Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Its because buying a gun is a civil right.

Smoking is not.

That said, the 21yo requirement may be unconstitutional as well.




I've noticed your eight comments in this thread to date are fairly declarative but aren't well founded or sourced, simply assertions and often appear to be incorrect as responding comments have shown.

Clearly, you and I both support the second amendment. However, we should recognize when our support of certain associate claims aren't well founded. Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.[0]

[0] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a...


>Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.

A ban on the purchasing of arms would definitely infringe on people's individual right to keep and bear them. Yes, an individual right, which is how 18th-19th century courts and political commentators viewed the 2nd before the 20th century "militia only" narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...


This is the problem. When it comes to abortion, there's a notable portion of the populace (including Supreme Court Justices) that say "well it doesn't literally and explicitly call that out in the Consitution so no, it's not a guaranteed right".

... then when it comes to guns... "Well, of course it includes _purchasing_ those arms, even if it doesn't explicitly and literally say so, because it'd be hard to bear them otherwise, so it somehow _must_ guarantee that, too!"


Now go read the listed article ;-)


As far as I can tell the author is just making the tired militia argument while pretending to support an individual right. "Americans have a right to defend their homes". Defend their homes with what exactly? He immediately moves on to hunting weapons and the right to hunt. So according to the author, we have the right to own fudd guns, and the right to self defense (but not with guns, and not outside our home). Yawn!


>Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.

"Voting in elections is a civil right granted by the Bill of Rights. Access to a polling station isn't a civil right."

That's effectively what you're saying. Rights enshrine access. Things like poll taxes, voter ID, etc. have all been declared unconstitutional because they infringe upon your right. Banning purchasing arms falls in the exact same category.


Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation.

The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.


Words change in meaning over time. The second amendment has been hit hard by that. In the time period: "Regulated" means up to a particular standard of strength. This is why British regulars were called "regulars," because they had a particular set of equipment. "Militia" referred to the pool of people who could be called to defend the country. In 1776, that meant men of fighting age (14-60). This is different than the voting population, who were specifically landed men, or the population of citizens. In other words, the second amendment called for a fighting-age male population that was as well-armed as the military.

This is why DC vs Heller was decided in the way it was. The "well-regulated militia" before the comma meant something totally different than its current meaning.

As an aside, I think that most modern military weapons should be banned, but that is actually not what the 2nd amendment calls for. The right solution to the problem is to amend the constitution, not try to pass gun control laws and see what a court will approve.


This is the best layman's explanation I've seen of the text of the second and it's meaning in context, thank you.


I disagree with your policy preferences, but I respect and appreciate that you have a correct understanding of the constitution.


This has been discussed at great length many many times and courts nor anyone serious about this topic agrees with you. The right is not predicated on being part of a militia in any way. Anyone who says this is pretty much immediately ignored by gun owners because they are clearly not serious at all about the topic.


The Bill of Rights didn't "grant" any rights. It merely recognized some of the natural rights held by all free people, and prevented the government from infringing on those rights.


Oh wise HN poster waving away hundreds of years of jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation with one link!


Former Supreme Court justice waving the hands even!


Get five to agree and get back to me ;-)


Got dozens of countries already light years ahead on this and they are operating perfectly fine without loads of gun violence despite similar rates of mental health issues.


Those other countries do not have similar rates of mental health issues, or similar social situations at all.

If you ignore guns entirely, the US still stands out from other countries with an extraordinarily high rate of non-gun violence. It's more accurate to say that the US has a violence problem in general.

If you're truly interested in solving the violence problem, perhaps examine why the US is such a statistical outlier. And also, perhaps, why other countries like Switzerland have such different outcomes while still having extremely high rates of private gun ownership.


Switzerland rules for firearms ownership are a lot more restrictive than the US (background check for everyone, no automatic weapons, etc), and although the percentage of guns per 100 people is higher than other countries, still is about 1/4 of the US where there are roughly 5 firearms every 4 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...


Topic today isn't boiling the ocean. Gun violence has two elements, access to guns and motivation. Working on either and both are key.


The data doesn't support these assertions.


What limits, if any, does the 2nd amendment or the rest of the constitution place on the type of arms?

Eg should you be allowed to use - pistols? - rifles? - machine guns? - explosive / armour piercing bullets? - grenades? - nuclear bombs? - chemical weapons? - biological weapons?

Basically I’m asking where is the line drawn.

Because I don’t think the constitution sets such limits, no distinction for weapons of mass destruction, etc yet the country has found ways to limit people holding chemical weapons and more serious ordinance.


