Comment by elmerfud | Hacker News Reader

Comment by elmerfud | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment but there is one very vocal organization and subgroup that does. It attempts to defend it against any abridgment no matter how minor or what others cite as "reasonable".

The problem isn't the NRA's and gun owners staunch defense of the second amendment it's wondering why people aren't more inclined to defend the fourth amendment. Too many people accept the incremental abridgment of our constitutional protections because they seem "reasonable". Never looking forward to what the long term outcome will be.

Instead of being critical of the tenacity of how the second is defended, tenaciously defending the others would be a good use of energy. Every protection should be fought like the NRA fights gun control, but it's easier point and blame than build up.

NRA expenses $423 million ACLU budget $235 million

Considering only 43% of US households own guns, and 100% use the 4th amendment we can that there's a huge number of apathetic people for you to motivate instead of tearing down something else.

Go ahead and down vote because it's easier than reading the numbers and doing something. This is why we are in this problem.

It's not as if NRA are supported by taxes. If they're spending enough defending 2A, that just leaves the rest of us to defend the rest of the Constitution. ACLU, EFF, etc. take donations...

I have to agree - the problem isn't "gun rights are being defended too enthusiastically", the problem is "all rights are insufficiently defended, but gun rights defenders are slightly less insufficient than other civil liberties groups".

But then so many people turn around and say that they're fine with rights they don't like being infringed...

how do you make money defending the 4th ammendment? the NRA is basically a gun advertising agency. They're there to sell guns and using the 2nd amendment to do it

What do you do when your 4th amendment is violated? If it is violated and no evidence of a crime turns up, you usually don't have a reason to sue (even though you have standing) and would rather save the time and money. If evidence of a crime does turn up, you're usually left holding the bag for your own defense because you may not be an attractive client to pro bono lawyers or the ACLU.

There are tons of people who have their rights violated every day and are given unjust sentences across the nation. The only remedy is probably the second amendment.

> I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment

Citation needed.

> It attempts to defend it against any abridgment no matter how minor or what others cite as "reasonable".

That's what is so great about the second amendment. We don't have to argue over how much abridgment is acceptable because the amendment itself prescribes how much abridgment is acceptable.

"shall not be infringed."

"shall not be violated"

How's that Militia going? Got any nuclear weapons?

There are always restrictions to mitigate the extreme cases.

EG: You can't own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. What this restriction does is create an [artificial] floor price on any fully auto stuff to deter casual purchase - to the point a completely ghetto MAC-10 costs like $8K-9K, but because it was made before 1986 it is good to go. (To be clear, as a multi-gun owner, I think this is a fair compromise between no regulations and no guns.)

Another: Unauthorized possession of a nuclear weapon is banned by multiple laws, not just one, for example. Also if your desire to attempt to possess or possess said nuclear weapon was coupled with the intent to use it, well, that's another felony layered on.

Not trying to be overly-pedantic, but when people say "will not be infringed" I translate that to mean handguns, shotguns, and rifles (up to semi-automatic). Anything beyond those definitions start getting into what I will concede are legitimate "weapons of war" (machine guns, explosives, biological weapons) which merits restriction.

In the US, anything bigger than a 50 caliber round is classified as a "destructive device". Also included in that categories are grenade launchers, artillery shells, and I believe technically nuclear weapons. Interestingly enough flamethrowers are not classified as destructive devices.

> Not trying to be overly-pedantic, but when people say "will not be infringed" I translate that to mean handguns, shotguns, and rifles (up to semi-automatic). Anything beyond those definitions start getting into what I will concede are legitimate "weapons of war" (machine guns, explosives, biological weapons) which merits restriction.

I think you have a very skewed view of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. "Weapons of war" is exactly the sort of thing it should be protecting. Ban handguns? Fine (under the amendment) - no one uses those in war (minus epsilon). I wouldn't be happy with it, since they're rather useful for self defence, but I could at least see it being justified. But short barreled shotguns? Submachine guns? Assault rifles? Anti-materiel rifles and RPGs? MANPADS, mortars and artillery? All those should be perfectly fine and dandy under the 2nd amendment, as evidenced by the privately owned warships and cannon around the beginning of the 19th century.

Yes, this means that it's been infringed a hell of a lot. Which is part of why gun rights groups fight so hard - give a little more ground, and there might not be any more to fall back to.

Yeah I appreciate your comments, but I respectfully disagree.

I have tangible reasons why I believe that fully automatic weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons should NOT be legal for civilian ownership in most cases (am open to someone appealing or stating their case -- eg I'm a weapons creator and wish to create weapons for the state).

What tangible reasons are those?

As for why I think that the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover weapons of war - all the weapons of war - it was written following a successful revolution against an oppressive government, made possible by individuals already owning their own weapons. Oh, and Britain had tried to confiscate those, too. Yes, they wouldn't have anticipated the ABCs of strategic weaponry and perhaps those would be excluded, but almost anything below that has analogues in the 1700s. (And lumping automatic weapons in with atomic, biological and chemical weapons is kinda murder, arson and jaywalking IMO)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com