Tell me what you can think of. What I can are:
There would be no regulation as to the weaponry civilians could own as any regulation is an infringement of the second amendment. The government wouldn't be able to say what arms we could and couldn't have. If I wanted a machine gun, I could have one. No form of expression or speech would be outlawed, no matter how morally objectionable or controversial. Things like pornography that is "obscene" and CP would be legal since they are a form of information, which is a form of speech protected by freedom of speech in the first amendment. The following will be what others have posted followed by who posted it. Please explain your posts in regards to what amendment applies.

No civil asset forfeiture(eggsalad).
No Obamacare(Genghis Khan).
No sex offender registry(eggsalad)

Let's put fully automatics in the hands of people like OP. Why do you want one? So you can kidnap and rape kids? I hope you get hit by a bus.

Rape would still be illegal, The government just wouldn't be able to outlaw any form of information, and that includes CP. The government shouldn't care what people jerk off to anyway,regardless of how morally objectionable it is.

Quote from: Chakas on September 09, 2017, 01:48:37 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 09, 2017, 01:15:44 PM

Let's put fully automatics in the hands of people like OP. Why do you want one? So you can kidnap and rape kids? I hope you get hit by a bus.

Rape would still be illegal, The government just wouldn't be able to outlaw any form of information, and that includes CP. The government shouldn't care what people jerk off to anyway,regardless of how morally objectionable it is.

Fuck the government bitch I care

Ok. You care. This is a hypothetical situation and CP isn't the main focus of it. You've voiced your opinion. What else is there to say?

Quote from: Chakas on September 09, 2017, 01:52:38 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 09, 2017, 01:50:14 PM

Quote from: Chakas on September 09, 2017, 01:48:37 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 09, 2017, 01:15:44 PM

Let's put fully automatics in the hands of people like OP. Why do you want one? So you can kidnap and rape kids? I hope you get hit by a bus.

Rape would still be illegal, The government just wouldn't be able to outlaw any form of information, and that includes CP. The government shouldn't care what people jerk off to anyway,regardless of how morally objectionable it is.

Fuck the government bitch I care

Ok. You care. This is a hypothetical situation and CP isn't the main focus of it. You've voiced your opinion. What else is there to say?

That you need to die right now.

I'm tempted to make a pedo joke, but I feel you're actually pretty emotional about this. I feel you believe I'm some sort of kiddy diddler because of my statements here. Well, I'm not, if that's what you're wondering.

Quote from: Genghis Khan on September 09, 2017, 01:18:58 PM

Obamacare would be in the toilet.

Quote from: Chakas on September 09, 2017, 01:05:51 PM

Things like CP would be legal. No civil asset forfeiture(eggsalad). No Obamacare(Genghis Khan). No sex offender registry(eggsalad)

Quote from: eggsalad on September 09, 2017, 01:13:00 PM

There wouldn't be a publicly available sex offender registry.
There wouldn't be civil forfeiture.

You guys are going to have explain these.

For the most part, I've been quoting other people, so I can't really defend the other statements. As far as CP goes, it's not a subject I like talking about but I thought it'd be worth mentioning. I believe that if the government truly abided by the constitution, possesion and distribution of CP would be legal as no form of information could be illegal since any kind of information is a form of speech and is protected by freedom of speech. The concept of information being illegal is a trivial one in the first place. In the case of CP, that information would be in the form of pictures and videos. This isn't the main topic of this thread though. I'm pretty sure just talking about it breaks the rules too, so I'd like to kill the CP conversation. challengerx seems to have a grudge against me because of these opinions anyway.

Why does it always come back to guns?

Seriously.

Why does it always come back to guns?

Seriously.

Because 'Murica

Quote from: Chakas on September 09, 2017, 02:37:16 PM

Quote from: Flee on September 09, 2017, 02:33:06 PM

Quote from: Chakas on September 09, 2017, 02:20:37 PM

I believe that if the government truly abided by the constitution, possesion and distribution of CP would be legal as no form of information could be illegal since any kind of information is a form of speech and is protected by freedom of speech. The concept of information being illegal is a trivial one in the first place.

To my knowledge, the "all information can be speech" approach follows the interpretation of courts and is not the letter of the law. If we're going to "really abide by" the constitution, we can't selectively pick and choose what court cases we want to follow or not. I'll happily be proven wrong though.

I believe in this hypothetical scenario, the U.S. would be different entirely and the court cases we know of today wouldn't exist. My original post was assuming the U.S. abided by the constitution since its creation. I'm not very well versed with court cases in general though, so I wouldn't be able to give any examples.

Fair enough, but I think you're wrong here. The original text and sentiment of the First Amendment of the Constitution covered speech and press. There was, to my knowledge, no general freedom of information. I don't see any convincing reason to assume that CP would be any more legal under the "pure" constitution than under the interpretation of it we follow now.

What I believe is that speech and information are inherent to each other and that photos and videos, being information, are also an extention of speech. To regulate information is to regulate speech. In the case of CP, it may be an expression of speech of those committing the crime and is also a record of that crime, but it is still protected, so owning and viewing it would not be illegal. Basically, what I believe is that any form of information made by man can not be regulated under the law. That is my interpretation of freedom of speech. In other words, anyone can put any information out into the world without regulation.

Quote from: Chakas on September 09, 2017, 02:54:14 PM

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 09, 2017, 02:41:52 PM

Why does it always come back to guns?

Seriously.

Because 'Murica

Armed citizens means there will never be a holocaust in America.

Or because of them there will be one.

Chicken or the egg?

Do fascist/authoritarian/etc. governments disarm the citizens to increase oppression unhindered, or do governments teetering on fascism/authoritarianism/etc. disarm their citizens under good pretenses and later realize they have much more capacity to oppress them?