The feds are coming for “extremist” gamers

[revelarts]

THE FEDS ARE COMING FOR “EXTREMIST” GAMERS
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/09/fbi-dhs-gamers-extremism-violence/
The Department of Homeland Security and FBI are in dialog with Roblox, Discord, Reddit, and others

GAMING COMPANIES ARE coordinating with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to root out so-called domestic violent extremist content, according to a new government report. Noting that mechanisms have been established with social media companies to police extremism, the report recommends that the national security agencies establish new and similar processes with the vast gaming industry.

The exact nature of the cooperation between federal agencies and video game companies, which has not been previously reported, is detailed in a new Government Accountability Office report. The report draws on interviews conducted with five gaming and social media companies including Roblox, an online gaming platform; Discord, a social media app commonly used by gamers; Reddit; as well as a game publisher and social media company that asked the GAO to remain anonymous.

The Intercept reached out to the companies identified in the GAO report for comment, but none responded on the record at time of publication.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have mechanisms to share and receive domestic violent extremism threat-related information with social media and gaming companies,” the GAO says. The report reveals that the DHS intelligence office meets with gaming companies and that the companies can use these meetings to “share information with I&A [DHS’s intelligence office] about online activities promoting domestic violent extremism,” or even simply “activities that violate the companies’ terms of service.” Through its 56 field offices and hundreds of resident agencies subordinate field offices, the FBI receives tips from gaming companies of potential law-breaking and extremist views for further investigation. The FBI also conducts briefings to gaming companies on purported threats.

The GAO warns that FBI and DHS lack an overarching strategy to bring its work with gaming companies in line with broader agency missions. “Without a strategy or goals, the agencies may not be fully aware of how effective their communications are with companies, or how effective their information-sharing mechanisms serve the agencies’ overall missions,” the GAO says. The report ends with a recommendation that both agencies develop such a strategy — a recommendation that DHS concurred with, providing an estimated completion date of June 28 this year.

“All I can think of is the awful track record of the FBI when it comes to identifying extremism,” Hasan Piker, a popular Twitch streamer who often streams while playing video games under the handle HasanAbi, says of the mechanisms. “They’re much better at finding vulnerable teenagers with mental disabilities to take advantage of.”...


I'm sure it's all completely legal.
LBJ & Eisenhower used the national guard in extreme times so I'm sure there's some law that makes it all constitutional.

they spied on the potential the domestic extremist Muslims going to mosques making noises about Mohamed every week.
they spied on the potential the domestic extremist Militia making noises at training camps about the 2nd amendment & Ruby Ridge.
they spied on the potential the domestic extremist Parents making noises at School Board meetings about books & gender & God.
they spied on the potential the domestic extremist Gamers making noises online among themselves about whatever.

they'll only spy on the me or my family and find that we always obey & agree that the govt has a good reason to do whatever the govt does.

It may not be legal or constitutional but it's for the greater good.

[fj1200]

LBJ & Eisenhower used the national guard in extreme times so I'm sure there's some law that makes it all constitutional.

Say what what?

[revelarts]

Say what what?
Big Picture FJ.
It's called Principal, sometimes Precedent.

LBJ, Eisenhower, Bush, FDR, Hoover, etc did it.
therefore ergo presto... others can do the same.

As in ignore the constitution when they think it's appropriate.


Any comment on the substance... Spying on "extremist" gamers?

[fj1200]

Big Picture FJ.
It's called Principal, sometimes Precedent.

LBJ, Eisenhower, Bush, FDR, Hoover, etc did it.
therefore ergo presto... others can do the same.

As in ignore the constitution when they think it's appropriate.


Any comment on the substance... Spying on "extremist" gamers?

Maybe eventually but right now I'm trying to figure out how you're tying "extremist" gamers into actions taken by LBJ/Ike/etc. in regards to the national guard that you believe are unconstitutional.

And your big picture issues seem to break down sometimes when one looks at all the little pictures.

[revelarts]

Maybe eventually but right now I'm trying to figure out how you're tying "extremist" gamers into actions taken by LBJ/Ike/etc. in regards to the national guard that you believe are unconstitutional.
And your big picture issues seem to break down sometimes when one looks at all the little pictures.
Reference the key word.
Small or large it's the same issue,
the breakdown is in the constitutional limits of govt authority.

