Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattwad | Hacker News Reader

How do you think the 2nd amendment is under assault? If you look at the list of things our youth were marching for[1], it doesn't say anything about taking guns away. Just like you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon. Also, there's no way in hell any group of citizens can fight the US army these days so it seems like a moot point. You don't need automatic weapons to defend your house from intruders, but for some reason our leaders tell these kids that the solution is to shut up, wear invisible back-packs and learn CPR.

[1] https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/

View on HN

> there's no way in hell any group of citizens can fight the US army these days so it seems like a moot point.

Afghanistan is the 8th poorest nation in the world [1]

The US spent over a decade and over a trillion dollars fighting there [2]

We did not decisively "win" by any measure [3]

[1] https://financesonline.com/a-list-of-third-world-countries-1...

[2] https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-...

[3] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-will-never-win-t...

You state:

> you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon

Generally speaking, this statement speaks to a lack of information regarding what semi-automatic is or what it means. Most firearms sold today are semi-automatic. Banning semi-automatic firearms bans the majority of firearms.

That you later go on to state "You don't need automatic weapons to defend..." implies to me that you've conflated automatic and semi-automatic. You cannot conflate those two terms in good faith and claim to be having a reasonable and informed debate.

You also assert that nobody's saying anything about taking guns away, but Hillary Clinton (and other politicians) repeatedly called for Australian-style gun buybacks, which were mandatory, which are the same as confiscation. I'll broadly agree that it isn't the popular sentiment, but suggesting that nobody's calling for it is disingenuous at the very least.

Moreover, from your link, the following statements are at odds with your assertion that the second amendment isn't under attack.

> Weapons of war have no place in our communities. Our nation requires a comprehensive assault weapons ban

> Limiting high-powered weapons to the military has worked elsewhere to eliminate the opportunity for mass shootings

> These magazines are devastating and need to be banned.

Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater". That has been covered here by me, by others, and by prominent first amendment attorneys all over the map, but despite the common misconception, there's no law or regulation that prohibits you from yelling fire in a movie theater.

Nobody ever believes that, so please enjoy some citations:

* https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

* https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

* http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-st...

> repeatedly called for Australian-style gun buybacks, which were mandatory, which are the same as confiscation.

They were mandatory, however gun owners with reasonable reasons (i.e. hunting, sport, recreation) were free to acquire a license to keep their guns (excluding military style weapons). You can currently acquire a semi-automatic rifle (under 10 rounds) with the proper licenses and reasons (farm worker, sport etc.)[1]

- There were no repercussions for illegal guns being handed in (someone handed in a rocket launcher).

- There were no laws preventing someone acquiring a license to keep their gun if they wanted (within the laws which were introduced).

- No police invaded homes to take weapons by force during the amnesty.

Australia's gun-amnesties/buybacks were not the same as confiscation.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Firearms...

> Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater".

I thought the 'mistake' would be assuming that this action is prohibited even in the event of a fire.

Now I question if it is assumed to apply unconditionally, even during a fire. And if so, what is the appropriate way to deal with such an event

So, _Schenck_ has largely been overturned on a number of occasions, but the following (untested) likely still holds as punishable (but not forbidden against through ante-hoc regulations):

* _Falsely_ shouting fire

* in a crowded theater

* for the purpose of imminently inciting harm to others

Wow, just wow.

We started at submission about Google employees waving around a paper tiger petition, we proceeded to top ranked reminder to everyone of DARPA and how military funding is the One True Way, then on to crypto export controls, rolling onward into a gun control debate, conflating semi-automatic weapons with rocket launchers, and finally into yes, the meaning behind "fire in a crowded theater."

The comment section on HN is now second only to the comments from Yahoo news stories. Keep up the great work everyone.

That is obviously what is meant by the idiom - surely you are aware of that? How are you not being disingenuous on this point?

To be fair, the thing that is most oft intended by the idiom is "look, if the cherished first amendment can be restricted, then so too can the second amendment".

