![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nov. 5th, 2017
The Second Amendment problem
Nov. 5th, 2017 05:40 pmIt looks like the expanded interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a fairly recent phenomenon. Most likely, it's due to the public's [over-]reaction to rising crime rates in the 1980s and early 1990s. My hypothesis would be that resistance to gun regulation is a generational issue and will go away, once Baby Boomers die out.
Here's a long quote from a former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on the subject:
Here's a long quote from a former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on the subject:
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.
When I joined the [Supreme] court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.
Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
Kant begins by acknowledging that when one person (A) takes possession of something, everyone else then has a duty not to injure A with respect to that thing. When the duties of all others (that is, everyone but A) are pulled together and looked at in a unified way, they constitute a property right. In other words, property is the summation of the duties of everyone else toward A.
R.P. Merges. Justifying Intellectual Property, 2011.
According to this logic, property rights must have a strong network effect. That would explain the difference in wealth b/w societies with various degrees of property rights.
upd: as opposed to or maybe in addition to the gov coercion theory of rights. coercion is expensive and prone to corruption.
TIL: Lithium reserves
Nov. 5th, 2017 07:35 pm1. Chile. Reserves - 7,500,000 MT. Production - 12,000 MT.
2. China. Reserves - 3,200,000 MT. Production - 2,000 MT.
3. Argentina. Reserves - 2,000,000 MT. Production - 5,700 MT.
4. Australia. Reserves - 1,600,000 MT. Production - 14,300 MT.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/energy-investing/lithium-investing/lithium-reserves-country/
Unlike the US, China has no vested interest in maintaining oil-based auto tech.
2. China. Reserves - 3,200,000 MT. Production - 2,000 MT.
3. Argentina. Reserves - 2,000,000 MT. Production - 5,700 MT.
4. Australia. Reserves - 1,600,000 MT. Production - 14,300 MT.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/energy-investing/lithium-investing/lithium-reserves-country/
Unlike the US, China has no vested interest in maintaining oil-based auto tech.