[fj1200]

Reference the key word.
Small or large it's the same issue,
the breakdown is in the constitutional limits of govt authority.

It's just a word until you put meat on it. Did Eisenhower act unconstitutionally in re: the Little Rock Nine? Did Reagan act unconstitutionally when he was governor? Nobody has brought up LBJ except you so I'm not sure your reference other than riots in the '60s. FDR interned the Japanese but no chance anybody does it again. I'm not sure what you think Hoover did other than be an awful president.

[Black Diamond]

It's just a word until you put meat on it. Did Eisenhower act unconstitutionally in re: the Little Rock Nine? Did Reagan act unconstitutionally when he was governor? Nobody has brought up LBJ except you so I'm not sure your reference other than riots in the '60s. FDR interned the Japanese but no chance anybody does it again. I'm not sure what you think Hoover did other than be an awful president.

He may have been referencing the video from the other thread re. Johnson

[Gunny]

Airman Texiera is the perfect example of a radical, extremist gamer. Used his gaming platforms to disclose classified information.

Speaking of "precedent" and back on topic:rolleyes:: Given the Federal government's recent/current definitions of "extremism", not sure I'm getting a warm fuzzy feeling with this idea.

Under normal circumstances with relatively normal people involved, I can see rooting out extremists as a good thing. Not with the bunch that call parents and Catholics extremists:smoke:

[fj1200]

He may have been referencing the video from the other thread re. Johnson

It was all a little bit disjointed.


Airman Texiera is the perfect example of a radical, extremist gamer. Used his gaming platforms to disclose classified information.

Speaking of "precedent" and back on topic:rolleyes:: Given the Federal government's recent/current definitions of "extremism", not sure I'm getting a warm fuzzy feeling with this idea.

Under normal circumstances with relatively normal people involved, I can see rooting out extremists as a good thing. Not with the bunch that call parents and Catholics extremists:smoke:

I would think that there would be a constitutional method of investigating.

[fj1200]

I'm sure it's all completely legal.

Sarcasm noted. Do you think none of the FBI/DHS activities is legal/constitutional or some of it is legal/constitutional?

[SassyLady]

Sarcasm noted. Do you think none of the FBI/DHS activities is legal/constitutional or some of it is legal/constitutional?

If one could trust them to follow the Constitution 100% then they would be closer to trustworthy. I think they push boundaries until they go too far and are sued but by the time a decision is made regarding legality they end up destroying lives and then saying "ooops, my bad" and no accountability is taken.

Look at Strzok and Paige.

[SassyLady]

Another reason to question whether we actually have constitutional rights.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/breaking-u-s-secret-service-breaks-massachusetts-hair/

[revelarts]

Sarcasm noted. Do you think none of the FBI/DHS activities is legal/constitutional or some of it is legal/constitutional?

Amendment 4
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

you ok with that?

[fj1200]

If one could trust them to follow the Constitution 100% then they would be closer to trustworthy. I think they push boundaries until they go too far and are sued but by the time a decision is made regarding legality they end up destroying lives and then saying "ooops, my bad" and no accountability is taken.

Look at Strzok and Paige.

So was that none or some?


Amendment 4
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

you ok with that?

So was that none or some? There is no expectation of privacy on the internet.

[revelarts]

So was that none or some? There is no expectation of privacy on the internet.

There WAS an expectation of privacy. The same as with our Mail, Telephone calls, carrier pigeons & other communications.
There's no expectation NOW because we know they do it anyway. Since folks like yourself had no real problem with the excuses the govt has given over the years and never made it priority for any elected representatives to deal with the unconstitutional breach.
Or assumed that it "would never happened" or even denied that it was happening for years.

The problem is that too many people see the govt as "granting rights" rather than the people granting the govt authority to do XY or Z.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



The constitution does not grant the govt authority to spy on any of our documented communications, no matter the form, without probable cause.

I should not have to explain this. but it's a symptom of how far we've come.

[fj1200]

There WAS an expectation of privacy. The same as with our Mail, Telephone calls, carrier pigeons & other communications.
There's no expectation NOW because we know they do it anyway. Since folks like yourself had no real problem with the excuses the govt has given over the years and never made it priority for any elected representatives to deal with the unconstitutional breach.
Or assumed that it "would never happened" or even denied that it was happening for years.

The problem is that too many people see the govt as "granting rights" rather than the people granting the govt authority to do XY or Z.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



The constitution does not grant the govt authority to spy on any of our documented communications, no matter the form, without probable cause.