It isn't a law, and where I say "might" in my follow-up, it should not be confused with "is" or "will". There are no laws that forbid you from exclaiming fire in a theater. People think there are because Oliver Wendell Holmes made a clumsy aside while explaining a bad decision that has since been overturned.

Either way, the real point to this is that a punishment for negligent use of one's rights (e.g., falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater for the purposes of causing harm to others) is still not remotely the same as banning free exercise of that right, or converting that right into a privilege through licensure, as is being suggested as rational compromises for the second amendment, predicated on a clumsy and wrong-headed interpretation on the first.

We might all prefer it if you had to obtain a license to speak in a theater, on the grounds that yelling fire in one might prove too dangerous a responsibility for average citizens, but I think most of us would agree that it would violate the first amendment quite heinously. The only way to imagine that equivalent restrictions are less heinous when applied to the second amendment is if one takes the second amendment less seriously as a "real" right, or to imagine that such restrictions are common on the first amendment. It isn't less real a right, and such restrictions are not common on the first, despite misuse of the aforementioned idiom.

The average Joe or Jane gun owner in the United States can not purchase, and does not own, automatic weapons.

Literally tens of millions of responsible Americans walk around, every day, carrying semi-automatic weapons, and this is not a problem.

This is also true in the Czech Republic! Shall-issue, just like Texas. They are one of the safest countries in the EU.

You are far more likely to be shot by a cop, than by a citizen legally carrying a semi-automatic weapon.

> Literally tens of millions of responsible Americans walk around, every day, carrying semi-automatic weapons, and this is not a problem.

The idea that 'this is not a problem' is exactly the thing under dispute, so I don't think it should be cheerfully asserted

Objectors to this climate of easy access to firearms -wrong or right- will point to things like:

* criminal gun violence and mass shootings (a phenomenon that is staggeringly rare in most other comparable nations) but also to

* accidental gun deaths, frequently including of children, to

* suicides facilitated by this easy access to firearms, to

* the trigger-happiness of American cops being directly related to the significant likelihood that anyone those cops interact with is armed, compared to countries like the Australia, Japan, or New Zealand.

They also point to a political climate in which research into gun violence is blocked, and where measures such as universal background checks are supported by huge number citizens, but the political situation prevents these from being enacted.

> The idea that 'this is not a problem' is exactly the thing under dispute, so I don't think it should be cheerfully asserted.

There are sixteen million Americans with concealed-carry licenses, plus fourteen states that allow for "constitutional carry" (e.g., no license required).

(Keep in mind that I do think that we should require training and licensing for concealed carry, although this needs to be balanced with not imposing an undue economic burden or disenfranchising minorities)

According to the Violence Policy Center -- a very solidly anti-gun group -- there were 27 murders committed by licensed concealed carriers in 2017 across the United States. That's a murder rate of 0.16 per 100,000 people.

By comparison, the total UK murder rate for the same year was six times that.

Likewise, the Czech Republic, which also has a lower murder rate than the UK, has "shall-issue" concealed carry licensing for gun owners -- just like Texas -- and the majority of Czech gun owners have such a license.

I think it's fair to say that concealed carriers are not the problem.

Bear in mind, my above comment highlighted that for objectors the issue is far wider than murder, and also involves the presence of accessible weaponry's influence on: accidental deaths, suicides, and drivers of militarization of police, all of which were introduced before your response - and absolutely none of which would even be visible through the statistical lens you have chosen to employ.

>you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon

That's a ridiculous statement to many people. Most handguns are semi-automatic weapons and you will find little agreement from pro-2nd amendment people to eliminate both handguns and any rifles that aren't muzzle-loaders or bolt-action.

Regardless of whether you agree with the current interpretation of the second ammendment or not, it's hard to deny that those currently wishing to re-interpret it are suggesting an application that will impose new, more strict limits, on ordinary citizens and their rights to bear arms.

Note: the statement above does not choose a side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com