Hacker News Reader

Comment by voakbasda | Hacker News Reader

Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it?

One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempts to enforce them are illegal.

Of course, this is a highly unpopular opinion, as most of the population has surrendered itself to creeping authoritarianism.

View on HN

> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them.

That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it.

> One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempts to enforce them are illegal.

The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.

>"The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights."

The Bill of Rights was never supposed to bestow rights, just protect them, as per the preface:

>"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

> That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it.

That's like saying "The right to own a pair of pants does not mean you have the right to wear them." or "The right to own that Rembrandt doesn't mean you have the right to look at it". What, if not to use or consume an item, is the purpose of ownership at the fundamental level?

> The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.

You'll be happy to hear it does neither. It recognizes rights that are inherent to human beings and (presumably) limits the ability of the government to infringe on them.

Or like saying that "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive it".

Or even "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive through red lights".

The fact that you can own something does not mean that you have the right to use it indiscriminately. In this case (if we consider them "digital arms") I don't see how using it for retribution (rather then self defense) would be considered ok.

> Or like saying that "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive it".

This is exactly how it works (in the USA) currently. You can legally own a car, yet be unable to drive it legally (if you are not a licensed driver).

Yes that was somewhat my point :)

And even if you don't have a drivers license it can be perfectly legal to drive your car on your own property (hack your own computers) but not to drive on public roads / private property where the owner has not consented to you driving (hacking someone elses computer without their ok), but if they are ok with it it's perfectly legal (like for instance pentesting). Context matters.

Indeed, inalienable rights cannot by definition be granted; they can only be recognized.

Exactly! How refreshing it is to observe someone in this modern world who understands that basic distinction! Good on ya for knowing that!

> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it?

Do you have the right to shoot at someone's house? Do you have the right to fire in a crowded theater? Do you have the right to fire your weapon right next to someone's ear?

Just because you own a gun does mean your use of that gun cannot be restricted by law, indeed severely so. The only issue is to what degree your usage may be curtailed. This is not black and white.

The crimes that you listed are destruction of property, disturbing the peace, and intentionally causing bodily harm. Using a gun is incidental to the actual crime. The same arguments can be made about knives, baseball bats, or other things. Consequently, this is not a legitimate basis for restricting their availability or usage of guns themselves, any more than such potential crimes limit the use of those other objects.

Of course, prosecutors love to double dip with charges, tacking on a weapons charge or two. These extra charges usually result in a far more severe sentence. Again, hard to see the legality of such practices, but this is the status quo that we have today.

Obviously there are limits on what you can shoot your guns at or crimes like murder, for example, would be legal as long as it was accomplished with a gun.

In most jurisdictions, homicide is entirely justifiable when it is committed in the act of defending oneself or others from potentially lethal forces, where a reasonable person would conclude that committing murder was necessary to preserve those lives.

Sure but is it legal if you’re not in the act of defending yourself? If you just walk up to someone who made you mad, and shoot them? No. Which means there are legal limits on how you can use your guns.

Yes, murder would be illegal without just cause, but then it doesn't matter what weapon is used, does it? In which case, you're trying to blame the weapon, rather than the person. I agree there should be legal limits on what you can do to someone else's person, but that policy does not require placing unconstitutional limits on gun use.

It doesn’t matter whether what kind of weapon. And in fact if you go up to my first comment, you’ll see I used the more general term “arms”.

You’ve decided to focus on guns in your comments, but that’s not a distinction that matters to my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com