The 2nd Amendment as it Applies to Communications

[chimeara]

The Second Amendment of The Constitution of The United States of America is well known as a source of much debate. However I think there is a new question to this debate and that is does it also cover secure open communication free of government regulation? You might be thinking that is what the 1st amendments gives us and you aren't entirely wrong. However you aren't entirely right either.

You may notice it specifically entitles us to speech that is peaceful. This is where the the 2nd amendment comes into play. The 2nd amendment specifically gives us the right to either arm ourselves or form well regulated militias. Well the amendments were written in a day and age where rifles,canons and bayonets were the primary tools of war. During our times however communication is a far more effective tool for war than any firearm or even a missile.

If there is ever a time when "We the People" need to protect our government from corrupt politicians seizing power communication is key. If they shut down our ability to communicate they essentially control the flow of rebellion and squash the war and can even sculpt public opinion through false information with no real way to correct it.

If we take Egypt for example we can see how during the uprising most of the internet traffic was halted when DNS was taken down. Our government in the US has similar abilities but they also employ in many government offices devices to block all cellular and wireless communication.

Presidential motorcade with cell jamming abilities.

We also have to consider the fact that with technologies such as Metal Storm's Area Denial Weapon System and our drone programs it is possible that a civil war may be a war fought where the few fight the many and win!

So this is why I contend that our 2nd amendment (using the context of today's war time environment) also protects a free from regulation and government control a system of communication that can not be limited or suppressed.

[John_Doesnt]

The constitution is a massive failure. If it was perfect or even close to adequate we wouldn't need to add amendments and constantly argue over the proper interpretation of it. It's time to get rid of the original constitution and start over again. There's nothing wrong with starting over and admitting something is broken.

[Anonymous]

No, it doesn't. You need to scroll down to the 4th Amendment before you find security in your person and personal effects being protected from *unreasonable* searches and seizures. (Emphasis added to the word "unreasonable.")

[chimeara]

That doesn't apply during martial law or during times of civil unrest. The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act allows the suspension of civil liberties.

[Opinion Owner]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee what kind of weapons we're allowed to have, either. The courts have upheld that.

[HereIbe]

The suspension of civil liberties under suspension of Habeas Corpus INCLUDES POSSESSION OF WEAPONS BY CIVILIANS, you idiot.

[PrincessGrail]

Interesting, but the First Amendment works better for this purpose.

[chimeara]

It can't work for this purpose because the 1st amendment can not be used during martial law because under martial law there is legal precedent to limit free speech. Also it is limited in scope to peaceful speech. So if the speech is being used to wage war against the government than it is no longer covered under the 1st amendment. However as a tool of a militia it would be a tool of war and better protected.

[PrincessGrail]

I don’t think a court will see it that way.

[chimeara]

Not untill the law is tested in such a way. Some use of law needs precedent so till this use of the law has cases tried and tested by the supreme court it is hard to tell for sure how it will play out. However I think communication is more vital to war than any other weapon. So that is why I say this type of communication is far better protected by the 2nd amendment than the 1st that deals with free speech during peace.

[PrincessGrail]

Arms means physical weapons, mostly guns.

[chimeara]

What about militia? The 2nd amendment doesn't only stipulate our right to bear arms. It also establishes our right to a well armed militia and in the sense of well armed (being a common interpretation) that refers to equipped.

[PrincessGrail]

It says well regulated, not well armed. That clause actually limits the power of the militia.

[chimeara]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA8FDaSZHcQ

[chimeara]

It is not meant in the way you think it does. It does not mean limiting but trained and ready.

[PrincessGrail]

A dude on the Internet saying what it means is not the same as a federal court saying what it means. And the courts have always applied the Second Amendment strictly to physical weapons.

[chimeara]

You are missing the point. That guy is debating the language used because it is used in a different context and it doesn't mean that the militia be assessed with rules. Contextually that would make no sense.

[PrincessGrail]

And you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter what the language says if the judges don’t agree with you.

[chimeara]

Well a judge may agree or not but you are missing hte point that you are misinterpreting the language complete and using the language of the day a well regulated militia is absolutely within the scope of what I am saying.

[PrincessGrail]

Let me know when you convince a District Court judge to accept your theory.

[HereIbe]

Under martial law there is even MORE "legal precedent" to limit the possession of weaponry by civilians, you idiot.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

In general, I agree. However, while the Egyptian government did take down DNS servers, that's not what stopped all of the traffic. It was blocking traffic on border routers that did that.

Why is this important? Because the United States government does not have the ability to block traffic to border routers. Nor does it control DNS servers beyond the. gov and. mil TLDs. Even if the U. S. government has the technical ability to block things, the sheer size and complexity of our infrastructure, coupled with the fact that its nearly all privately owned, would make it damn near impossible for the government to adequately block all Internet traffic either inside or outside the country.

So, I get what you're saying and I agree we should be vigilant about it but with current state technology, the U. S. government does not have the ability to pull off what Egypt did during the Arab Spring.

[chimeara]

The US government has control over the main servers that act as a hub for the entire internet not just the US. So if they take those servers down it would be far more effective then simply breaking DNS.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

No, they don't. Nearly all of them are privately owned. The government might *try* to get the owners of those servers to take them down, but they don't directly control them.

[Grobmate]

I think you will find when the 2nd amendment was written, "arms" would have referred to muskets and certainly not assult rifles or semi-automatic pistols/rifles...

Luckily, it can be amended.

[Jager66]

Ah the Ol' "using the first amendment on the internet while arguing that amendments only apply to technology that existed at the time of their writing" routine...

Solid example of "living what your preach" bro, very logical as well.

[Grobmate]

@Jager66 argument? It's a discussion. Internet has nothing to do with amendments.

[Jager66]

yes, a discussion about a political issue with opposing view points where you have given your logical reason as support to your position.. aka you made an argument in the discussion.

Sure it does. If by your reasoning muskets are protected by the constitution because they were the "technology at the time" then that same standard applies to all amendments. For example, you should be writting a letter and mailing it to respond and "freedom of the press" would only apply to this

and so on and so on. plenty of stuff you could apply this reasoning too.

The point being here, that your position is just plain silly.

[Grobmate]

@Jager66 so maintaining, updating (amending) the constitution, common and statute laws to provide a system that supports a contemporary society is silly? Ok then...

[Jager66]

Well since you can't be honest there isn't much to talk about is there? Lying about me taking the position that amending laws = silly.. Just wow.. congratulations on that canard.

[Lliam]

I am a strong supporter of second amendment rights.

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take