Hacker News Reader

Comment by alistairSH | Hacker News Reader

So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Because, if this is about securing the state (either against a tyrannical government, or a 3rd party), rifles and handguns aren't going to cut it.

Or, are you limiting your interpretation to firearms in common use at the time of the Constitutional Convention? In which case, you can turn in your Glock and your AK.

Point being, we already have established restrictions on firearms. These restrictions have held up in court (for the most part).

View on HN

> So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers?

Yes, of course. You'll need quite a bit of money to buy the second two and comply with safety regulations, though …

There is an argument that the 2nd Amendment only covers personal weapons, e.g. rifles, pistols, swords, knives, bazookas &c. I don't find it fully persuasive, but I don't really feel strongly enough about the issue to spend all my time arguing about whether nukes should be legal: I'm far more concerned about things like firearms, knife & sword bans.

Edit: s/too/two/

> So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers?

I can't think of any reason why someone couldn't own an aircraft carrier today, other than that they cost four billion dollars of course. You can own your own tank, as long as the weapons are nonfunctional and you just drive it on your own property.

>So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers?

Most of those are prohibitively expensive, but why not? Is your argument that somehow ordinary people will be more likely to use them indiscriminately?

I mean, who is the US government, which owns bazookas and air craft carriers, but a collection of ordinary people who have done their share of indiscriminate usage of weaponry?

My argument was that the 2A isn't absolute, as the parent implied. There are restrictions placed on the ownership and use of firearms (see child comment about NFA items and the extra paperwork, fees, and licensing involved).

I'm not anti-gun, in the general sense. I am pro-gun control in a much as the current system allows too many irresponsible people to own guns for no good reason (Jamie Gilt being a prime example).

You can actually own a bazooka if you fill out the correct paperwork. It is a NFA item as regulated by the ATF and each round (aside from rounds containing no explosives) are their own NFA regulated item. Each bazooka and explosive round requires a long approval process, $200 fee, fingerprinting and passport photos. Each explosive round must be stored in a ammunition bunker built to strict ATF regulations and you must inform the ATF of each round fired.

Rifles and handguns sure are doing quite a number in the middle east and they worked in vietnam.

Huh, didn't realize bazookas were actually legal.

But, the fact that there is an NFA requirement proves my point - the 2A isn't absolute - there are restrictions placed on firearms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com