Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

> The claim is we will restrict/license/outlaw xyz for the kids, but really, a data-drive approach would have focused on different things entirely (eg additional behavioral health services for kids, suicide prevention etc)

Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well.

The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government - and yet, what do the most rabid of these people do? Vote in and defend a literal tyrant.

View on HN

>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government

No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution and the constitution requires an extreme super majority to update. A 50%+1 majority is all that’s required to ban civilian ownership of guns in most parliamentary systems, not so in the US. The culture is downstream of the law.

Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.

Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.

> the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution

The right to bear arms does not necessarily mean firearms. Arms doesn't necessarily even have to include firearms, and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns.

Americans are allowed to have certain firearms, sometimes, in some places. I'm not sure how one squares that with the blanket statement from the American constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms, unless it's simply an impossibly poorly-informed citizenry

You can personally interpret the US constitution however you want, I suppose, but the only interpretation that matters is that of the Supreme Court. And they have held over and over that 2A includes a right to many different kinds of firearms.

I feel like you're the one who is poorly informed?

(For the record, I am in favor of strong gun control laws, but your statement just ignores reality.)

The more… enthusiastic gun people among us think that the national firearms act (which strictly regulates automatic weapons) is an abomination.

It’s unique in that it’s the only right that aligns with business marketing. Peddling fear, mostly to insecure men, has sold hundreds of millions of guns.

The fetishized nature of modern gun culture killed, in addition to people, a lot of shooting sports and hunting.

What a strange take.

I grew up in a small hunting town (I'm in my early 30s), where most high school boys (most girls didn't hunt, but some did) had a rifle and/or shotgun in their truck, mounted against the inside back of the cab where you could see it plain view.

We had 0 homicides from guns in the 19 years I lived there, there was 1 suicide by gun that I know of.

Many of us grew up hunting to feed our family. This is in Colorado.

I shot my first pistol around the age of 5.

I accidentally went to 7th grade with ammo in my pocket because we were hunting that morning. I went to the principal, he told me just to put the ammo in my locker.

With that being said, you'd be hard pressed to find a group of townspeople more respectful of guns.

It's not a gun problem, it's a culture problem.

Not saying that there's not "insecure men" out there that are the victim of marketing, etc, but a lot of us grew up with guns and see them as a tool.

> see them as a tool.

Yes, a tool for killing. You’re respectful of guns, but where’s your respect for life?

Respectful of liberty. A spear is also a tool for killing. Respect for life is not an expectation of the tool.

Those damn commies have banned me from owning an ICBM

My mom grew up in a small town (village? settlement even?) like that (surrounded by nature, lots of hunting, animals can wonder in town) in a country where guns weren't free.

Every family still had a rifle, getting license isn't that hard when you could answer questions about your intentions.

No handguns though, not very useful for self-defense or wildlife. I believe mom made and shot her first arbalest around 6-7 yo though.

Similar cultures, but one of them allows for outsiders to screen potential gun owners, and the other doesn't. Which, I believe, is the point – there always will be mentally unwell or ill-intentioned people. There should be a way for a small town to revoke the trust of allowing weapons in their hands.

I think we’re closer than you think. I grew up in a similar place - my school had a rifle and trap team. Great place to grow up. I’d often go out for the first they day turkey season and miss school.

Reality is shooting sports licensing churns significantly and has for many years - the people doing it get older every year. Some of the stats look better becuase many states offer more deer tags to fewer hunters.

There is a huge culture problem. Army LARPing and conspiracy move guns. Legal arbitrage makes the retail channel a haven for smuggling. Marketing lands heavily on that and politics. The sportsman (and often conservationist) is a relic notion.

> and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns.

Not one but you're really validating their slippery slope fears and claims there.

and this is very clearly unconstitutional. "shall not be infringed" is very very plain and simple

Yep, alongside "Congress shall make no law" which says it's fine for anyone who isn't Congress to infringe your free speech, or for Congress to do it in any way that isn't making a law.

thats very very obviously not how it works or was intended. then they could just come up with "rules" that are not laws, and then rules say cannot have arms.

all these insane and VERY OBVIOUS attempts to bypass the constitution should result in official doing it be put in jail FOREVER

Who's going to put them in jail? Their best friends?

i didnt say i think its gonna happen, im saying it should happen

The system does not work like that, hah. This is the kind of logic sovereign citizens use..."I'm traveling, not driving, so I don't need a license!"