I should not have to explain this. but it's a symptom of how far we've come.

:rolleyes: There IS the same expectation of privacy that there always was. Don't start complaining that it's past tense now that the population has started to publish every little thing about their lives into the public realm. I'm sure we can have a nice agreeing discussion where we complain about what people see but if you equate online activities with using the Post Office then we may have some disagreement because those days are over.

[revelarts]

:rolleyes: There IS the same expectation of privacy that there always was. Don't start complaining that it's past tense now that the population has started to publish every little thing about their lives into the public realm. I'm sure we can have a nice agreeing discussion where we complain about what people see but if you equate online activities with using the Post Office then we may have some disagreement because those days are over.
You're further gone than i thought. those days are "over" only because/if we allow it.

And it seems you're conflating what people publish PUBLICLY on websites and boards like this one.
To people's communications in emails, DMs, and private online venues like some game platforms and the like.

the point still stands.
the same point I and many others have made since the patriot act (signed by both parties and a Republican president BTW).
Online surveillance is unconstitutional criminal BS.

the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments have formed the legal basis for laws protecting privacy.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the constitution has not moved.
You have.

[fj1200]

You're further gone than i thought. those days are "over" only because/if we allow it.

And it seems you're conflating what people publish PUBLICLY on websites and boards like this one.
To people's communications in emails, DMs, and private online venues like some game platforms and the like.

the point still stands.
the same point I and many others have made since the patriot act (signed by both parties and a Republican president BTW).
Online surveillance is unconstitutional criminal BS.
the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments have formed the legal basis for laws protecting privacy.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the constitution has not moved.
You have.

I know that you like simple answers so here goes. Society and technology have moved.

[revelarts]

I know that you like simple answers so here goes. Society and technology have moved.
You moved FJ. the govt moved.
the constitution is still the highest law of the land.

But look, make up your mind Fj,
Do you want me to give you a complex "laundry list" of reasons with multiple connections that confuses & lose you.
Or keep to it simple with the clear facts of the constitutional text?
Which one bugs you the least, you seem to want to complain no matter what.

[fj1200]

You moved FJ. the govt moved.
the constitution is still the highest law of the land.

But look, make up your mind Fj,
Do you want me to give you a complex "laundry list" of reasons with multiple connections that confuses & lose you.
Or keep to it simple with the clear facts of the constitutional text?
Which one bugs you the least, you seem to want to complain no matter what.

Your simple laundry list of "connections" don't lose me. Your insistence that you get to be the first one to invoke the Constitution and claim righteousness loses me because as simple as the plain text is the document is very deep. When citizens engage in behavior that is outside the bounds of simple plain text then depth is required. You say <fill in the blank> is unconstitutional but you're unable to discuss it beyond "it's unconstitutional" and that is where I find issue. Make better arguments.

[revelarts]

Your simple laundry list of "connections" don't lose me. Your insistence that you get to be the first one to invoke the Constitution and claim righteousness loses me because as simple as the plain text is the document is very deep. When citizens engage in behavior that is outside the bounds of simple plain text then depth is required. You say <fill in the blank> is unconstitutional but you're unable to discuss it beyond "it's unconstitutional" and that is where I find issue. Make better arguments.
As far as being the 1st one to cry unconstitutional.
PLEASE, be my guest! I pray others will BEAT ME to the punch. I've been saying it for 25+ years and it seems FEWER people even care.

"thou shalt not murder"
Also has depth but the general meaning is clear without going into rich detail.
Those asking for more details are often looking for ways to avoid the simple reality.
But yes, there ARE exceptions, in defense, in war and when a person has been tried & convicted of specific crimes.
It's still pretty simple.

The 1st, 4th & 9th amendments reserve the right of the people (among other rights) to their private communications and there's NOTHING in the constitution that grants the federal govt any rights to randomly spy on people or collect their personal communications in ANY form.
without warrants.

You need to make an Argument that the gov't HAS that authority constitutionally.
The burden is on the govt to give constitutional reasons why it thinks what it's doing is legal.
Not for me to assume that it does and give reasons why it doesn't.

[fj1200]

As far as being the 1st one to cry unconstitutional.
PLEASE, be my guest! I pray others will BEAT ME to the punch. I've been saying it for 25+ years and it seems FEWER people even care.

