Hacker News Reader

Comment by M3L0NM4N | Hacker News Reader

Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous.

View on HN

Why does this always have to be binary when any amount of gun control is suggested? It's simple math: if me didn't manufacture so many guns and didn't make them so readily available then there will inherently be less danger... this isn't even debatable!

That is obviously true... but also a fairy tale hypothetical, and we are in the real world. So the question is, what's the solution, right now? Not 200 years ago.

A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem?

Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".

I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest:

> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

what does "the people" mean to you?

Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.”

(If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.)

You know, the human beings eligible to join the previously mentioned militia. The idea wasn't "everyone has the right to openly carry", the way it has been perverted recently, it was that you were individually responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of your own armaments. The militia act of 1792 was passed almost immediately after the second amendment was ratified, codifying what I just claimed.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

are these the same people? so only the militia gets to be secure? Are you sure?

That's the fourth amendment, not the second, so it's quite the leap to go from "I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures" to "I have the right to personally bear arms against the government to protect my property.".

And yes, I'm absolutely certain. Go ahead and test your theory against the American government and I'll wait to see you on the news.

> "I have the right to personally bear arms against the government to protect my property.".

i never made that claim. "that's what they call a strawman" - Poli-sci Ph.D.

so you say that there's a difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" of the 4th amendment. Can you back that up at all?

The UK, Australia, and Brazil have significantly less firearms (which makes gun control a million times easier), and are not constitutionally granted the right to bear them (which makes gun control unconstitutional). If you go ahead start a new country with no guns and implement strict gun control, sure, it would probably have less gun deaths, but that's irrelevant to the American policy debate. Criminals in America will have ridiculously easy access to guns for a long time, and further restrictions on ownership will only decrease law-abiding gun-ownership rates.

Thoughts and prayers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com