At the end of the day, judges have the ability to clear away silly logic like that, it's part of their job.

Yes, judges have the power to say the constitution is just toilet paper. That's why the constitution is currently just toilet paper. Including both the first and second amendments.

The 2A was created for states to maintain their own troops, what is now the modern national guard - hence "well regulated militia"

SCOTUS bastardized this original intent. It's shameful.

What you miss is that US Code defines militia as the explicit militia that you mention, but also the implicit militia. That implicit militia includes others not in the national guard.

It's also worth mentioning that most states have similar language to the second amendment, including states whose constitutions were implemented prior to the bill of rights, lending to the credence that this is a right of the people, and not of the state. The 10th amendment was supposed to be for the rights of the states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

I'm truly not missing this, it is the original intent of #2A. Activist judges misinterpreting it after the fact does not change that, neither does Congress later passing laws to "clarify" away the original intent.

>No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution

No it isn't, it says you have the ability to form a militia. Not wave a AR-15 in Walmart. It's lobbying by the NRA that has changed the definition.

No part of Europe has “simply banned guns”. Some countries have stricter policies but it’s possibly to own a gun in every country. Some countries are famous for gun ownership, eg switzerland that expects men to keep their militarily issued gun in the home.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with gun ownership in the US if we could require every owner to have military-level firearms training and certification.

Well, that was the whole point of the 2A: effective preparedness.

But gun manufacturers ragebaited this exceptionally effective marketing campaign around their products and here’s where you folks stand

That would require you to actually follow the constitution, instead you've got "Nuh-uh! I don't read the rest of the 2A"

> Vote in a literal tyrant.

Tyrant? You may disagree with him, but he got in through the system. Now if he doesn't get out that is another story.

Being a tyrant has little to do with term limits or office duration.

A couple of dictionary checks suggest some set of:

- Ruler who is unrestrained by law or constitution

- A usurper of sovereignty

- Ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly

Obviously b) is not applicable as per GP. He has also been constrained by the supreme court and others multiple times in this term, which suggests a) is a stretch. c) probably a fair accusation, though I'm not sure I would agree.

Hitler was elected too (not saying he is Hitler)

Hitler was not elected Chancellor by the German public. Germany had/has a mixed-member proportional system, meaning that coalitions may form after everyone votes President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 after negotiations among conservative politicians who believed they could control him. The Nazi Party was the largest party, but it won only 33.1% of the vote in the final free Reichstag election of November 1932 and never secured a popular majority. Once appointed, Hitler exploited emergency powers and political intimidation to dismantle democratic institutions and convert his government into a dictatorship.

During his political ascent he used his Brownshirts - a large, organised paramilitary force - to assault political opponents, break up rival meetings, intimidate voters, and fight street battles, helping destabilise the Weimar Republic and suppress opposition.

Your comment implies that Hitler seized power despite a lack of popularity. The historical record shows that Hitler was wildly popular in Germany, even up to the end of WW2.

I very clearly provided the exact percentage popularity he had at the height of his democratic rise. Whether you'd like to accurately call that less than a third, or "wildly popular" is I suppose subjective.

You provided the percentage of voters. This is not an accurate proxy for support.

I mean 3 seconds after the Nazis surrendered, there was suddenly no Nazis in Germany

> Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well

No, that's some bullshit. How do you think we eat pheasant and rabbit and venison? Show me a pheasant farm and I'll show you forty acres of unfenced woodland littered with empty cartridges.

Observe! https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-owner...

My guess is the person is drawing from one country and applying it to all. The rules are varied all over the EU. e.g. You can buy pheasant, rabbit and venison at the butcher shop where I live. No hunting required, which you can do but requires a special permit, next to the weapons permit for the shotgun and is very limited in scope.

I'll wager that rabbit and that pheasant that you see skinned and cleaned in the shop were shot by a man in a field. I'm open to counterexamples, so let me know what your butcher tells you.

I like your attitude of charity - we should not rush into judgement. But mschuster91's comment said:

> most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians

This is bullshit. GP must be aware that they are profoundly ignorant on the topic, so why are they holding an opinion, let alone posting it? Should we tolerate bullshit on HN?

>Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead

Nope

Reply on news.ycombinator.com