"thou shalt not murder"
Also has depth but the general meaning is clear without going into rich detail.
Those asking for more details are often looking for ways to avoid the simple reality.
But yes, there ARE exceptions, in defense, in war and when a person has been tried & convicted of specific crimes.
It's still pretty simple.

The 1st, 4th & 9th amendments reserve the right of the people (among other rights) to their private communications and there's NOTHING in the constitution that grants the federal govt any rights to randomly spy on people or collect their personal communications in ANY form.
without warrants.

You need to make an Argument that the gov't HAS that authority constitutionally.
The burden is on the govt to give constitutional reasons why it thinks what it's doing is legal.
Not for me to assume that it does and give reasons why it doesn't.

Those exceptions to murder aren't murder, they're exceptions to thou shalt not kill. Similarly those private communications aren't private communications (on the internet). Just because things are constitutional doesn't mean that they're good ideas or good public policy.

And the last? That goes to your underlying premise of it just is. It is frequently on complainants part to bring action claiming something is unconstitutional; that's what keeps these guys busy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/

[Gunny]

As far as being the 1st one to cry unconstitutional.
PLEASE, be my guest! I pray others will BEAT ME to the punch. I've been saying it for 25+ years and it seems FEWER people even care.

"thou shalt not murder"
Also has depth but the general meaning is clear without going into rich detail.
Those asking for more details are often looking for ways to avoid the simple reality.
But yes, there ARE exceptions, in defense, in war and when a person has been tried & convicted of specific crimes.
It's still pretty simple.

The 1st, 4th & 9th amendments reserve the right of the people (among other rights) to their private communications and there's NOTHING in the constitution that grants the federal govt any rights to randomly spy on people or collect their personal communications in ANY form.
without warrants.

You need to make an Argument that the gov't HAS that authority constitutionally.
The burden is on the govt to give constitutional reasons why it thinks what it's doing is legal.
Not for me to assume that it does and give reasons why it doesn't.

Thou shalt not kill does not go into the depth you do with though shalt not murder. The latter provided further depth to the former. That depth being a construct of society, derived from but not God's words.

[revelarts]

Those exceptions to murder aren't murder, they're exceptions to thou shalt not kill.
Yes, there's part of that depth coming out there i guess.
Doesn't really change much though does it? Become semantics, there's no practical difference.



Similarly those private communications aren't private communications (on the internet).
There's a difference in public spaces on the internet and private spaces.
Similarly as a postcard vs sealed envelope.
Similarly as a someone on a speaker phone vs on phone alone speaking quietly in a closed room.

The internet is not a CB radio.




Just because things are constitutional doesn't mean that they're good ideas or good public policy.
if the govt wants to change the constitution there are ways to do that.



And the last? That goes to your underlying premise of it just is. It is frequently on complainants part to bring action claiming something is unconstitutional; that's what keeps these guys busy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/

For FAR to many cases it's only because people like you want to play games with the PLAIN meaning of the text.
most people understand this when it comes to the rights they most want to protect.
the 2nd amendment is one that the right has no problem reading clearly AS IS, and claiming It Just Is.
It's only in other areas where they prefer other "good public policy" where the meaning of words somehow gets fuzzy and we need the supreme court to "clarify" or the "right" Administration or congress to somehow add practical nuance.

[revelarts]

Thou shalt not kill does not go into the depth you do with though shalt not murder. The latter provided further depth to the former. That depth being a construct of society, derived from but not God's words.

It's all in God's words.
the deapth is there.
The 1st 5 books of Moses makes it very clear.
personally i think it all came from God, not society.

[fj1200]

Yes, there's part of that depth coming out there i guess.
Doesn't really change much though does it? Become semantics, there's no practical difference.

There is a semantic difference between kill and murder.


There's a difference in public spaces on the internet and private spaces.
Similarly as a postcard vs sealed envelope.
Similarly as a someone on a speaker phone vs on phone alone speaking quietly in a closed room.

The internet is not a CB radio.

But it is. Anybody in the world can see my posts.


if the govt wants to change the constitution there are ways to do that.

Non-responsive.


For FAR to many cases it's only because people like you want to play games with the PLAIN meaning of the text.
most people understand this when it comes to the rights they most want to protect.
the 2nd amendment is one that the right has no problem reading clearly AS IS, and claiming It Just Is.
It's only in other areas where they prefer other "good public policy" where the meaning of words somehow gets fuzzy and we need the supreme court to "clarify" or the "right" Administration or congress to somehow add practical nuance.

