Hacker News Reader

Comment by blagie | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I think gun companies should be liable for any harm done by their products as well.

We want rule-of-law, and in the US, people should have an absolute right to bare arms, as in the second amendment. Free market forces can then determine appropriate prices, insurance, and protective measures to make sure those guns are managed safely.

If I want an F35 and an Abrams, that's okay, so long as Lockheed and General Dynamics are willing to sign off (with full liability for damages) that I'm managing them safely.

Free markets work pretty well with:

a) Full transparency, as needed for rational decision-making

b) No way to externalize costs

View on HN

A bit of a tangent, but I never understood the legal reasoning for how (states having the right of well-regulated militias) implies (individuals having the right for private ownership of arms).

That's not quite what it says.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

1. The reason is well-regulated militias, but the right is of the people.

2. The militia isn't a state apparatus. Indeed, the goal of the militia is to enable a rebellion if the state is no longer free.

Now, here again, "well regulated" gives plenty of leeway. For example, one might argue that the following scheme fits:

1. I can have whatever arms I want, including an F35

2. The F35 lives with a militia, which is well-regulated. I can use it in trainings there.

I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control (that defeats the purpose!), but one could easily argue that it could be well-enough regulated that the current far-right extremist groups would not fit.

The concept was a group of citizens under e.g. a town / city council.

That's obviously not where case law went, but in an alternative reality, it very well might have.