Hacker News Reader

Comment by helloooooooo | Hacker News Reader

The Constitution also doesn’t say I am allowed to bear an Ak47, but apparently it’s a constitutionally protected right. You have a right to bear arms, but if you are going by the strictest interpretation, those arms should be a firearm built using 1776 technology. Fuck originality interpretation. We all know exactly what SCOTUS is going to overturn next and it is going to backslide America into a further shithole

View on HN

Actually, it does: "arms" is a general term that describes weapons including the Ak47.

The problem with saying technological change invalidates the 2nd amendment, is that you have to also explain or accept that the 1st amendment only applies to letters written with a feather and a pool of ink.

"Arms" includes nuclear weapons too, strictly speaking. After-all, the term for the period in which the USA was building ever more powerful nuclear weapons was called the "nuclear arms race."

Ah the classic nukes "gotcha." If you want to argue nukes ought to be included as bearable arms, I'm all for that too. The federal government has shown itself very willing to infringe on the right to bear arms.

A constitutional amendment could easily ban nukes. It's not like there isn't a process to get them out of private hands the legitimate way. It probably wouldn't even be difficult amendment to pass. Similarly an amendment should be required if you want to exclude certain technology from the 1st amendment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com