I'd rather not play games with plain text but Gorsuch's "plain text" reading had him declare that the Civil Rights Act covered transexuals. Plain text only takes you so far.

[Gunny]

It's all in God's words.
the deapth is there.
The 1st 5 books of Moses makes it very clear.
personally i think it all came from God, not society.

Focus. Thou shalt not kill does NOT go into depth. It is a standalone Commandment. Even if further defined elsewhere in the Bible, that is adding depth to the original statement. Man's laws draw a distinction between kill and murder.

Why did God deny Moses entry into the Holy Land? He killed an Egyptian guard. An act most men would justify.

[revelarts]

Focus. Thou shalt not kill does NOT go into depth. It is a standalone Commandment. Even if further defined elsewhere in the Bible, that is adding depth to the original statement. Man's laws draw a distinction between kill and murder.

Why did God deny Moses entry into the Holy Land? He killed an Egyptian guard. An act most men would justify.

It does get a bit deep.
I'd always been taught that the word "kill" in "thou shalt not kill" was in fact better translated "murder".
the Hebrew word is "rāṣaḥ". Which apparently leans much harder towards the meaning murder than does our more generic word english word "kill".

in the KJV
Exodus 20:13 says "thou shalt not kill"
Exodus 21:12 says "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
"elsewhere in the Bible" is the next chapter, (but originally there were no chapters.)
The Hebrew word for put to death "mûṯ" seems to be in the vein of our executed, slain.

But hey, I'm no scholar, just my understanding.

[Gunny]

It does get a bit deep.
I'd always been taught that the word "kill" in "thou shalt not kill" was in fact better translated "murder".
the Hebrew word is "rāṣaḥ". Which apparently leans much harder towards the meaning murder than does our more generic word english word "kill".

in the KJV
Exodus 20:13 says "thou shalt not kill"
Exodus 21:12 says "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
"elsewhere in the Bible" is the next chapter, (but originally there were no chapters.)
The Hebrew word for put to death "mûṯ" seems to be in the vein of our executed, slain.

But hey, I'm no scholar, just my understanding.

My point: 21:12 is adding depth to 20:13.

Every law and ruling adds depth to the original Constitution. Technology has outpaced the law. Government plays catch up and we get some half-ass law nobody is satisfied with. I don't remember the last time the Constitutionality of anything mattered when solely in the best interest of the people.

[revelarts]

My point: 21:12 is adding depth to 20:13.

:cool:



Every law and ruling adds depth to the original Constitution. Technology has outpaced the law. Government plays catch up and we get some half-ass law nobody is satisfied with.
that "technology has outpaced the law" line is the same one they use against the 2nd amendment.
Maybe you think that's valid but I dont think it applies for the 2nd or any other parts of the constitution.
The general principals of the constitution apply to whatever the tech is.

the major problems the constitution had have already been worked out by amendments.


I don't remember the last time the Constitutionality of anything mattered when solely in the best interest of the people.
people could make it matter, if they cared enough or really understood what's been lost.

[SassyLady]

14700

[Gunny]

:cool:


that "technology has outpaced the law" line is the same one they use against the 2nd amendment.
Maybe you think that's valid but I dont think it applies for the 2nd or any other parts of the constitution.
The general principals of the constitution apply to whatever the tech is.

the major problems the constitution had have already been worked out by amendments.

people could make it matter, if they cared enough or really understood what's been lost.It is not whether or not it is valid. It is that it is fact.

The Second Amendment is outdated. Not by technology but circumstance. Problem is, you either side with the anti-gun nuts that believe confiscating them will stop criminals, or you side with the gun nuts that think you should be able to own a Howitzer. No common sense middle ground to have a real discussion.

The generation currently coming into their own have no idea what's been lost. They never had it. It's just words to them. Some may listen. Nowadays I'd say most not. Technology has ensured their brains are occupied with flashing lights on a screen.

[revelarts]

It is not whether or not it is valid. It is that it is fact.

The Second Amendment is outdated. Not by technology but circumstance. Problem is, you either side with the anti-gun nuts that believe confiscating them will stop criminals, or you side with the gun nuts that think you should be able to own a Howitzer. No common sense middle ground to have a real discussion.
.

