to look at it". What, if not to use or consume an item, is the purpose of ownership at the fundamental level?
> The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.
You'll be happy to hear it does neither. It recognizes rights that are inherent to human beings and (presumably) limits the ability of the government to infringe on them.
Or like saying that "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive it".
Or even "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive through red lights".
The fact that you can own something does not mean that you have the right to use it indiscriminately. In this case (if we consider them "digital arms") I don't see how using it for retribution (rather then self defense) would be considered ok.
And even if you don't have a drivers license it can be perfectly legal to drive your car on your own property (hack your own computers) but not to drive on public roads / private property where the owner has not consented to you driving (hacking someone elses computer without their ok), but if they are ok with it it's perfectly legal (like for instance pentesting). Context matters.
> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it?
Do you have the right to shoot at someone's house? Do you have the right to fire in a crowded theater? Do you have the right to fire your weapon right next to someone's ear?
Just because you own a gun does mean your use of that gun cannot be restricted by law, indeed severely so. The only issue is to what degree your usage may be curtailed. This is not black and white.
The crimes that you listed are destruction of property, disturbing the peace, and intentionally causing bodily harm. Using a gun is incidental to the actual crime. The same arguments can be made about knives, baseball bats, or other things. Consequently, this is not a legitimate basis for restricting their availability or usage of guns themselves, any more than such potential crimes limit the use of those other objects.
Of course, prosecutors love to double dip with charges, tacking on a weapons charge or two. These extra charges usually result in a far more severe sentence. Again, hard to see the legality of such practices, but this is the status quo that we have today.
Obviously there are limits on what you can shoot your guns at or crimes like murder, for example, would be legal as long as it was accomplished with a gun.
In most jurisdictions, homicide is entirely justifiable when it is committed in the act of defending oneself or others from potentially lethal forces, where a reasonable person would conclude that committing murder was necessary to preserve those lives.
Sure but is it legal if you’re not in the act of defending yourself? If you just walk up to someone who made you mad, and shoot them? No. Which means there are legal limits on how you can use your guns.
Yes, murder would be illegal without just cause, but then it doesn't matter what weapon is used, does it? In which case, you're trying to blame the weapon, rather than the person. I agree there should be legal limits on what you can do to someone else's person, but that policy does not require placing unconstitutional limits on gun use.
Important to note that "digital arms" are not a real thing as far as anyone's rights are concerned. God given rights probably but as far as encoded in law, not the case.
Also, don't engage in cyber warfare against other nations because the feds will come down on you harder than your target could hope to[1]. Obviously because it's stupid to put your country at risk.
[1] Unless you live in the US and that country is Israel.
Seems like an imperfect analogy. If you find malware running on your computing systems, it is legal to disable and delete it. But it’s not like the bad guys are physically present within your computer, like in a real life home invasion.
Encryption, at least, is a purely defensive weapon. In the historical context of 2A, protecting yourself from your government would closely align with the original intent of militias protecting locals from a federal king.
Yeah. After an expensive legal defense, maybe with a bunch of expensive appeals, you'd be either wrong, poor, and in jail or right, poor, and not in jail.
Do bear in mind that the way this interpreted under US law is considered by most non-Americans to be completely bonkers, and is only sustained by strong, uncompromising activist pressure.
I doubt the NRA would organize a picket to defend your right to run PGP.
Well, it's an American law, so its validity has no relation to how non Americans see it. Also, the activist pressure is much stronger and much, much better financed on the anti gun side, so that does not make much sense. You can go read the recent SCOTUS decisions related to the 2nd amendment; their interpretation of the constitution is very, very well justified. You can disagree with it, but it's ludicrous to say it's all because of extreme activist pressure. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on its intent, and that's wildly agreed on by constitutional experts. Americans usually support the right to bear arms too.
I'm not American but if I was and I wanted to limit access to guns, I don't think arguing that the courts should decide the 2nd amendment doesn't actually give the right to bear arms would be the way to go. If you think Americans agree with you and don't actually want that part of the constitution, judicial activism wouldn't be needed.
No offense but why would I care at all what a non-American thinks? They are not governed by this law and so have 0 say in what it should be since it is not a rights violation. I am only sorry you all live with such a lack of a basic right and find it normal.
From the other perspective: gun rights are under constant attack from fearmongering media and I find that bonkers. All it takes is one (1) psycho POS shooting up a school for the media to run a month of coverage claiming that everybody should now lose a fundamental right. Ffs most people agree that criminal activity doesn't justify violating everybodys rights (like police state measures), why is this specifically different? Because the media machine works for a political class that wants a disarmed and castrated electorate.
Theres been a creeping advance against these rights since the 1930s with the NFA passing and gun grabbers have been constantly demanding more for these 100 years with small concessions then larger infringements, racheting toward less gun rights, slowly but surely hellbent on taking away our weapons. Most of this is enabled by bullshit judicial activism that twists 2a for matters of convenience and political ends.
I hate that pro gun propaganda is seeping in to our country and gun access is getting more relaxed allowing psychos to get armed.
I want my right not to get shot to be intact. The police isn't also assuming you are armed during routine stops so they aren't so trigger happy.
> I hate that pro gun propaganda is seeping in to our country and gun access is getting more relaxed allowing psychos to get armed.
What "pro gun propaganda" is this exactly? Gun access is not getting more relaxed - talk about propaganda. The Federal form you are required to fill out at any gun shop in the country asks you to declare whether you have ever been adjudicated as mentally defective or have ever been confined in a mental institution. Answering Yes will result in your firearm purchase being denied.
We can't know ahead of time that someone is going to go off the deep end and go on a shooting spree. You can't legislate this risk away short of banning guns completely and confiscating all of them, which is unrealistic/impossible. Let's ban alcohol as well because it kills twice as many people as guns do (half of which are suicides) annually.
I'm an independent that shares plenty of the Democrat party's positions, but gun control isn't one of them. Guns are tools than can be used and misused like any other tool.
“Digital arms” are legal to possess in the U.S. as far as I know. Again, that is not the same thing as legalizing any use of them.