“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.
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.
You’ve decided to focus on guns in your comments, but that’s not a distinction that matters to my point.
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 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'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 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.
This is exactly how it works (in the USA) currently. You can legally own a car, yet be unable to drive it legally (if you are not a licensed driver).
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.
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.
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.
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.
I doubt the NRA would organize a picket to defend your right to run PGP.
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.
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.
As a non American who doesn’t live in US, I agree with you on this.
I guess most of the non-Americans also don’t care that deeply about your gun laws.
Sometimes we see the incidents and perceive the loss of life to be painful. But this is human nature and it exists in me and you alike.
Sometimes non-Americans might express their opinions on this matter which I believe is fine. Just an opinion. :)
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.