I get your points.
But, here are couple of things I think get lost in the framing of the 2nd amendment and other constitutional issues.
1st the anti-gun nuts are simply dishonest with the text. If they were more honest it'd be a real conversation.
Any honest reading would have to admit that, at the least, the GunNuts are closer to the truth if not completely correct.
IMO the problem is that either way, people frame it as " SOME guns in people's hands are bad and must be kept out" and from there want argue about which ones.

When the framing could be (should be) flipped from, what guns should be legal to own, to what punishments are inflicted for the MISuse of guns.
If a neighbor has a Howitzer but it's illegal for him to fire it within 15-20 miles of any residents/structure. And the penalty is 50 years in prison, no parole. Seems to me that might be enough of a deterrent to keep people from harm. I'm sure many people still wouldn't "feel" safe but that law would align closer to the constitutional reading of the text.
(One could add a few health, safety, security tests/checks I think and still be within constitutional limits.)
Point is it does not prohibit ownership, but does prohibit misuse.
The same kind of laws could be used for other types of weapons, where misuse and harm (not in defense) bring FAR harsher sentences than for the same kind of harm NOT using those weapons.
We have a couple of laws like that in Virginia. Use a gun in a crime (robbery assault) adds 5yrs.
(Personally i don't think 5 years is enough.)

Bottom line the text isn't out of date.
Constitution was set up to Maximize freedoms. It & Laws below it are also created to minimize harms but without compromising those freedom.
The Freedoms & potential harms are the same.
Human beings are the same.
The technologies only allow humans to do the SAME ol stuff just in different way or faster ways.
The Constitution is not out of date.

[Black Diamond]

I don't trust the left and how the classify or codify things. I don't trust the left not to classify pistols that hold more than 10 rounds in the same group as howitzers

[Gunny]

I get your points.
But, here are couple of things I think get lost in the framing of the 2nd amendment and other constitutional issues.
1st the anti-gun nuts are simply dishonest with the text. If they were more honest it'd be a real conversation.
Any honest reading would have to admit that, at the least, the GunNuts are closer to the truth if not completely correct.
IMO the problem is that either way, people frame it as " SOME guns in people's hands are bad and must be kept out" and from there want argue about which ones.

When the framing could be (should be) flipped from, what guns should be legal to own, to what punishments are inflicted for the MISuse of guns.
If a neighbor has a Howitzer but it's illegal for him to fire it within 15-20 miles of any residents/structure. And the penalty is 50 years in prison, no parole. Seems to me that might be enough of a deterrent to keep people from harm. I'm sure many people still wouldn't "feel" safe but that law would align closer to the constitutional reading of the text.
(One could add a few health, safety, security tests/checks I think and still be within constitutional limits.)
Point is it does not prohibit ownership, but does prohibit misuse.
The same kind of laws could be used for other types of weapons, where misuse and harm (not in defense) bring FAR harsher sentences than for the same kind of harm NOT using those weapons.
We have a couple of laws like that in Virginia. Use a gun in a crime (robbery assault) adds 5yrs.
(Personally i don't think 5 years is enough.)

Bottom line the text isn't out of date.
Constitution was set up to Maximize freedoms. It & Laws below it are also created to minimize harms but without compromising those freedom.
The Freedoms & potential harms are the same.
Human beings are the same.
The technologies only allow humans to do the SAME ol stuff just in different way or faster ways.
The Constitution is not out of date.


I don't trust the left and how the classify or codify things. I don't trust the left not to classify pistols that hold more than 10 rounds in the same group as howitzers

Not disagreeing. The specifics of the 2nd Amendment is not my argument although I have one. It's the "no common sense/common ground conversation" I was pointing to.

I disagree however that the text is not out of date. The Second Amendment DOES point to a home guard/militia type scenario and it was written when firearms were a matter of survival for everyone in this country except those packed like sardines into East coast cities. At the time, the US's very existence depended on militia as much or more than it did any Federal army for its survival. Irregulars and local militia account for most all victories in the Southern states during the Revolution.

Regardless reason/context, the Second Amendment allows for individuals to own and possess firearms. No argument there. But every time someone mentions common sense regulation the extreme factions starts wailing, gnashing teeth and pulling out their hair. With good reason given the left lives on a slippery slope. Rather than criticizing, calling it what it is. The entire argument has a problem when it begins and ends with two extremes.