Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshmn | Hacker News Reader

And here's the solution: Turn in your guns.

Disclaimer: I'm a gun owner, and an avid hunter. At one point in my life I shot for competition. I still think that we need to turn in all guns. I personally know too many people with guns who _don't_ need them, instead they have them because they think it's cool, or because it's a "constitutional right."

Sorry, but I think the constitution was written when we didn't have a problem. Most of these peoples are also religious in one way or another (you can infer which way they lean, and you'll probably be correct) — but don't you dare tell them that it's also a constitutional right to choose to follow no religion. Because that's sacrilegious.

I was also raised catholic.

View on HN

The US government is based on the idea that power is always corruptable, so the way to counter that is to divide and istribute the power.

The 2nd Amendment isn't there so you can protect yourself against criminals. You already got the government (the police force) for that. It is also not there so you can go hunting (though you can use it for that).

The 2nd Amendment is there to divide and distribute half the power to the people and half to the government.

Did you know that the Ten Amendments, are the second part of the Constitution? The first part of the Constitution gives power to the government, while the second part of the Constitution gives power to the people.

Your ancestors fought and died so that 50% of the power will be given to the people. So that the document will be divided into two parts: the Constitution itself (for the government), and the Bills of Rights aka the 10 Amendments (for the people).

So why do you want to abolish your part of the constitution and give all the power back to the government?

It's would be as illogical as Congress deciding to abolish all its power and give them all to the Executive Branch.

The point of the Constitution is to divide and distribute power between the branches, between the federal and the states, and between the government and the people.

Let's get this out of the way: for practical purposes, the Second Amendment is heavily modified by legal precedent.

Having said that, the Constitution, including the amendments, primarily constrained the federal government. Remember that "freedom of religion" clause? There were at least a couple of states with an established church at the time. The ability for municipalities to restrict the bearing of arms was not much questioned until the last 50 years or so.

Both were zapped by the 14th Amendment, which was passed in part to counter laws restricting freedmen from owning guns granted, the Supremes almost immediately judicially nullified it.

The recent McDonald decision zapping the Chicago and some of it's suburbs bans on gun ownership made that explicit SCOTUS writ ... where in an interesting wrinkle, the gun owner's advocate offered the Supremes a chance to reverse the prior nullification, which in part made their decision another beloved "compromise".

> The 2nd Amendment is there to divide and distribute half the power to the people and half to the government.

1) According to whom? I've heard people say that but I know no basis for it.

2) Has this ever happened in the history of the United States, where private citizens asserted power over government through violence (and who were not criminals)? Even the Civil War was an insurrection by a government.

3) Most importantly, it seems like a terrible idea to have issues decided not by votes and laws, but by violence, killing, and who has bigger guns. It sounds like the opposite of civilization - anarchy and barbarism - and the problem democracy and rule of law are meant to solve.

4) The founders, and I believe almost all Americans intend that power should come from votes, and issues should be decided by law, in court.

As for 1, I'd suggest reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp...

As for 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

As for 3, no one is suggesting it become a routine method. Heck, the early 20th Century Imperial Japanese political culture of assassination and what it led to is a stark object lesson (particularly stark as I finish reading this right now: http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/...)

As for 4, your history lessons must have skipped this event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

Overall, it's rather interesting you can't conceive of the deterrent effects of a well armed populace. Surely our 21st Century experiences in the sandbox suggest something....

1) According to whom? I've heard people say that but I know no basis for it.

According to your ancestors, who were unwilling to signed the Constitution into law because it only contained power for the government.

If you read up on the history of the founding of the United States of American, you will find that your ancestors demanded a second portion be added to the Constitution, a portion with powers distributed and reserved for the people, a portion called the Bill of Rights, which consists of 10 Amendments. Your ancestors demanded that if this portion, which distributed half the power to the people was not added, they would not sign the Constitution into law.

So that was why this portion was added back then, because the people demanded it, and they were unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution and of the government until it was added.

The Ten Amendments are not there to give power to the people, there are there to emphasize powers that the government DOES NOT HAVE. The thought was (and a very good one), that if something was not explicitly forbidden the government would find a way to wrangle definitions so it was included (ACA as a 'tax', anyone?).

ANY powers not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution are supposed to be reserved for the people.

>ANY powers not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution are supposed to be reserved for the people.

Of course, but that only applies if the government is still good.

Should a situation arise where the government decides to become evil, then the government will not give a f*ck about the people's reserved rights.

At that point, it will become hard to fight the government, if the people have no guns and especially hard if the people no standing well-regulated militia groups of men to enforce and defend the reserved rights of the people.

This is why the founding fathers want to guarantee the peoples the right to the standing of well-regulated militias groups. Because if the peoples does not have well-regulated militia groups to defend them, then the government can just decide to become corrupt, and there will be nothing that the people can do. By then, it'll be too late to start recruiting, training, and buying guns and ammo.

However, if the people have well-regulated militia groups standing by, then the government will have to fight a bloody war against the people's well-regulated militia groups first before the government can become a full fledged dictatorship.

Bad people are shooting good people in gun free zones.

And here's the solution: Good people, turn in your guns.

Yeah, sure, we'll get right on that: "[2015] Black Friday saw most federal gun background checks ever in a single day": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/0...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com