Hacker News Reader

Comment by NovemberWhiskey | Hacker News Reader

Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment.

There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.

View on HN

I don't see this happening for at least a handful of generations, if ever, even though it has happened once with the 21st amendment (repealed the 18th).

A supermajority in both houses is doable, but you need all but 12 states to vote in favor, too. There are comfortably 15+ states in the "ain't ever gonna budge" category on that front, and while attitudes could shift in future generations that make such change possible, there is no doubt in my mind that it would take literal generations to happen.

I agree with you, I don't say it because I think it's a useful thing to try to achieve right now; I say it only because I believe it's true, and I wish we'd start from the fundamental problem.

Totally, and it is a tough thing because it feels so intractable--the mountain to get over (38 states in favor of repealing) just seems nigh impossible. But, stranger things have happened.

There is a saying that god may have made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. The right to use lethal force in defense of self is pretty widely accepted, but we should acknowledge that some of us have dramatic advantages in that regard. Being taller, having been in more fights, having a physically active job, being male... Firearms, more than literally any other weapon, level that disadvantage. So to acknowledge the right but deny it an equitable means seems unfair to me.

And on a less philosophical note, there will be no changes to the constitution until we have a complete party failure on one side or the other. The current polarization does not seem correctable as it self perpetuates. And in this climate even public agreement on normal legislation that both parties privately agree on is rare, because that is seen as conspiring with the enemy.

This is an appealing idea, with a great soundbite, that has literally no large-scale evidence in its favor. The epidemiological evidence is pretty clear on this; the prevalence of self-defense use of guns is minuscule.

Even where guns are used in self-defense, it's often in the context of an escalation of an argument rather than in the scenarios people imagine. People who do use guns to protect themselves in the course of crimes are no less likely to be injured than those who do not.

I would encourage you to revisit the research around firearms used in self defense. 500,000 to 3,000,000 encounters where a firearm was used in self defense in the US is what I was able to find. Doesn't sound minuscule.

You need to look beyond the headline numbers.

Here's a good place to start reading: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...

Some popular firearm magazine a coworker used to keep on their desk always had references to news stories with summaries of encounters of legal self defense using firearms. Some months they had as few as 5, some as many as 20. If you assume they found as many as they could, that would be not much more than one hundred per year. They only used cases where the assailant was actually shot, and only cases that made the news. But it is still indicative that millions is probably a vast inflation just as your link indicates. Is the fact that excercising the right is rarely warranted or effective, and outweighed by the danger of doing so a valid reason to abolish it? My intuition is that it is not, but I'm not at all sure. I tend to gravitate towards fairness of a policy over its actual outcome. The notion that doing an injustice to accomplish a good is immoral is probably naive, but it is my instinct.

Enforce the Second Amendment.

It starts with "A well regulated militia..."

A well regulated militia has absolutely no relationship to selling assault weapons to teenagers and/or fantasists.

There is no constitutional "right to bear arms" outside of that context.

And while that's being clarified, it would be also be good to investigate the NRA's Russian money problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/27/nra-russia-f...

Because the US doesn't have a gun problem so much as a stochastic terrorism problem, blatantly sponsored and encouraged by a hostile foreign power which is known for encouraging extremely destructive cultural subversion.

There's no such thing as a "collective right". Every other right guaranteed in the Constitution applies to an individual.

Also, "assault weapon" is a term that means whatever the gun grabbers want it to mean today.

OK then; if you don't like "assault weapon"; let's clear this up terminological issue. I'd like to ban all automatic, select-fire or semi-automatic firearms, except on the basis of a permit issued on evidence of demonstrable need. We can move on to consider other types of actions.

> I'd like to ban all automatic, select-fire or semi-automatic firearms

You're looking to ban at least 75% of all guns in the US. It might even be more like 80-90%, but I'm too lazy to look for a source. How do you intend to accomplish that?

I don't care; I'm just avoiding the terminological confusion around "assault weapon" and all the noise it generates.

This. I know many gun owners personally and almost none of them object to regulation, similar to the level we have for operating a motor vehicle. Things like waiting periods, background checks, denying weapons to violent criminals, mandatory training and gun registries are common sense to most everyone - including gun owners. But the NRA is driving an extremist interpretation of the 2nd amendment that leads a small but very vocal subset of the population to take gun ownership as gospel (literally in some cases) without bothering to ever read the actual text of the Bill of Rights.

That's completely false. The right of the people to bear arms is not dependent on them being in a militia.

The "well regulated militia" of the 2A is a prefatory clause. "... The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people. Any attempt to limit this civil right to a militia is an argument from ignorance.

This is VERY well established, both in law, in judicial review, and in debate. It's an argument that has died, like "violent video games". And yet, people earnestly continue to make it...

Well-regulated meant well equiped when the constitution was signed. That's where "regulars" comes from in military usage. This was addressed in heller by a liberal majority supreme court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...

> There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.

America also needs a comprehensive media safety law that bans dissemination of reports of things like school attacks outside of the affected communities. All the nationwide media coverage does is inspire copycat mayhem.

Wow, ready to throw out both the first and second amendments. Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that you would actually stand up for?

Talking about repeal of the 2nd amendment is equally useless when there are probably more guns than people in the US, and there's nowhere near enough support for that. There are some ideas, such as increasing the age of ownership, and many others, which should be considered. You'll actually be able to achieve results. Banning guns completely in America is simply impossible now.

shall not be infringed

How do you enforce that in the era of 3D printers and consumer grade CNCs?

the same way you enforce everything else? the idea isn't to make guns non-existent.

Prosecute after the fact? That doesn't change the status quo.

Repealing the Second Amendment has nothing to do with enforcing anything; it just acknowledges that the modern American experience does not need armed militias for the security of the free state, and that where we do have militias they are seldom well-regulated nor do they tend to promote security, and that perhaps arms being what they are today, and America being what it is today, maybe we could decide that there isn't today a right to bear arms.

Here in the UK, we haven't had a school shooting in decades - despite the availability of affordable CNC machines and 3D printers.

After all, I have no gun and also no bullets, and also no gunpowder or primers, and also nobody I could show a DIY gun off to, and also nowhere I could shoot a DIY gun, and also if I use it to defend my home, the cops can put two and two together.

Criminals generally just use knives. Obviously people who can import illegal drugs can also import illegal guns, but they're keen to keep a low profile.

Of course, I doubt America could ever get to where the UK is today - too many people who are passionately pro-gun, and too many guns around out there.

Do you have a permit to state your opinion out in the open like this?

Of course America will never get to where the UK is today. We don't want that shit. We want freedom.

He obviously does not. Looks like your argument falls apart on its face.

> Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment.

Will never happen in this lifetime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com