My thoughts on this... Considering the purpose and context of the 2nd, it essentially protects a contemporary citizen-soldier's "kit". The stuff he/she needs to join up in common defense with their community, which includes survival gear, protective gear, and of course, a weapon.

Today's citizen-soldier would carry an AR-15 or variant. If there's one modern gun protected by the 2nd, that's the one.


Still very fuzzy. Javelin missiles? Claymores? C4? Anti-personnel mines? Armored infantry transport vehicles with mounted machine gun? Armored infantry transport vehicles with small diameter turreted cannon? Counter-measures for their personal aircraft?


I mean, I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse in trying to make some kind of "see! There's limits to all rights" point. I gave you what I believe is a reasonable and straightforward philosophical approach to the 2nd amendment.

What does a typical modern day infantryman carry as part of a standard kit?

Not Javelins and anti-personnel mines, those are application- and mission-specific. A soldier doesn't just show up at the armory and load up with whatever high explosives they want; they have a standard issued set of gear, and then mission specific gear divided up among the squad.

Armored infantry transport with mounted machine gun and or cannon turret? Anti-air counter measures? I have no idea how that fits in an individual soldier's kit. At a minimum, they're not bearable arms.

It doesn't mean all those other specific items aren't protected, but if you want an answer on an item-by-item basis, I don't know what to tell you.


Your infantryman still gets weapons that would be considered destructive devices under the law and illegal to own. Grenades and so on.


Yeah, there's some gray area there and grenades are probably the best example.

Separated from philosophical side of things, they are legal to own Federally at least, at $200 a tax stamp. I don't know anything about the jurisprudence wrt to destructive devices.

edit: Another example might be DU ammunition, but I don't know if that's something carried by your typical soldier. I think it's more often in large caliber crew-served and vehicle mounted weapons, but have no actual basis for that.


For what it’s worth I was really just trying to explore the concept and knead it in my mind a bit.

My actual opinion on the matter is that we need a national conversation and some sort of constitutional convention to decide more definitively what the purpose(s) of gun rights should be.

Note that I said “what purpose” rather than “what rights”. I think a lot of people (not everyone, but most) skip this part and go straight to “I want to own select-fire rifles” or “large capacity magazines should be banned” before answering what the allowable purposes of private gun ownership should be.

I think if we enshrine in the constitution the right to own/bear arms for enumerated purposes, that the details will naturally just fall out from that choice.

Some examples of what we could choose from (mix and match to your liking):

1) There is no purpose for private gun ownership of any kind.

2) People should be allowed to own guns for private museums/galleries; historical/scientific/artistic collections.

3) People should be able to own guns for sport target shooting (Olympic shooting, IDPA, etc)

4) People should be able to own guns for hunting.

5) people should be able to own guns to defend their homes.

6) People should be able to own guns to defend themselves when they are out and about.

7) People should be able to own guns to bolster national armory against foreign invasion.

8) People should be able to own guns to attempt to overthrow their own government if they deem it necessary.

For example, if someone picked only something akin to #2, then likely guns would have to have firing pins and/or parts of the trigger mechanism removed.

If the people chose to allow guns for sport, perhaps the government would store your privately owned guns for you at sporting facilities.

If the purpose of private gun ownership is to empower citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, then no registration process should be warranted for destructive devices like javelins or SAM batteries.

It sounds like your limitations match most closely with #7. In which case it seems like if that was the ONLY purpose for private gun ownership it would be reasonable for the government to store your guns in their own local armories and allow you to pick them up in they declare a national defense event.

If purpose of private gun ownership is to allow me to defend myself when I’m out and about, perhaps I should be allowed to carry a pistol when I’m at the bar. While I’ve never personally been in a situation where I’ve said “You know what would have made that go better? If I had a gun.” … I’ve only gotten in situations close to that when I’ve been out drinking late at night. Not allowing me to defend myself at my workplace, school, or bar kind of defeats most of any personal protection objectives.

If the goal is to only allow home defense, perhaps we only need to allow long guns (rifles, shotguns) and can still ban handguns. Perhaps every casing could be serialized and every transaction recorded and annual inspections done for storage conditions and safety adherence.


> If the purpose of private gun ownership is to empower citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, then no registration process should be warranted for destructive devices like javelins or SAM batteries.

This is non-sequitur to me. You're describing having the ability to immediately and effectively go to war with the US military and the entirety of the federal government. That's an absolute extreme. In reality, there would be A LOT of steps before that.

I'm in the #8 camp, but rephrased more generally to something I'm sure you've heard- People should be able to own guns to fight back against tyranny. At the absolute extreme, yeah, I'll admit that that includes potentially overthrowing the government, but in reality the scale is much much smaller.

