Hacker News Reader

Comment by whakim | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

>"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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com