Meaning, people should be able to own guns to bolster their community's defense from both foreign AND domestic threats. The few times that the 2nd Amendment has successfully been put in practice (wrt to fighting the govt), it was against corrupt local governments completely disconnected from any kind of heavy military hardware or active personnel.

I think stepping back and thinking about what "community defense" looks like, structurally, is a good exercise. You'll find that spread out in towns throughout the country, we have caches of equipment and weapons in local armories. In a "defense" emergency, that becomes the local "military gear co-op". A person provides what they can in the form of equipment, supplies, and weapons, and fills in the gaps with the armory. Other community members who are uh... overstocked... on guns and ammo give to the armory for others to use. Again, not at all limited to weapons and ammo, but that's what I'm focusing on here for the sake of simplicity.

--

Back to the extreme end- what does overthrowing a tyrannical federal government look like in reality? It doesn't just start out of nowhere with large scale conflict with the US military. It starts with balkanization, communities isolating, picking sides, pooling resources.... over time increasing violent attacks turning into gun fights, spread throughout the country. By the time a direct open conflict starts with a state or federal government, there is no single State or US military, there is no rule of law, and heavy military hardware is spread out among factions.

So while the 2nd Amendment might not be interpreted to mean "Your right to a SAM battery is constitutionally protected", if the extreme purpose of it becomes reality... you'll get your private SAM battery.

One last edit:

A non-exhaustive list of Things I think the 2nd Amendment (or the philosophy behind it) specifically protects:

- An infantryman's personal weapon (infantryperson? community defense is everyone's responsibility) and all equipment/accessories needed to maintain and operate it.

- Typical survival gear: backpacks, boots, mess kit, knives (bayonets! not just for stabbing; they're often multi-function tools), tents, etc

- Typical protective gear: helmets, ear plugs, goggles, body armor/plate carrier

Taken from my nowhere-near-complete understanding of contemporary gear. In 200 years, replace "rifle" with "phased pulse blaster" and "body armor" with "personal energy shield" if we're still stupid enough to be going to war with each other then.


All very appropriate for Ukrainian civilians and military right now, fighting for their lives.


At war you could just allow anyone to declare they are a soldier. They even had (have?) an international visa for anyone wanting to come and fight.


If necessary yes?


> What limits, if any, does the 2nd amendment or the rest of the constitution place on the type of arms?

“The constitution”, as a written document, doesn’t put any limits on anything, because it’s irrelevant in practice, and constitutional law is pure kayfabe.

The real constitution, in practice, is the rulings of the Supreme Court, which has absolutely unlimited latitude for “interpreting” the written document however it wants.


Sort of.

Nothing in the constitution grants the supreme court this power.

Judicial review was a power seized by the courts in Marbury vs Madison.

Theoretically, congress could act to limit the purview of the supreme court at any time.


> Nothing in the constitution grants the supreme court this power.

Doesn’t matter. They have this power, in actually existing reality.

> Theoretically, congress could act to limit the purview of the supreme court at any time.

Sure, they could try. And the Supreme Court would strike down the law they pass. Then we’re in full-blown Venezuela-level constitutional crisis territory where nobody agrees who legitimately holds power, and it’s impossible to predict what would happen.


> Sure, they could try. And the Supreme Court would strike down the law they pass.

Isn't the balance to this that congress and the executive branch can restructure the courts? Eg. add justices, set term limits, etc.


The idea seems mainly that the average person could be armed to the same degree as a standard infantryman. I think that setting that as an upper-bound could be reasonable. However, during the period of the American revolution, private citizens also owned warships with canons, so it's hard to say where the actual constitutional limit actually is.


Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, and how they have been deciding cases recently, no one is exactly sure how to answer this question anymore. It will likely depend on how John Roberts and Amy Barrett are feeling when they hear upcoming 2a cases.

Prior to 2008, case law was pretty clear that all of these could be heavily restricted or regulated at the discretion of the state or the federal government, if they ever chose to. Prior decisions effectively gave states enough power to ban all guns if they chose to; DC's near-total gun ban was in effect from 1976-2008.


> buying a gun is a civil right

Yeah, this is the point of insanity; so long as people continue to believe this, there will be a school shooting in the US every few weeks. That's what people mean by "the US has chosen this".


Except, we've believed this for generations, but the mass shooting epidemic is rather new.


The 2nd amendment does not actually say anything about purchasing. It could be 100 % satisfied with all sorts of kooky schemes that meet the letter of the law.


It's covered under the "shall not be infringed" part.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: